scholarly journals ¿Influyen los auditores en la agresividad fiscal de sus clientes? Evidencia empírica en las compañías españolas no cotizadas

2022 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-30
Author(s):  
Juan Monterrey Mayoral ◽  
Amparo Sánchez Segura
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Empirical Test ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Listed Companies ◽  
Tax Planning ◽  
Tax Credits ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Planning Strategy ◽  
Big Four

The purpose of our study was to carry out an empirical test of the extent to which auditors have an influence on the tax practices of the audited firm. Based on a wide sample of Spanish non-listed companies for the period 2009-2017, we have obtained consistent empirical evidence revealing that the choice of a high-quality auditor has a significant impact on the tax planning strategy of the firm. Companies show a greater tax planning aggressiveness when they are audited by one of the Big Four. Notwithstanding, leverage and the existence of tax credits are factors mitigating that aggressiveness. Moreover, abnormally higher audit fees do not seem to be an incentive for the auditor to cooperate in the tax strategies of the audited company. Our results are robust and remain unaltered after adjusting for the potential heterogeneity inherent to auditor’s choice and using alternative variable specifications. Nuestro estudio tiene por objeto verificar empíricamente en qué medida los auditores influyen en las prácticas fiscales de sus clientes. Tomando una amplia muestra representativa de compañías españolas no cotizadas para el periodo comprendido entre 2009 y 2017, hemos documentado resultados empíricos que dejan constancia de que la elección de un auditor de calidad induce un significativo impacto en las estrategias de planificación fiscal de las empresas, que muestran una mayor agresividad tributaria cuando son auditadas por una Big Four. No obstante esta evidencia, el endeudamiento y la presencia de créditos fiscales pendientes de aprovechamiento se erigen como factores mitigantes de esta conducta. Además, la percepción por el auditor de un nivel de honorarios anormalmente elevados no parece generar incentivos para cooperar en las estrategias fiscales de la compañía auditada. Los resultados que hemos documentado son robustos y se mantienen inalterados tras corregir la posible endogeneidad inherente a la elección del auditor y ensayar con especificaciones alternativas de variables.

scholarly journals The Moderating Effect of Non-audit Services Fee on Aggressive Tax Planning: Empirical Evidence From Malaysian Listed Companies

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 240
Author(s):  
Rosmaria Jaffar ◽  
Chek Derashid ◽  
Roshaiza Taha
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Financial Distress ◽  
Capital Intensity ◽  
Listed Companies ◽  
Tax Planning ◽  
Moderating Effect ◽  
Financial Accounting ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Non Audit Services

The purpose of this study is to examine the moderating effect of non-audit services fees on the relationship between size, profitability, leverage, capital intensity, inventory intensity, financial distress and ethnicity with aggressive tax planning. This study uses a sample from companies listed on the Malaysian (Access, Certainty, Efficiency (ACE) Market from 2014 to 2018, comprising of 105 firm year-observations. The finding shows that the non-audit services fee moderate the relationship between size, profitability, leverage, inventory intensity, financial distress and ethnicity with aggressive tax planning except for capital intensity. It is hoped that the finding can assist readers in understanding the nature of companies listed on the ACE Market, particularly their behaviour towards tax planning. This study contributes to knowledge in the areas of financial accounting and taxation specifically on aggressive tax planning, by introducing the moderating variable of non-audit services fee. The uniqueness of the use of companies listed on the Malaysian ACE market will provide new avenue on the discussion on an aggressive tax planning issue, which usually more focus on big firms. The framework used in the present study could serve as a basis for research in other developing countries or regions.

Audit Fees, Big Four Premium and Institutional Settings: The Devil is in the Details!

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul André ◽  
Géraldine Broye ◽  
Christopher K.M. Pong ◽  
Alain Schatt
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
The Devil ◽  
Big Four

An Analysis of Cross-Sectional Differences in Big and Non-Big Public Accounting Firms' Audit Programs

2006 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Blokdijk ◽  
Fred Drieenhuizen ◽  
Dan A. Simunic ◽  
Michael T. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Big 5 ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Approach ◽  
Control Risk

A significant body of prior research has shown that audits by the Big 5 (now Big 4) public accounting firms are quality differentiated relative to non-Big 5 audits. This result can be derived analytically by assuming that Big 5 and non-Big 5 firms face different loss functions for “audit failures” and is consistent with a variety of empirical evidence from studies of audit fees, auditor changes, and the stock price reaction to audited earnings. However, there is no existing evidence (of which we are aware) concerning the underlying production differences between Big 5 and non-Big 5 audits. As a result, existing empirical evidence cannot distinguish between the possibility that Big 5 audits are simply perceived to be different (e.g., by investors) or actually differ in how they are produced. Our research objective is to identify the production characteristics of audit engagements that may explain the differences in expected audit quality between Big 5 and non-Big 5 firms. In this archival study, we examine the total audit effort and the allocation of effort to four audit phases—planning, (control) risk assessment, substantive testing, and completion—for a cross-section sample of 113 audits of Dutch companies in 1998/99 by 14 public accounting firms. We find that, after controlling for client characteristics: (1) both types of auditors exert about the same amount of total audit effort; (2) Big 5 auditors allocate relatively more effort to planning and (control) risk assessment, and relatively less to substantive testing and completion; and (3) client size, use of the business-risk-based audit approach, and reliance on client internal controls affect audit hours differently for the two auditor types. We conclude that the Big 5 firms actually produce a higher audit quality level, and that this quality difference is related to how audit hours are deployed in a more contextual and less procedural audit approach.

The Relation between Managerial Ability and Audit Fees and Going Concern Opinions

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gopal V. Krishnan ◽  
Changjiang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Managerial Ability ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Going Concern Opinion ◽  
Corporate Resources ◽  
Ability Measure

SUMMARY While prior research has examined the relation between firm-level attributes and auditors' decisions, there is little empirical evidence on whether managerial attributes are informative to auditors. We examine the relation between managerial ability, i.e., ability in transforming corporate resources to revenues, and audit fees and a going concern opinion. We use the managerial ability measure recently developed by Demerjian, Lev, and McVay (2012). We find that incremental to firm-level attributes, both audit fees and the likelihood of issuing a going concern opinion are decreasing in managerial ability. Collectively, our findings support the notion that managerial ability is relevant to auditors' decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document