MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616289573 · doi:10.2308/atax-51846

The Deferred Tax Asset Valuation Allowance and Firm Creditworthiness

2017· article· en· W2616289573 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Taxation Association · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxable incomeDeferred taxValuation (finance)Allowance (engineering)EconomicsAccountingEarningsBusinessBalance sheetActuarial scienceMonetary economicsPublic economicsState income taxGross incomeTax reform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In this study, I provide evidence that the valuation allowance for deferred tax assets helps predict the future creditworthiness of a firm. Under the provisions of SFAS No. 109, a firm records a deferred tax asset provided it expects to generate sufficient taxable income to realize the asset in the form of tax savings in the future. If a firm does not expect to generate sufficient taxable income to realize the asset, then a valuation allowance is created to reduce the balance. As a result, the valuation allowance indicates management's expectation of future taxable income, which could be informative in predicting the ability of the firm to make future interest and principal payments on debt. Alternatively, the valuation allowance may not be informative regarding creditworthiness if it is a result of overly conservative accounting practices or if it is used as an earnings management tool. I document a negative association between material increases in the valuation allowance and contemporaneous and future changes in credit ratings, evidence that is consistent with the valuation allowance providing a summary measure of a decline in firms' creditworthiness. JEL Classifications: G29; H25; M41. Data Availability: Data are available from sources identified in the paper.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Taxation AssociationSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207