MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766587317 · doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12360

Do Political Connections Weaken Tax Enforcement Effectiveness?

2017· article· en· W2766587317 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenny Z. Lin, Lillian F. Mills, Fang Zhang, Yongbo Li

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Accounting Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxable incomeEnforcementBusinessAuditTax avoidanceAccountingPublic economicsTax reformCorporate taxTax planningState income taxAd valorem taxIndirect taxDouble taxationFinanceEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper examines whether ties to politicians by corporate boards of directors weaken the effectiveness of tax authorities in constraining tax avoidance in China. We use a unique data set to measure geographic time‐variant tax enforcement, including the probability of income tax audit, the expertise of tax officers, and the consequences of underreporting tax liabilities. Based on a sample of 11,121 firm‐years from 2003 to 2013, we find that the deterrent effect of the probability that a firm's taxable income understatement will be detected and lead to heavy penalties is significantly undermined if the board is politically connected. To enhance our analysis, we use opportunities for income shifting, the most likely mechanism through which Chinese firms avoid taxes on an ongoing basis, to illustrate how connected boards exert power to unwind the constraining effect of tax enforcement. Overall, our results suggest that a board's ties to politicians can be a significant challenge to the effective enforcement of tax compliance in a politically controlled economy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations213
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Accounting ResearchSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207