MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125315256 · doi:10.2308/ajpt-51417

Relation between Auditor Quality and Tax Aggressiveness: Implications of Cross-Country Institutional Differences

2016· article· en· W3125315256 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAuditing A Journal of Practice & Theory · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditBusinessQuality auditAccountingSample (material)Tax avoidanceCorporate taxQuality (philosophy)Monetary economicsDouble taxationEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Using an international sample of firms from 31 countries, we study the relation between auditor quality and corporate tax aggressiveness. Employing an indicator variable for tax aggressiveness when the firm's corporate tax avoidance measure is within the top quintile of each country-industry combination, we find strong evidence that auditor quality is negatively associated with the likelihood of tax aggressiveness, even after controlling for other institutional determinants such as home-country tax system characteristics. We also find that the negative relation between auditor quality and the likelihood of tax aggressiveness is more pronounced in countries where investor protection is stronger, auditor litigation risk is higher, the audit environment is better, and capital market pressure is higher. JEL Classifications: M42; M48; H20; F30.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.284 · 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