Financial Statement Comparability and Corporate Tax Strategy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate whether a firm’s financial statement comparability is associated with the firm’s tax strategy. We hypothesize that external observers (e.g. press, shareholders, analysts, and tax authorities) can better detect a firm’s atypical tax strategy when the firm has high financial statement comparability with its industry peers. Detection and its consequent penalties should restrain firm managers from choosing tax strategies that deviate significantly from those of industry peers. Using firms’ uncertain tax benefits (UTBs) as a proxy for tax avoidance, we find that the UTBs of firms with high financial statement comparability move toward their industry peers in subsequent periods. Results suggest that comparability reduces tax aggressiveness for high tax-avoidance firms and enhances tax aggressiveness for low tax-avoidance firms, in comparison with those of industry peers. Overall, these findings indicate a strong within-industry harmonization in tax avoidance for firms with high financial statement comparability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it