Does the tax deductibility of interest affect financial reporting?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many countries have imposed tax policies that limit interest deductions to specified leverage ratios to fight aggressive income shifting and to achieve other public policy goals. Implementing these thin capitalization tax rules reduces the incentives to use debt unrelated to the relation between the firm and its debtholders. We posit that, as a result of the effect of the rules on debt levels, firms subject to these rules reduce their conservative financial reporting as compared to other firms in these countries. Tests employ a large sample of firms in OECD countries who introduced thin capitalization rules from 1985 to 2014, and a second sample of U.S. firms around the implementation of earnings-based interest limits under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act . Exploiting these two settings and difference-in-differences research designs, we provide evidence that the adoption of tax deductibility limits reduces conditional conservatism of firms’ financial reporting. Our findings suggest that the tax rules affecting the deductibility of interest have important impacts on corporate financial reporting and may also have unintended consequences for other decisions of interest to policy makers.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".