RELAÇÃO ENTRE A CARGA TRIBUTÁRIA E A ESTRUTURA DE CAPITAL DE EMPRESAS BRASILEIRAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims to investigate the relationship between the tax burden and the capital structure of Brazilian companies. The tax burden is an essential factor in choosing financing, given its impact on business results. In addition, the research seeks to identify which of the two main theories of capital structure, Trade-Off and Pecking-Order, best explains the financing policies of publicly traded companies. To this end, data from the financial statements of 161 companies from various sectors were analyzed, referring to the period from the fourth quarter of 2010 to the fourth quarter of 2023, available on the open data portal of the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM). With a total of 8,533 observations, the study evaluates how explanatory variables, including tax burden, distribution of wealth to the government, profitability, return on equity, degree of asset immobilization, current liquidity, asset turnover, firm size, business risk, and revenue growth, influence the level of overall indebtedness of the companies analyzed. The variables used were chosen based on several studies, cited throughout this research. Through statistical tests, the model that best fitted the data was the generalized linear model. The results revealed a significant and positive relationship between general indebtedness and the variables tax burden and profitability, and a negative and important relationship with the degree of asset immobilization, current liquidity, asset turnover, and firm size. However, the variables distribution of wealth to the government, return on equity, business risk, and revenue growth did not present statistical significance for the capital structure of the companies studied. In general, the findings indicate that the tax burden, current liquidity, and asset turnover are aligned with the existing literature, suggesting the Trade-Off theory for the former and the Pecking-Order theory for the latter two. However, the results also showed that profitability does not align with the Pecking-Order theory, just as current liquidity and asset turnover do not follow the Trade-Off theory. Finally, although some assumptions of the regression models have not been fully met, the interpretation of the results for the analyzed data set is valid, even if the conclusions cannot be generalized, being reliable within the context and the sample studied.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".