Pub Date : 2023-05-20DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2023.2213249
Alessandro Mura
Abstract This paper contributes to the growing literature on earnings management in private firms by focusing on deferred taxes. This accounting treatment requires sophisticated use of accruals that provides the chance to manage earnings and net assets without affecting the tax payable. We argue that in a setting with high book-tax conformity, the small room that allegedly exists to recognise deferred taxes remains a comfortable avenue to reach reporting objectives that a tax-minimisation strategy may preclude. We use a sample of private firms operating in a credit- and tax-driven environment such as Italy to test this expectation. Our results show that private firms use deferred taxes to extract multiple financial reporting benefits that may facilitate debt contracting: smoothing earnings over time, meeting/beating historical earnings, avoiding reporting accounting losses, and managing leverage. Tax loss carryforwards are the source of deferred tax assets where the exercise of discretion becomes more critical.
{"title":"Reconciling Competing Reporting Objectives Through Deferred Tax Accounts: Evidence on Private Italian Firms","authors":"Alessandro Mura","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2023.2213249","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2213249","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper contributes to the growing literature on earnings management in private firms by focusing on deferred taxes. This accounting treatment requires sophisticated use of accruals that provides the chance to manage earnings and net assets without affecting the tax payable. We argue that in a setting with high book-tax conformity, the small room that allegedly exists to recognise deferred taxes remains a comfortable avenue to reach reporting objectives that a tax-minimisation strategy may preclude. We use a sample of private firms operating in a credit- and tax-driven environment such as Italy to test this expectation. Our results show that private firms use deferred taxes to extract multiple financial reporting benefits that may facilitate debt contracting: smoothing earnings over time, meeting/beating historical earnings, avoiding reporting accounting losses, and managing leverage. Tax loss carryforwards are the source of deferred tax assets where the exercise of discretion becomes more critical.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"28 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41256563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2023.2205867
Philipp Jahn, Thomas R. Loy
ABSTRACT Within the EU, various measures have been taken to harmonize access to the audit profession. Nevertheless, only minimum access requirements are defined by EU regulation. Our results show considerable remaining differences between the member states. They are the basis for an Access Requirements Index (ARI) which makes it possible to easily assess and compare requirements placed on prospective auditors. In further analyzes, we show that the EU member states form five clusters based on the underlying parameters of the index. Our paper provides a basis for future research on possible consequences of these differences and gives an overview to regulators and the professions in the EU about the status of harmonization of access requirements.
{"title":"Audit in Europe – A Comparison of Access Requirements into the Audit Profession Across the European Union","authors":"Philipp Jahn, Thomas R. Loy","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2023.2205867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2205867","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Within the EU, various measures have been taken to harmonize access to the audit profession. Nevertheless, only minimum access requirements are defined by EU regulation. Our results show considerable remaining differences between the member states. They are the basis for an Access Requirements Index (ARI) which makes it possible to easily assess and compare requirements placed on prospective auditors. In further analyzes, we show that the EU member states form five clusters based on the underlying parameters of the index. Our paper provides a basis for future research on possible consequences of these differences and gives an overview to regulators and the professions in the EU about the status of harmonization of access requirements.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"20 1","pages":"244 - 271"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42092130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-29DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2023.2206522
W. Buijink
Abstract The issue raised in this commentary is: who determines, who owns, the accounting curriculum in universities, and does it matter who does? The question has a clear answer. But the answer is not what you would expect it to be. The accounting professoriate does not ‘own’ the accounting curriculum. Professional accountants and auditor organizations, the accounting profession, as well as accounting and auditing regulators and oversight bodies do. The problem with the domination of the accounting profession and regulators of the university accounting curriculum is that it prevents the professional quality of accountants and auditors from reaching its full potential. I argue in this commentary that this will only happen when the accounting professoriate takes full charge of curriculum design. This commentary is a call for that to happen.
{"title":"A Commentary on Who ‘Owns’ the University Accounting Curriculum?: And on Why That ‘Ownership’ Matters","authors":"W. Buijink","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2023.2206522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2206522","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The issue raised in this commentary is: who determines, who owns, the accounting curriculum in universities, and does it matter who does? The question has a clear answer. But the answer is not what you would expect it to be. The accounting professoriate does not ‘own’ the accounting curriculum. Professional accountants and auditor organizations, the accounting profession, as well as accounting and auditing regulators and oversight bodies do. The problem with the domination of the accounting profession and regulators of the university accounting curriculum is that it prevents the professional quality of accountants and auditors from reaching its full potential. I argue in this commentary that this will only happen when the accounting professoriate takes full charge of curriculum design. This commentary is a call for that to happen.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48676643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-25DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2023.2192235
Frédéric Pourtier, Frédérique Bardinet-Evraert, V. Darmendrail
ABSTRACT This article studies the effects of IFRS 11 on the value relevance of accounting numbers (VRAN) in France. In 2014, IFRS 11 made the equity method (EM) mandatory to account for joint ventures (JVs) and disallowed proportionate consolidation, the method previously preferred by French groups. Panel method regressions are used to examine the evolution of value relevance in listed groups’ financial statements over a long period (2007–2020). Generalization of the EM reallocates the VRAN, and post-IFRS 11 EM-related numbers are significantly and negatively linked to market value, raising questions about their faithfulness. These results concern all groups using the EM, whatever method they previously used for JVs. This study also looks at the standard-setters’ proposed integral/non-integral classification of net income from JVs and associates, which is found to be non-value relevant. These results have implications at standard-setting level for improving the quality of financial reporting, and for investors.
{"title":"The Value Relevance of Accounting Numbers in Presence of the Equity Method Before and After IFRS 11: Evidence from France","authors":"Frédéric Pourtier, Frédérique Bardinet-Evraert, V. Darmendrail","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2023.2192235","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2192235","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article studies the effects of IFRS 11 on the value relevance of accounting numbers (VRAN) in France. In 2014, IFRS 11 made the equity method (EM) mandatory to account for joint ventures (JVs) and disallowed proportionate consolidation, the method previously preferred by French groups. Panel method regressions are used to examine the evolution of value relevance in listed groups’ financial statements over a long period (2007–2020). Generalization of the EM reallocates the VRAN, and post-IFRS 11 EM-related numbers are significantly and negatively linked to market value, raising questions about their faithfulness. These results concern all groups using the EM, whatever method they previously used for JVs. This study also looks at the standard-setters’ proposed integral/non-integral classification of net income from JVs and associates, which is found to be non-value relevant. These results have implications at standard-setting level for improving the quality of financial reporting, and for investors.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"20 1","pages":"194 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48917446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2023.2192356
Z. Akhand, Amin Mawani
ABSTRACT This paper analyses comment-letter lobbying by different stakeholders to influence OECD’s documentation rules on transfer pricing within the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. Using a content analysis of stakeholders’ comments to a discussion draft on documentation requirements of Action 13 of OECD’s BEPS policies, we offer some evidence that professional accounting firms may have viewed the new documentation requirements as a stealth paradigm shift away from the arm’s length principle (ALP) to formulary allocation (FA). Our analysis suggests that other stakeholders from academia and civil society were sceptical of the comments expressed by the professional tax firms, regarding them as a means to resist changes in transfer pricing documentation. We suggest that professional accounting firms’ comments may have represented implicit lobbying against changes to the ALP regime that may have been considered beneficial to taxpayers in reducing their aggregate tax burden despite its implementation and rule complexity.
{"title":"Arm's Length Principle vs. Formulary Apportionment in BEPS Action 13: Stakeholders’ Perspectives","authors":"Z. Akhand, Amin Mawani","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2023.2192356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2192356","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper analyses comment-letter lobbying by different stakeholders to influence OECD’s documentation rules on transfer pricing within the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. Using a content analysis of stakeholders’ comments to a discussion draft on documentation requirements of Action 13 of OECD’s BEPS policies, we offer some evidence that professional accounting firms may have viewed the new documentation requirements as a stealth paradigm shift away from the arm’s length principle (ALP) to formulary allocation (FA). Our analysis suggests that other stakeholders from academia and civil society were sceptical of the comments expressed by the professional tax firms, regarding them as a means to resist changes in transfer pricing documentation. We suggest that professional accounting firms’ comments may have represented implicit lobbying against changes to the ALP regime that may have been considered beneficial to taxpayers in reducing their aggregate tax burden despite its implementation and rule complexity.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"20 1","pages":"225 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48481206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-19DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2023.2189016
Hervé Stolowy, Luc Paugam
Abstract In this essay, we discuss the factors influencing the likelihood of convergence in corporate sustainability reporting. We identify several factors that negatively influence the probability of convergence in the short term. The first factor is the heterogeneity of concepts and definitions surrounding sustainability (e.g. ESG, CSR). This heterogeneity of definitions is pervasive at three levels: (1) across organizations claiming legitimacy in sustainability reporting standard-setting, (2) within standard-setting organizations over time, and (3) across firms reporting about their activities. A second factor is the large number of organizations claiming legitimacy in sustainability reporting. A third factor is related to a diversity of reporting requirements among three influential international standard setters (i.e. EFRAG, ISSB, SEC), leading to various corporate reporting choices. A fourth factor is the diversity in the objectives of standard-setting organizations. Overall, we believe that due to these sources of diversity, the probability of convergence in sustainability reporting appears limited, at least in the short term, although we identify progress in carbon emissions reporting.
{"title":"Sustainability Reporting: Is Convergence Possible?","authors":"Hervé Stolowy, Luc Paugam","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2023.2189016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2189016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this essay, we discuss the factors influencing the likelihood of convergence in corporate sustainability reporting. We identify several factors that negatively influence the probability of convergence in the short term. The first factor is the heterogeneity of concepts and definitions surrounding sustainability (e.g. ESG, CSR). This heterogeneity of definitions is pervasive at three levels: (1) across organizations claiming legitimacy in sustainability reporting standard-setting, (2) within standard-setting organizations over time, and (3) across firms reporting about their activities. A second factor is the large number of organizations claiming legitimacy in sustainability reporting. A third factor is related to a diversity of reporting requirements among three influential international standard setters (i.e. EFRAG, ISSB, SEC), leading to various corporate reporting choices. A fourth factor is the diversity in the objectives of standard-setting organizations. Overall, we believe that due to these sources of diversity, the probability of convergence in sustainability reporting appears limited, at least in the short term, although we identify progress in carbon emissions reporting.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"20 1","pages":"139 - 165"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45509585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-15DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2023.2174444
M. Mattei, Matteo Merlo, E. Monaco
ABSTRACT We investigate the consequences of adopting a new accrual-based relief mechanism on private firms’ borrowing capacity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Italian government implemented a temporary change in accounting rules that allowed firms to suspend up to the entire amount of their depreciation and amortisation charges. Using a sample of Italian firms from 2018 to 2021 and a difference-in-differences model, we show that the depreciation and amortisation suspension policy (DASP) adopters, compared to non-adopters, access larger loans and negotiate a lower cost of debt than in the pre-DASP period. Our results are robust to additional tests for potential endogeneity and confounding factors such as earnings management and the adoption of other accounting-based relief mechanisms. We provide evidence that accrual-based relief mechanisms have real economic effects and are effective measures to support firms in managing a systemic shock.
{"title":"The Italian depreciation suspension policy during the COVID-19 pandemic: consequences on private firms’ borrowing capacity","authors":"M. Mattei, Matteo Merlo, E. Monaco","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2023.2174444","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2174444","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We investigate the consequences of adopting a new accrual-based relief mechanism on private firms’ borrowing capacity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Italian government implemented a temporary change in accounting rules that allowed firms to suspend up to the entire amount of their depreciation and amortisation charges. Using a sample of Italian firms from 2018 to 2021 and a difference-in-differences model, we show that the depreciation and amortisation suspension policy (DASP) adopters, compared to non-adopters, access larger loans and negotiate a lower cost of debt than in the pre-DASP period. Our results are robust to additional tests for potential endogeneity and confounding factors such as earnings management and the adoption of other accounting-based relief mechanisms. We provide evidence that accrual-based relief mechanisms have real economic effects and are effective measures to support firms in managing a systemic shock.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"20 1","pages":"166 - 193"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43629250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT This paper examines the association between organisational complexity and the extent of multiple capital disclosure in European companies’ integrated reports. The study uses content analysis to collect data from 81 European companies that adopted the integrated reporting framework for the period 2014–2020. We proxy the extent of multiple capital disclosure by an aggregate score of natural, human, social, intellectual, manufactured, and financial capital disclosure. We analyse two forms of organisational complexity: industrial (related to the different product segments) and geographical (linked with conduction operations beyond the domestic market). The results show that industrial complexity has a significant positive association with the extent of multiple capitals disclosure, whereas geographical complexity has an insignificant positive relationship. The study concludes that organisational complexity explains the variability in the extent of multiple capitals disclosure.
{"title":"Multiple Capitals Disclosure in European Companies’ Integrated Reports: The Role of Organisational Complexity","authors":"Abubakar Ahmed, Mutalib Anifowose, Suleiman Salami, Nuhu Abubakar","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2150979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2150979","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines the association between organisational complexity and the extent of multiple capital disclosure in European companies’ integrated reports. The study uses content analysis to collect data from 81 European companies that adopted the integrated reporting framework for the period 2014–2020. We proxy the extent of multiple capital disclosure by an aggregate score of natural, human, social, intellectual, manufactured, and financial capital disclosure. We analyse two forms of organisational complexity: industrial (related to the different product segments) and geographical (linked with conduction operations beyond the domestic market). The results show that industrial complexity has a significant positive association with the extent of multiple capitals disclosure, whereas geographical complexity has an insignificant positive relationship. The study concludes that organisational complexity explains the variability in the extent of multiple capitals disclosure.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"20 1","pages":"120 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47342493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2149345
Tami Dinh, A. Husmann, G. Melloni
ABSTRACT This paper provides a scoping review of European sustainability reporting studies. Previous sustainability studies do not offer a comprehensive discussion of features key to the European setting. Despite their important role in the European economy, research on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and financial institutions (i.e. insurers and banks) is limited. Furthermore, regions in southern and particularly eastern Europe, which are critical given regulators’ objectives for European Union-wide and global sustainability standards, are neglected. Finally, studies on non-financial effects of sustainability reporting are also limited, and only a few studies differentiate between stakeholder- and shareholder-oriented countries. This is needed for a holistic view on sustainability beyond financial performance. Based on material issues identified for the European context, our study provides a research agenda based on comprehensive and rigorous scientific evidence on the state of the art of sustainability research in Europe.
{"title":"Corporate Sustainability Reporting in Europe: A Scoping Review","authors":"Tami Dinh, A. Husmann, G. Melloni","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2149345","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2149345","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 This paper provides a scoping review of European sustainability reporting studies. Previous sustainability studies do not offer a comprehensive discussion of features key to the European setting. Despite their important role in the European economy, research on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and financial institutions (i.e. insurers and banks) is limited. Furthermore, regions in southern and particularly eastern Europe, which are critical given regulators’ objectives for European Union-wide and global sustainability standards, are neglected. Finally, studies on non-financial effects of sustainability reporting are also limited, and only a few studies differentiate between stakeholder- and shareholder-oriented countries. This is needed for a holistic view on sustainability beyond financial performance. Based on material issues identified for the European context, our study provides a research agenda based on comprehensive and rigorous scientific evidence on the state of the art of sustainability research in Europe.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"20 1","pages":"1 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45459449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：