Journal of Finance and Economics
ISSN (Print): 2328-7284 ISSN (Online): 2328-7276 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/jfe Editor-in-chief: Suman Banerjee
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
Journal of Finance and Economics. 2018, 6(2), 38-42
DOI: 10.12691/jfe-6-2-1
Open AccessArticle

Tax Aggressiveness, Accounting Fraud, and Annual Report Readability

Clarisa Sukotjo1, and Yanuar Nanok Soenarno1

1Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, South Jakarta 12930, Indonesia

Pub. Date: March 23, 2018

Cite this paper:
Clarisa Sukotjo and Yanuar Nanok Soenarno. Tax Aggressiveness, Accounting Fraud, and Annual Report Readability. Journal of Finance and Economics. 2018; 6(2):38-42. doi: 10.12691/jfe-6-2-1

Abstract

Purpose: There are some proofs provided by previous research that when a management wants to hide something (i.e: earning management), the firm’s annual report becomes less readable. This research would like to reaffirm such notion by examining the impact accounting fraud and tax aggressiveness of a firm on its annual report readability. Methodology: This study uses data from companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2016. To prove that tax aggressiveness and accounting fraud do reduce annual report readability, this study uses multiple regression that is run by SPSS 22 software. Finding: From the output of multiple regression analysis, it is proven that tax aggressiveness has a negative relation with annual report readability. Tax aggressiveness is a “grey area” action that could be considered as illegal activity altogether. That being said, the more aggressive a firm’s tax planning is, the more management has to hide to avoid the possibility of being questioned or even punished by financial authorities. With so much to hide, the annual report becomes more complex and thus, increase the Fog Index number. Accounting fraud however, has no significant impact on annual report readability. There are two reasons why this hypothesis cannot be proven. First, out 558 companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange, there are only 37 companies that restated their financial reports in 2016 so restatement’s effect on annual report readability cannot be defined clearly. Second, there are many reasons why management restates their financial report and not all of them are bad. Some restatements are done purely because of unintentional error. In this paper there is no measure that could determine management’s intention therefore, the increase Fog Index reading could happen with or without restatement. Originality: This is the first study that researches the relation between tax aggressiveness, accounting fraud, and annual report readability.

Keywords:
tax aggressiveness accounting fraud annual report readability effective tax rate tax shelter restatement Indonesia

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Chen, S.; X. Chen; Q. Cheng; and T. Shevlin., 2010. Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms? Journal of Financial Economics 95, 41-61.
 
[2]  Lietz, G. M., 2013. Tax avoidance vs. tax aggressiveness: a unifying conceptual framework. SSRN Electronic Journal.
 
[3]  Guenther, D. A., Matsunaga, S. R., & Williams, B. M. (2013). Tax avoidance, tax aggressiveness, tax risk and firm risk. http//ssim. corn/abstract= 2153187, 2013--12--27/2015--12--04
 
[4]  Balakrishnan, K.; Blouin, J.; and Guay, W., 2011. Does tax aggressiveness reduce financial reporting transparency? SSRN Electronic Journal.
 
[5]  Lo, K.; Ramos, F.; and Rogo, R.., 2017. Earning management and annual report readability. Journal of Accounting and Economics 63, 1-25.
 
[6]  Scott, W. R. Financial Accounting Theory. Pearson, 2009.
 
[7]  Schipper, K., 1989. Commentary on earnings management. Accounting Horizons 3, 91-102.
 
[8]  Erickson, M.; Hanlon, M.; and Maydew, E. L., 2006. Is there a link between executive equity incentives and accounting fraud? Journal of Accounting Research 44(1), 113-143.
 
[9]  ACFE. 2017. Survai Fraud Indonesia 2016. Available at: http://acfe-indonesia.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SURVAI-FRAUD-INDONESIA-2016_Final.pdf.
 
[10]  Li, F., 2008. Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. Journal of Accounting and Economics 45, 221-247.
 
[11]  Beyer, A.; Cohen, D. A.; Lys, T. Z.; and Walther, B. R., 2010. The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50, 296-343.
 
[12]  Elliot, R. K.; Jacobson P. D., 1994. Costs and benefits of business information disclosure. Accounting Horizons 8, 80-96.
 
[13]  Brondolo, J. 2009. Collecting Taxes During an Economic Crisis: Challenges and Policy Options. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2009/spn0917.pdf.
 
[14]  Bloomfield, R. J., 2008. Discussion of “annual report readability, current earnings, and earning persistence”. Journal of Accounting and Economics 45, 248-252.
 
[15]  Eilifsen, A.; Jr., William, F. M.; Glover, S. M.; and Prawitt, D. F. (2010). Auditing and Assurance Services. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
 
[16]  Lokanan, M. E., 2015. Challenges to the fraud triangle: Questions on its usefulness. Accounting Forum 39, 201-224.
 
[17]  KPMG. 2010. Fraud and Misconduct Survey 2010. Available at: https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/yourcall-wp-files/2010/12/Fraud-and-Misconduct-Survey-2010.pdf.
 
[18]  Coenen, T. (2008). Essentials of Corporate Fraud. NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
 
[19]  EY. 2017. Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey 2017. Available at: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-asia-pacific-fraud-survey-2017-VN/$FILE/ey-asia-pacific-fraud-survey-2017.pdf.
 
[20]  Taylor, G.; Richardson, G.; and Lanis R., 2015. Multinationality, tax havens, intangible assets, and transfer pricing aggressiveness: an empirical analysis. Journal of International Accounting Research 14, 25-57.
 
[21]  Zimmerman, J. L., 1983. Taxes and firm size. Journal of Accounting and Economics 5 (2), 119-149.
 
[22]  Porcano, T. M., 1986. Corporate tax rates: Progressive, proportional, regressive. Journal of The American Tax Association 8, 17-31.
 
[23]  Stickney, C.P. and McGee, V.E., 1982. Effective corporate tax rates: The effect of size, capital intensity, leverage and other factors. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 1, 125-152.
 
[24]  Shevlin, T., 1987. Taxes and off-balance-sheet financing: Research and development limited partnerships. The Accounting Review, 480-509.
 
[25]  Wilson R., 2009. An examination of corporate tax shelter participants. The Accounting Review 84(3), 969-999.
 
[26]  General Accounting Office (GAO), 2002. Financial statement restatements: Trends, market impacts, regulatory responses, and remaining challenges. Report 03-138. Washington D.C., Government Printing Office.
 
[27]  Richardson, S., Tuna, I., Wu, M., 2003. Predicting earnings management: the case of earnings restatements. Unpublished working paper. University of Pennsylvania and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
 
[28]  Burns, N., Kedia, S., 2006. The impact of performance-based compensation on misreporting. Journal of Financial Economics 79, 35-67.
 
[29]  Effendi, J.; Srivasta A.; and Swanson, E. P., 2007. Why do corporate managers misstate financial statements? The role of option compensation and other factors. Journal of Financial Economics 85, 667-708.
 
[30]  Xing, L. and Shujun, C., 2007. Determinant of corporate effective tax rates, The Chinese Economy 40(6), 49-67.
 
[31]  Hancock, J. T.; Curry, L. E.; Goorha, S.; Woodworth, M., 2007. On lying and being lied to: a linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Process 45, 1-23.