We exploit an exogenous shock to analyst coverage as a result of brokerage house mergers and closures to examine whether financial analysts influence the tax‐planning activities of the firms they cover. Using a difference‐in‐differences design, we find that, on average, firms affected by broker mergers and/or closures experience a reduction in their GAAP (cash) effective tax rates (ETR) of 2.5 percent (2.6 percent), relative to control firms, translating into average tax expense (cash tax) savings of $34 ($35) million. The treatment effect is more pronounced among firms with lower pre‐event analyst coverage. To explore how analysts affect tax planning, we further document that the treatment effect is greater among firms that lose an analyst who provided an implied ETR forecast in the past, suggesting that analysts influence tax planning via their tax‐specific research efforts. In addition, we find that after merger/closure, weakly governed firms increase their use of aggressive tax strategies, and financially distressed firms experience a larger reduction of cash effective tax rates, relative to control firms. Overall, we provide evidence that a shock to analyst coverage sufficiently changes the cost‐benefit trade‐off of tax planning.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

When reporting after-tax non–generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings, firms are required to adjust for the tax effects of exclusions. Since 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued and updated compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs), which specifically require firms to disclose the tax effects of exclusions. We assemble a detailed, hand-collected data set of S&P 1500 firms’ disclosures to provide the first large-sample evidence on the reporting of the tax effects of non-GAAP exclusions. We find three key results. First, echoing the SEC’s concern, a significant proportion of non-GAAP reporting firms do not follow the C&DI guidelines (i.e., they do not disclose the tax effects of exclusions). Second, among firms that disclose the tax effects of exclusions, we find that managers strategically select the tax rates applied to exclusions to achieve after-tax earnings targets. Third, manager-reported non-GAAP earnings are less persistent for future operating earnings and cash flows relative to non-GAAP earnings calculated by applying various benchmark tax rates to exclusions. This evidence suggests that managers’ strategic behavior in selecting the tax rates applied to exclusions pollutes reported non-GAAP earnings and reduces their usefulness for predicting future performance. Overall, our results shed light on a specific channel through which firms use non-GAAP reporting to meet or beat earnings expectations. This paper was accepted by Brian Bushee, accounting.