Tax Avoidance Sample Assignment

3.2 Tax Evasion v/s Tax Avoidance

Richardson, Taylor and Lanis (2015) stated that tax evasion is a criminal and illegal activity that is practiced by unethical individuals in the society for not paying taxes through not reporting proper and exact income to the government. This is the exact situation where the phrase best suited as “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” It is generally paid in the case of the income tax; however, this can be practiced in the real life employment taxes on the employment taxes state sales taxes. It can be practiced in the taxes related to the business and the big corporates are taking benefits on the tax returns. Finally, it can be stated that tax invasion is nothing but stealing of taxes that is made by using the laws of paying taxes itself. Fortune (2018) enlisted some practices those could be considered as the tax evasion such as knowingly failing in reporting the government about the net income of the individual and thus, paying tax for a small part of the income. Under-reporting income is almost the same as that of the previous one as, it states reporting very less income so that the individual does not fall in category of paying the taxes and does not pays the tax at all. This includes the false exchange of the information with the government about the expenses being made or net income of the business. it also includes deliberately underpaying taxes owed by the business cooperatives and the individual having higher expenses. Huang et al. (2016) stated “Substantially understating your taxes (by stating a tax amount on your return which is less than the amount owed on the income you reported)” as a practice of the tax evasion. Every country has different law on paying taxes and thus, it provides opportunity to the individuals to steal the taxes. However, tax avoidance is nothing but manipulating the laws for personal benefits on how to create a loophole that can provide the company with an opportunity to bring it out from there. Tax avoidance is not a criminal activity or not illegal practice however; it is a practice of using different legal practices for not paying the taxes. Armstrong, Glaeser and Kepler (2016) explained the various practices those are being practiced by the giant corporations for stealing taxes from the government. This includes setup of the tax deferral plan for example 401 (k), SEP – IRA or, IRA plans those can be utilized by the corporation for delaying the taxes until a later date. “Taking legitimate tax deductions to minimize business expenses and thus lower your business tax bill” is another form of the tax avoidance that can allow the corporations and the individuals to minimize the tax paying to the extent level. Dhaliwal et al. (2017) claimed that “taking tax credits for spending money for legitimate purposes, like taking a Work Opportunity Tax Credit for hiring workers in your business” has been also a form of the tax avoidance. The practices those have been currently made by the giant corporations in the context of the tax avoidance:

3.2.1 Transfer Pricing

It is a commonly practiced strategy by the corporates for avoiding the taxes that can be described as the price being set for accomplishing the transactions between the company divisions. Multinational organizations frequently comprise of a few organizations counting for instance braches, backups, offices, and additionally perpetual foundations, which thusly are administered by the parent organization (Armstrong et al. 2015). Exchange evaluating winds up applicable when these organizations enter exchanges between each other or with the parent organization itself. The exchanges may incorporate for illustration cross-fringe exchange of products, protected innovation rights as well as or administrations. At the point when the exchanges occur, it is imperative to set up the rectify exchange cost between the related gatherings.

3.2.2 Thin capitalization

In general, the companies are financed by the equity and work under certain debts and thin capitalized company have to pay low taxes than others. Multinational enterprises utilize thin capitalization on a regular basis due to the deductions of paid interests from the taxable income they receive (Austin and Winston 2015). In general, the interests on debt are deductible from the taxable income on a corporate level. To encounter thin capitalization many countries around the world have adapted thin capitalization rules

3.2.3 Treaty Shopping

The multinational companies practice treaty shopping for minimizing the tax need to be paid as in the case of the Apple that was accused of tax avoidance through practicing treaty shopping in the year 2013. The report action 6 presented by the OECD explains treaty abuse as the biggest point of concern in the sense of the profit shifting and base erosion “for the reason that the practice taxpayers are engaged in claims benefits that were not intended to be granted (OECD, 2015, p. 9)”. There are many ways those could be practiced by the organizations and the companies for getting away from the tax paying through establishing the construction and many other ways in different countries.

3.2.4 Controlled foreign companies

The companies those could run at minimum tax paying can be categorized in this chapter as it is nothing but a company, which is applicable for conducting business within the different jurisdictions. Sikes and Verrechia (2016) stated that in manner to “benefit the most of controlled foreign corporations, companies tend to locate them in countries where profit shifting and the taxation is the most favorable and utilizing controlled foreign corporations may deprive the country of residence of the transferring company from taxes that otherwise would have been payable there.”

3.3 Impact of Tax on Economy

The importance of tax could be understood by the statement of Pandey (2017) who have cited “Tax is one of the most important source of revenue to the government and at the same time one of the deciding parameter for economic growth.” The author discussed above has even stated that the direct tax influences the disposable income while the indirect tax influences the price of the market offerings (goods and services). Hence, the above-discussed statements could understand the prominence of relationship between the two. To earn a proper insight of the relationship between the impacts of tax on the economy multiple literary work of past were reviewed and the findings revealed that the impact of taxation on an economy can be understood appropriately by categorizing them in four categories (Francis, Ren and Wu 2017).

The first category that needs to be assessed is the effect of tax on the capability to work saves. Haberly and Wójci (2014) stated that the imposition of taxes reduces the expenditure on the much-needed commodities by reducing the disposal income and in the process increasing the efficiency. The deemed reason can be cited as a very vital one, because it is very well known that as the ability of a counter suffers the quality of their work decline which in turn will certainly affect a nation’s economy (Goh et al. 2016). However, another notable fact is that for economically mediocre persons the discussed subject cites adverse effects.

Another category to assess the impact of tax on the economy is to discuss the effect that tax imposition cites on the work attitude. The effect of tax increases the willingness to work because of the money burden along with the psychology that is developed due to the burden of tax for a shorter period of time (Griffith, Miller and O'Connell 2014). However, the willingness reduces with time and hence it is advisable that the taxation process should be reformed periodically to cope up with the need of the taxpayers by offering tax redemptions. Additionally, the taxation process should be developed according to the taxpayers by taking consideration of their income and needs. Hence, it can be stated that the willingness to work of a taxpayer has a conflicting view and will cite adverse impact on the economy if not provided with proper attention by the government (Chen, Leung and Xie 2017).

One of the most core factors that impact a nation’s economy is the production of commodities which are driven by the resources. Taxation on the resources can decide the size and volume of the production (Weber, Wang and Chomas 2014). High taxation on goods or services that are inappropriate for consumption such as harmful drugs and others can reduce their consumption resulting a higher standard of living & health index of its citizen, which will cite positive in long run. However, a high taxation on production resources will cite negative impact on the willingness of the production firms.

One of the most prominent factor that determines the impact of tax on an economy is the income distribution. An economy is driven by the two group of participants one who are rich, little in number and contributes hugely to the economy while, the other that are not so much capable of paying tax, large in number and contributes less than the former (Boustan et al. 2013). Depending on the above stated fact, the taxation mostly depends on the first group while the second does contribute but comparatively less than its counterpart and hence it the taxation system should be income driven. Luxuries goods and services should be imposed with high tax and necessary requirements should be provided with tax redemption. It will reduce the income inequality and allow the second group to earn stability which can prove to be a significant benefit to the economy.

Hence reviewing of the literary work on the impact of tax on the economy reveals that the impact can vary according to the tax policies (Dhaliwal et al. 2017). If devised and implemented appropriately, then the taxation can surge up the economy and in the other case can lead to the downfall of the economy.

3.4 Tax avoidance impact and causes

The articles reviewed above has made it evident that tax plays an important role in the sustaining an economy. With appropriate policies and enforcement, it can uplift an economy or lack of attention may lead to downfall of the economy (Richardson, Lanis, and Taylor 2015). However, the question that needs to be addressed is what will be the impact if an organization decided to avoid tax or all of the organization started tax avoidance and how it is done. To address the deemed question different article were reviewed and determined that it can cite a harsh impact on the economy. In the review, different factors were evaluated that holds responsibility for tax avoidance and depending on them the impact of economy can be discussed.

One of the most crucial identification was the rate of inflation. The deemed factor is crucial because it triggers the corruption which lead to tax avoidance, it is done by concealing the profit and submitting false accounts. One of the most prominent example of the discussed scenario is UK whose economy is mostly driven by the banking and services industry (Lanis and Richardson 2015). During the last instance when the inflation ratio of UK was high is was estimated that the country lost an enormous amount of 25 billion to tax avoidance in which 700 major companies were involved who avoided 12 billion. The deemed case lead to have a major impact on the economy of the UK as its market values dropped and the currency prices as well, which also affected the image of the country globally rallying the investors away (McClure et al. 2018). However, the country coped up with the changes and brought the economy back on track but the scenario could rise again, if appropriate measures are not taken.

Another notable identification that enables the tax payers to avoid their tax is the loopholes in the tax laws. Money is a crucial factor for every one and they devise ways to safe-keep it. If the law of tax paying is not strong enough than the payers will devise some plan and avoid the loopholes. The financial experts who are knowledgeable about the tax matters are hired by the corporations to determine those loopholes and avoid tax. Hence, it is advisable that the tax law makers should identify the loopholes and make necessary changes to avoid any such instances from happening again.

One of the most prominent factor that was identified as the cause of tax avoidance was ignorance of the tax collectors towards using it adequately. The reviewed article suggests that the political frauds and others have reduced the trust of the citizen over the proper use of their taxes. However, the findings even reveal that if, the citizens will not pay the taxes than their basic needs such as the roads, security, infrastructure and others could not be met by the government adequately, which will affect both the lifestyle and income of the citizens and the economy of the state as well (Shevlin, Shivakumar and Urcan 2017). Hence, the authors of the reviewed paper did recommend that instead of avoiding taxes the taxpayers should put forth their needs and suggestions to make necessary amendments in the tax law to benefit both the state and its residents.

The reviewing of the articles on the subject matter of tax avoidance, its impact, and causes has assisted the author to formulate an unbiased opinion towards the tax avoidance because the findings have made it evident that the payers and the collectors both are equally responsible for the tax avoidance trends (Khan, Srinivasan and Tan 2016). The developed unbiased opinion will assist the author of the proposed paper in carrying out an ethical research work. It has also assisted in formulating a plan or platform to pursue with the proposed research work that will guide the author to conclusion of the work.

3.5 Case Studies:

3.5.1 Google

Google was enlisted in one of the giant corporations those had evade billions through practicing tax avoidance. Relationship of the Google (GOOG, -0.58%) between the authorities in Europe have been tough than previous times as the Google is trying to get away from the antitrust charges from the European Commission “and none more so than when it comes to taxes”. Koester et al. (2016) reported that the Google had been moving towards twelve billion dollars or 10.7 billion euros from the Dutch arm of the Google to a Bermuda-based, and is was registered by the Irish-registered affiliate and was named as Google Ireland Holdings. This tax strategy was named as “double Irish, Dutch sandwich,” “reportedly helped its parent company Alphabet enjoy an effective tax rate of just 6% on its non-U.S. profits, since it passes through a comparatively lower Irish corporate tax rate of 12.5% and a Bermudan tax rate of zero (OECD report, 2016).” It was reported that the revenues at the Irish affiliate had been of total sum of 18 billion euros in 2014. The UK government and the Google had just agreed on an agreement for the payment settlement through the payment of $ 181 million or 130 million pound by the Google to the U.K. government n manner to settle all the tax disputes. It has also been reported that the Italy and France have been pursing “the company for hundreds of millions more in back taxes (Hasan et al 2014).”

3.5.2 Apple

Apple was also in the same race and had to pay about $ 8 billion to the European Commission as the giant company was found guilty on not paying the taxes and avoiding the taxes on the U.S. revenues as it has been utilizing the subsidiaries in Ireland for avoiding the taxes. The accusation made by the European Commission on the Apple was that it was the first company that utilizes the elaborate systems for avoiding the tax payments. It was found in the reports that “the liberal non-profit groups the Center for Tax Justice and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund; Apple has booked $181.1 billion in offshore profits, more than any other company (Hasan et al. 2017).” Bloomberg had reported that the Irish Government was forced to recoup the taxes those have been collected from the Apple, which implies that the apple will have to face $ 19 billion as the least amount to be paid.

3.5.3 Amazon

Amazon (AMZN, - 0.71%), it appears, has concluded that it may very well be justified, despite all the trouble to pay more in charges. Reports turning out last May demonstrated that the online retail monster would begin paying more charges in the European nations it was directing business in, as opposed to channeling money to a holding organization in Luxembourg. In the U.K., The Guardian detailed that Amazon turned into the main innovation organization to loosen up its confused assessment structures, and would begin booking its deals in the U.K.

This after legislators required a blacklist of Amazon after it was found they were paying 4.2 million pounds ($5.86 million) on the back of 4.3 billion pounds ($6 billion) worth of offers. Indeed, even in the U.K., Amazon was allegedly ready to escape with low assessment installments since it credited installments in Europe to an auxiliary in Luxembourg (Fortune 2018).

That training is set to end. "Over two years prior, we started the way toward building up nearby nation branches of Amazon EU Sarl," the organization said in an announcement detailed in the Daily Mail, alluding to its backup in Luxembourg. "Starting at 1 May [2015], Amazon EU Sarl is recording retail deals made to clients through these branches in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy. Beforehand, these retail deals were recorded in Luxembourg."

3.5.4 Starbucks

It was pronounced by the European Commission in October that the Netherlands had "conceded particular assessment favorable circumstances" to Starbucks (SBUX, +0.33%) in 2008, and requested the nation to recuperate back charges that added up to somewhere close to 20 million and 30 million euros. Examinations uncovered that Starbucks had supposedly cut its taxation rate by up to 30 million euros since 2008, paying the Netherlands 2.6 million euros in corporate expense on a pre-charge benefit of 407 million euros, a rate of under 1% (Huseynov, Sardarli and Zhang 2017). The Netherlands has requested and tested the discoveries of the commission, and Starbucks said they bolstered the administration's endeavors.

3.5.5 Cadbury Schweppes

A standout amongst the most critical Union cases identifying with assess arranging is the Cadbury Schweppes case (Cadbury's Schweppes, 2005). The case concerned UK's controlled outside organizations rules set down to keep organizations from setting up auxiliaries in states where the tax assessment was more good. The general thought was that UK parent organizations were not subject to controlled outside organizations rules, where they would have been burdened on non-inhabitant auxiliaries' profits(Barnard, 2013, p. 353). In the Cadbury case a UK parent organization tried to set up two auxiliaries to Ireland. The reason for the backups was to profit by the Irish expense and therefore keep away from higher charges that they would somehow or another have been liable to in the UK (Cadbury's Schweppes, 2005, paras. 17-18).

The UK's Controlled Foreign Company rules were activated when benefits of the UK parent's alien auxiliaries were liable to bring down tax collection (Cadbury's Schweppes v. Officials of the Inland Revenue, 2005, pp. 14, 19). Cadbury questioned asserting that the expense experts encroached the flexibilities ensured by the present European Communities Treaty Articles 43, 49 and 56 EC. The case was alluded to the Court of Justice with respect to whether the enactment sanctioned by the UK concerning controlled outside organizations was in opposition to the central opportunities (Cadbury's Schweppes, 2005, para. 24). Despite the fact that the Court had lead in Centros and Inspire Art on comparable issues concerning flexibility of foundation, the tenets concerning charge evasion plans had not been managed altogether. The court decided indeed that the Controlled Foreign Company rules where in spite of the flexibility of foundation ensured by Articles 43 and 49 of the European Communities Treaty (Cadbury's Schweppes, 2005, para. 46).

The Court took an unmistakable remaining in connection to this inquiry, proceeding in an indistinguishable bearing from they had taken in the Centros and Inspire Art cases. The Court decided that the way that the organization was set up in another Member State to profit by a more ideal expense administration did not itself constitute a mishandle of the flexibilities (Cadbury's Schweppes v. Magistrates of the Inland Revenue, 2005, p. 37). The court set out a particular equation, that could be utilized to evaluate the lawfulness of such courses of action. Confinements, for example, the Controlled Foreign Company manages in the UK could be advocated for averting harsh practices. The goal of the principles along these lines must be the limitation of lead including the formation of that it must be a completely fake plan (Barnard, 2013, p. 354; Barnard, 2013).

The Court kept on alluding to past case law expressing that to recognize a manufactured game plan there must be a subjective component of expectation to get the duty advantage and also target conditions demonstrating that the was not accomplished (Cadbury's Schweppes, 2005, para. 64).

3.6 Anti-Tax Avoidance Strategy

In 2016 Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 was passed concerning charge evasion also, rules against it. This was an exceptionally intriguing expansion in the field of exit charges since it secured exit imposes altogether and made a consistent comprehension of what is implied by exit assesses in the EU. The Directive illuminated that advantages exchanged between the parent organization and its auxiliaries falls outside the extent of exit charges. It moreover illuminates the way exit charges should be registered in particular by making a market esteem and giving the accepting state the probability to question the esteem set by the leave State on the off chance. This implies, it doesn't mirror the genuine advertise esteem (Council Directive setting down tenets against impose shirking hones that straightforwardly influence the working of the inward market, 2016).

3.6.1. Interest Limitation Rule

The principle worry of the arrangement is to constrain the deductibility of interests. As indicated by the preliminary work such restrictions are essential because of expanded commitment of companies in unnecessary intrigue installments (Council Directive setting down tenets against charge evasion rehearses that straightforwardly influence the working of the interior market, 2016). Such interests 27 ordinarily happen in thin capitalization plans (Helminen, 2013, pp. 304-305). A definitive motivation behind this arrangement is to hence relieve the distinction on charge treatment of the obligation which as an instrument creates deductible installments, and value that is for the most part non-deductible as to the installments.

3.6.2 Exit Taxation

Exit tax assessment comes down to the condition of takeoff exhausting the EU citizen when the citizen moves home or resources from one purview to another. This is because of hidden increases that could some way or another be totally impose excluded in the condition of takeoff. As indicated by the preliminary work of the ATAD it is basic that the cases in which citizens are liable to leave impose rules and in truth burdened on hidden capital increases, which have aggregated in their exchanged resources (Directive 2016/1164). To expand on this one may envision there is an IT organization set up in state A, since state A offers an perfect condition for an IT startup to work amid its first operational year. In any case, the CIT in state A is moderately high, and the organization chooses to move its hidden resources for a PE in another Member State or exchange. Its expense home to state B with altogether good expense administration, despite the fact that the financial estimation of the capital increases were made in the region of express A however had not understood at the season of the exit

3.6.3 General Anti-Abuse Rule

The general Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) appears to go about as a 'catch-all' or a 'gap filling’ arrangement. This hostile to manhandle control is intended to apply to courses of action, which are 'not certifiable'. This accordingly enables the citizen to pick the most duty effective structure for its business undertakings. The wording of the Article itself is decently unclear and the idea of the Article appears to take after comparable conditions that were built up by the CJEU in Cadbury Schweppes; Francis, Ren and Wu (2017) "a Member State should disregard a course of action or a progression of game plans which, having been established for the primary reason. One of the principle motivations behind getting an assessment advantage that annihilations the protest or reason for the appropriate duty law, are not bona fide having respect to every single applicable reality and conditions… "

4. Findings

It was found that there are certain lop holes still existing in the taxation system and the companies have been utilizing it as a means for stealing the taxes and manipulating the government. However, certain strong and universal laws need for the establishment of an effective regulation for collecting the taxes. Different companies have different regulation and laws o tax paying and tax collection. The hypothesis questions have been successfully answered through executing the literature review and propose solution was the establishment of the universal law that restricts the corporations from practicing tax avoidance.

5. Conclusion

Corporate Tax Avoidance can be viewed as explanation behind loss of salary for a few States inside the European Union. Because of the colossal assortment of duty shirking plans, it is extremely hard to control and deny these. On the off chance that a State would wish to manage charge shirking and make it for instance unlawful, it would require the State to go into multilateral concurrences with different States to have the capacity to influence them to work. Besides, concerning the setting of the European Union and its capability to control in the field of expense shirking and even more definitely coordinate tax assessment one can plainly observe the trouble the EU faces.

Since coordinate duties when all is said in done has a place with the States capability as long as it conforms to the EU laws and controls, the EU has extremely restricted potential outcomes to direct. In the creators supposition imposes, shirking is an issue that falls under the corporate social obligation regarding multinational ventures and ought not to be controlled on an EU level since it is extremely troublesome and exorbitant. The creator trusts that corporate social duty involves expanding significance among clients and the public and along these lines, it is in the colossal enthusiasm of partnerships to regard this and take after the desires by the public.

6. References

Andersen, J. and Tveiten, A.H., 2017. The effect of corporate tax avoidance on investments, and its relationship to firm liquidity (Master's thesis, BI Norwegian Business School).

Armstrong, C., Glaeser, S. and Kepler, J.D., 2016. Strategic reactions in corporate tax avoidance

Armstrong, C.S., Blouin, J.L., Jagolinzer, A.D. and Larcker, D.F., 2015. Corporate governance, incentives, and tax avoidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), pp.1-17.

Austin, C. and Wilson, R., 2015. Are Reputational Costs a Determinant of Tax Avoidance?.

Barnard, C., 2013. The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms. 4th Edition ed. Oxford.

Blouin, L. N. H., 2014. Thin Capitalization Rules and Multinational Firm Capital Structure. European Commission.

Camille Allain, J. F. A.-G. M., 2016, Facing tax fraud in the European Union - Challenges and perspectives. Themis competition.

Cen, L., Maydew, E.L., Zhang, L. and Zuo, L., 2017. Customer–supplier relationships and corporate tax avoidance. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(2), pp.377-394.

Chen, T., Leung, S. and Xie, L., 2017. Credit Rating Conservatism and Corporate Tax Avoidance: Evidence from the Dodd-Frank Act As a Quasi-Natural Experiment.

Chen, The Rebirth of CCCTB: Lessons from US Multistate Tax Compact, Kluwer International Tax Blog, June 30, 2015. Available at: http://kluwertaxblog.com/2015/06/30/the-rebirth-of-ccctb-lessons-from-us-multistatetax-compact/

Christensen, D.M., Dhaliwal, D.S., Boivie, S. and Graffin, S.D., 2015. Top management conservatism and corporate risk strategies: Evidence from managers' personal political orientation and corporate tax avoidance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(12), pp.1918-1938

Cobham, A. and Janský, P., 2018. Global distribution of revenue loss from corporate tax avoidance: re‐estimation and country results. Journal of International Development, 30(2), pp.206-232.

Council Directive (EU) 2014/107/EU of 9 December 2014 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation

Demere, P., Donohoe, M.P. and Lisowsky, P., 2017. The economic effects of special purpose entities on corporate tax avoidance.

Dhaliwal, D.S., Goodman, T.H., Hoffman, P.J. and Schwab, C.M., 2017. The Incidence, Valuation and Management of Tax-related Reputational Costs: Evidence from a Period of Protest.

Donohoe, M.P., 2015. The economic effects of financial derivatives on corporate tax avoidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 59(1), pp.1-24

European Commission, 2017. Enhanced administrative cooperation in the field of (direct) taxation. Availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/taxcooperation-control/administrative-cooperation/enhanced-administrative-cooperationfield-direct-taxation_en.

Fortune. (2018). Here Are Some Companies Accused of Dodging Taxes In Europe. [online] Available at: http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/ [Accessed 3 May 2018].

Francis, B.B., Ren, N. and Wu, Q., 2017. Banking deregulation and corporate tax avoidance. China Journal of Accounting Research, 10(2), pp.87-104.

Gaertner, F.B., 2014. CEO After‐Tax compensation incentives and corporate tax avoidance. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(4), pp.1077-1102.

Goh, B.W., Lee, J., Lim, C.Y. and Shevlin, T., 2016. The effect of corporate tax avoidance on the cost of equity. The Accounting Review, 91(6), pp.1647-1670

Hasan, I., Hoi, C.K.S., Wu, Q. and Zhang, H., 2014. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The effect of corporate tax avoidance on the cost of bank loans. Journal of Financial Economics, 113(1), pp.109-130

Hasan, M.M., Al-Hadi, A., Taylor, G. and Richardson, G., 2017. Does a firm’s life cycle explain its propensity to engage in corporate tax avoidance?. European Accounting Review, 26(3), pp.469-501.

Henry, E. and Sansing, R.C., 2014. Data truncation bias and the mismeasurement of corporate tax avoidance.

Huang, H.H., Lobo, G.J., Wang, C. and Xie, H., 2016. Customer concentration and corporate tax avoidance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 72, pp.184-200

Huseynov, F., Sardarli, S. and Zhang, W., 2017. Does index addition affect corporate tax avoidance?. Journal of Corporate Finance, 43, pp.241-259.

Khan, M., Srinivasan, S. and Tan, L., 2016. Institutional ownership and corporate tax avoidance: New evidence. The Accounting Review, 92(2), pp.101-122.

Koester, A., Shevlin, T. and Wangerin, D., 2016. The role of managerial ability in corporate tax avoidance. Management Science, 63(10), pp.3285-3310

Lanis, R. and Richardson, G., 2015. Is corporate social responsibility performance associated with tax avoidance?. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), pp.439-457.

Law, K.K. and Mills, L.F., 2017. Military experience and corporate tax avoidance. Review of Accounting Studies, 22(1), pp.141-184.

McClure, R., Lanis, R., Wells, P. and Govendir, B., 2018. The impact of dividend imputation on corporate tax avoidance: The case of shareholder value. Journal of Corporate Finance, 48, pp.492-514.

OECD, 2015. Preventing the Granting of Treaty Benefits in Inappropriate Circumstances, Action 6 - 2015 Final Report. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD, 2015. Public Discussion Draft, BEPS Action 3: Strengthening CFC Rules, s.l.: OECD. OECD, 2012.

Richardson, G., Lanis, R. and Taylor, G., 2015. Corporate Tax Avoidance, Financial Distress and Outside Director Work Effort Straddling the GFC. Journal of Banking and Finance, 52, pp.112-129.

Richardson, G., Taylor, G. and Lanis, R., 2015. The impact of financial distress on corporate tax avoidance spanning the global financial crisis: Evidence from Australia. Economic Modelling, 44, pp.44-53.

Richardson, G., Wang, B. and Zhang, X., 2016. Ownership structure and corporate tax avoidance: Evidence from publicly listed private firms in China. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 12(2), pp.141-158.

Shevlin, T.J., Shivakumar, L. and Urcan, O., 2017. Macroeconomic effects of aggregate corporate tax avoidance: A cross-country analysis.

Sikes, S.A. and Verrecchia, R., 2016. Aggregate corporate tax avoidance and cost of capital. Work in progress, University of Pennsylvania.

Thin Capitalization Legislation: A Background Paper for Country Tax Administrations, s.l.: OECD Tax & Development.