Journal of Applied Economic Research
ISSN 2712-7435
Relationship of Tax Burden and Firm Size in the Timber Industry in Russia
Yu.E. Labunets, I.A. Mayburov
Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Abstract
The tax burden indicator is one of the criteria for tax risk assessment used by tax authorities for making the decision to conduct an on-site tax audit. The dynamics of the tax burden indicator is considered to be a catalyst for the development of positive or negative tax relations between the taxpayer and the tax authority. It is very important to understand the relationship between the tax burden indicator and the firm's size in order to form an objective approach to tax control of micro, small and medium-sized businesses in different industries. The purpose of the research is to define a relationship between the level of tax burden and the firm's size in the Russian timber industry. The hypothesis of the research is that the tax burden increases as the size of the firm grows in the timber industry in Russia. Firms belonging to the categories of micro and small businesses were selected randomly, taking into account the priority characteristics of the firm's size by the average number of employees. The tax burden was calculated using the official methodology of the Federal Tax Service of Russia. The calculation of the tax burden level was performed for each respondent. The average values of tax burden indicators were also calculated by industry and for each category of business activity. We found that the average level of the tax burden increases when the size of businesses increases generally for all branches of the timber industry. At the same time, the researched characteristics of the firm's size (revenue and average number of employees) have a significant impact on changes in the level of the tax burden both in general and individually in such branches of the timber industry as logging, woodworking and furniture production. The tax burden level in the above-mentioned industries increases as the firm's size increases. In the pulp and paper industry, the tax burden level increases as from micro firms to small firms, but the tax burden level decreases as firms continue to grow from small to medium-sized ones.
Keywords
tax burden; firm size; relationship; timber industry; amount of paid taxes.
JEL classification
H26, H32,Q23, N80, L73References
1. Dyreng, S., Hanlon, M., Maydew, E. (2010). The effects of executives on corporate tax avoidance. Accounting Review, Vol. 85, Issue 4, 1163–1189. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1158060.
2. Rego, S. (2003). Tax-avoidance activities of U.S. multinational corporations. Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 20, Issue 4, 805–833. DOI: 10.1506/VANN-B7UB-GMFA-9E6W.
3. Fullerton, D. (1984). Which Effective Tax Rate? National Tax Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, 23–41.
4. Hanlon, M., Heitzman, S. (2010). A Review of Tax Research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, No. 2-3, 127–178. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.09.002.
5. Gupta, S., Newberry, K. (1997). Determinants of the variability of corporate effective tax rates: Evidence from longitudinal data. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 16, Issue 1, 1–34. DOI: 10.1016/S0278-4254(96)00055-5.
6. Zimmerman, J.L. (1983). Taxes and firm size. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 119–149. DOI: 10.1016/0165-4101(83)90008-3.
7. Robinson, J., Sikes, S., Weaver, C. (2010). Performance measurement of corporate tax departments. Accounting Review, Vol. 85, Issue 3, 1035–1064. DOI: 10.2308/ACCR.2010.85.3.1035.
8. Wilson, R. (2009). An examination of corporate tax shelter participants. Accounting Review, Vol. 84, Issue 3, 969–999. DOI: 10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.969.
9. Frank, M.M., Lynch, L.J., Rego, S.O. (2009). Tax reporting aggressiveness and its relation to aggressive financial reporting. Accounting Review, Vol. 84, Issue 2, 467–496. DOI: 10.2308/accr.2009.84.2.467.
10. Desai, M.A., Dharmapala, D. (2006). Corporate tax avoidance and high-powered incentives. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 79, Issue 1, 145–179. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.532702.
11. Plesko, G.A. (2003). An Evaluation of Alternative Measures of Corporate Tax Rates. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 35, Issue 2, 201–226. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.174688.
12. Harris, M.N., Feeny, S. (2003). Habit persistence in effective tax rates. Applied Economics, Vol. 35, Issue 8, 951–958. DOI: 10.1080/0003684032000050577.
13. Mascagni, G., Mengistu, A. (2016). The Corporate Tax Burden in Ethiopia: Evidence from Anonymised Tax Returns. ICTD Working Paper 48. Brighton, Institute of Development Studies, 34 р. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2776570.
14. Wu, L., Wang, Y., Luo, W., Gillis, P. (2012). State ownership, tax status and size effect of effective tax rate in China. Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 42, Issue 2, 97–114. DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2012.628208.
15. Porcano, T. (1986). Corporate tax rates: progressive, proportional, or regressive. Journal of the American Tax Association, Vol. 7, Issue 2, 17–31.
16. Kakaulina, M.O. (2018). Metodika kolichestvennoi otsenki nenabliudaemoi ekonomiki na regionalnom urovne na osnove otraslevoi struktury valovoi dobavlennoi stoimosti (Methodology of Quantitative Estimation of Non-Observed Economy at the Regional Level on the Basis of the Branch Structure of Gross Added Value). Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management, Vol. 17, No. 6, 1021–1036. DOI: 10.15826/vestnik.2018.17.6.046. (In Russ.).
17. Mayburov, I.A. (2012). Metodologicheskie aspekty ucheta vklada tenevoi ekonomiki v raschetakh nalogovoi nagruzki [Methodological aspects of accounting for the contribution of the shadow economy in tax burden calcuation]. Auditorskie vedomosti [Audit Journal], No. 9, 50–62. (In Russ.).
18. Kireenko, A.P., Nevzorova, E.N., Fedotov, D.Yu. (2019). Sector-Specific Characteristics of Tax Crime in Russia. Journal of Tax Reform, Vol. 5, No. 3, 249–264. DOI: 10.15826/jtr.2019.5.3.071.
19. Fedotov, D.Yu., Nevzorova, E.N. (2020). Intersectoral Shadow Economic Linkages and their Impact on Tax Evasion. Journal of Tax Reform, Vol. 6, No. 1, 36–53. DOI: 10.15826/jtr.2020.6.1.074.
20. Hoi, C., Wu, Q., Zhang, H. (2013). Is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Associated with Tax Avoidance? Evidence from Irresponsible CSR Activities. Accounting Review, Vol. 88, Issue 6, 2025–2059. DOI: 10.2308/ACCR-50544.
21. McGuire, S., Wang, D., Wilson, R. (2014). Dual class ownership and tax avoidance. Accounting Review, Vol. 89, Issue 4, 1487–1516. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1761994.
22. Armstrong, C., Blouin, J., Larcker, D. (2012). The incentives for tax planning. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 53, No. 1-2, 391–411. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.04.001.
23. Boone, J., Khurana, I., Raman, K. (2013). Religiosity and tax avoidance. Journal of the American Taxation Association, Vol. 35, Issue 1, 53–84. DOI: 10.2308/ATAX-50341.
24. Kim, K.A., Limpaphayom, P. (1998). Taxes and firm size in pacific-basin emerging economies. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, Vol. 7, Issue 1, 47–68. DOI: 10.1016/S1061-9518(98)90005-2.
25. Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., Shevlin, T. (2010). Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms? Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 95, Issue 1, 41–61. DOI: 10.1016/J.JFINECO.2009.02.003.
26. Jennings, R., Weaver, C., Mayew, W. (2012). The extent of implicit taxes at the corporate level and the effect of TRA86. Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 29, Issue 4, 1021–1059. DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2012.01157.x.
27. Fernandez-Rodriguez, E., Martinez-Arias, A. (2012). Do business characteristics determine an effective tax rate? Chinese Economy, Vol. 45, Issue 6, 60–83. DOI: 10.2753/CES1097-1475450604.
28. Wilkinson, B., Cahan, S., Jones, G. (2001). Strategies and dividend imputation: The effect of foreign and domestic ownership on average effective tax rates. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Vol. 10, Issue 2, 157–175. DOI: 10.1016/S1061-9518(01)00042-8.
29. Dyreng, S., Hoopes, J., Wilde, J. (2016). Public pressure and corporate tax behavior. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 54, Issue 1, 147–186. DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12308.
30. Jaafar, A., Thornton, J. (2015). Tax havens and effective tax rates: an analysis of private versus public European firms. International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 50, Issue 4, 435–457. DOI: 10.1016/J.INTACC.2015.10.005.
31. Kraft, A. (2014). What really affects German firms' effective tax rate? // International Journal of Financial Research, Vol. 5, Issue 3, 1–19. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2282907.
32. Mills, L., Nutter, S., Schwab, C. (2013). The effect of political sensitivity and bargaining power on taxes: Evidence from federal contractors. Accounting Review, Vol. 88, Issue 3, 977–1005. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1621861.
33. Noor, R., Fadzillah, N., Mastuki, N. (2010). Corporate tax planning: A study on corporate effective tax rates of Malaysian listed companies. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol. 1, Issue 2, 189–193. DOI: 10.1109/CSSR.2010.5773726.
34. Richter, B., Samphantharak, K., Timmons, J. (2009). Lobbying and taxes. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, Issue 4, 893–909. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00407.x.
35. Higgins, D., Omer, T., Phillips, J. (2015). The influence of a firm's business strategy on its tax aggressiveness. Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 32, Issue 2, 674–702. DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12087.
36. Jianliang, Y., Xiaohan, G., Deming, L., Xiangrong, J. (2018). The Heterogeneous Tax Burden: Evidence from Firm-Level Data in China. Singapore Economic Review (SER), Vol. 63, Issue 04, 1003–1035. DOI: 10.1142/S0217590817420073.
37. Salamon, L.M., Siegfried, J.J. (1977). Economic power and political influence: The impact of industry structure on public policy. American Political Science Review, Vol. 71, Issue 3, 1026–1043. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055400265222.
38. Omer, T.C., Molloy, K.H., Ziebart, D.A. (1993). An investigation of the firm size-effective tax rate relation in the 1980s. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, Vol. 8, Issue 2, 167–182. DOI:10.1177/0148558X9300800206.
39. Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, Issue 4, 305–360. DOI: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
40. Boynton, C., Dobbins, P., Plesko, G. (1992). Earnings management and the corporate alternative minimum tax. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 30, 131–153. DOI: 10.2307/2491198.
41. Richardson, G., Lanis, R. (2007). Determinants of the variability in corporate effective tax rates and tax reform: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 26, Issue 6, 689–704. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2007.10.003.
42. Derashid, C., Zhang, H. (2003). Effective tax rates and the industrial policy hypothesis: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, Vol. 12, Issue 1, 45–62. DOI: 10.1016/S1061-9518(03)00003-X.
43. Fernandez-Rodriguez, E., Martinez-Arias, A. (2014). Determinants of the effective tax rate in the BRIC countries. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Vol. 50, Issue 3, 214–228. DOI: 10.2753/REE1540-496X5003S313.
44. Tran, А., Yu, Yi. (2008). Effective Tax Rates of Corporate Australia and the Book-Tax Income Gap. Australian Tax Forum, Vol. 23, Issue 3, 233–268.
Acknowledgements
The research is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project No. 19-010-00365А.
About Authors
Labunets Yulia Еvgenievna
Post-Graduate Student, Department of Financial and Tax Management, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia (620002, Ekaterinburg, Mira street, 19); ORCID: 0000-0001-8522-4115; e-mail: ulya.ev_84@mail.ru.
Mayburov Igor Anatolievich
Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of the Department of Financial and Tax Management, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia (620002, Ekaterinburg, Mira street, 19); ORCID 0000-0001-8791-665X; e-mail: mayburov.home@gmail.com.
For citation
Labunets Yu.E., Mayburov I.A. Relationship of Tax Burden and Firm Size in the Timber Industry in Russia. Journal of Applied Economic Research, 2020, Vol. 19, No. 4, 458-487. DOI: 10.15826/vestnik.2020.19.4.022.
Article info
Received August 20, 2020; Revised September 27, 2020; Accepted October 10, 2020.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2020.19.4.022
Download full text article:
~1 MB, *.pdf
(Uploaded
14.12.2020)
Created / Updated: 2 September 2015 / 20 September 2021
© Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»
Remarks?
select the text and press:
Ctrl + Enter
Portal design: Artsofte
Contact us
Rector's Office
Rector, Dr. Victor Koksharov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-45-03, e-mail: rector@urfu.ru
Vice-Rector for International Relations, Dr. Maxim Khomyakov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-46-27, e-mail: Maksim.Khomyakov@urfu.ru