The Relationship of Corporate Tax Avoidance, Cost of Debt and Institutional Ownership: Evidence From Malaysia

The Relationship of Corporate Tax Avoidance, Cost of Debt and Institutional Ownership: Evidence From Malaysia

The primary aims of this study are to identify whether there is any relationship between corporate tax avoidance and the cost of debt, and whether the level of institutional ownership moderates this relationship, with two hypotheses tests on sample of 110 listed firms in the main board of Bursa Mala...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Shokirjonovich, Utkirjon Kholbadalov
Format: Thesis
Language:eng
Published: 2011
Subjects:
HD2709-2930.7 Corporations
Online Access:https://etd.uum.edu.my/2878/1/Utkirjon_Kholbadalov_Shokirjonovich.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my-uum-etd.2878
record_format uketd_dc
institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection UUM ETD
language eng
advisor Abdul Wahab, Nor Shaipah
topic HD2709-2930.7 Corporations
spellingShingle HD2709-2930.7 Corporations
Shokirjonovich, Utkirjon Kholbadalov
The Relationship of Corporate Tax Avoidance, Cost of Debt and Institutional Ownership: Evidence From Malaysia
description The primary aims of this study are to identify whether there is any relationship between corporate tax avoidance and the cost of debt, and whether the level of institutional ownership moderates this relationship, with two hypotheses tests on sample of 110 listed firms in the main board of Bursa Malaysia during the year 2005 – 2009. Two models are constructed for testing two hypotheses of the study. The research framework comprises seven variables. Dependent variable is the cost of debt, while corporate tax avoidance and institutional ownership are independent variables, and four control variables, such as firm age, leverage, firm size, and cash flow from operation. All variables are directly achievable from the data stream and annual reports of firms, excluding tax avoidance. So, in this study book – tax difference (BTD) is used as a proxy for corporate tax avoidance which is developed by Manzon and Plesko (2002) and followed by Desai and Dharmapala (2006, 2009). This study supports prior papers with negative relationship between tax avoidance and the cost of debt, suggesting corporate tax avoidance activity can reduce the cost of debt of the firms. The significant and positive relation statistical result between corporate tax avoidance and the cost of debt indicates that tax – favored effect of corporate tax avoidance can serve as a debt for firms; hence tax avoidance serves as a substitute for the use of debt, which is consistent with trade – off theory. Additionally, the empirical evidence suggests that there is no significant effect of institutional ownership on this relationship, meaning that the level of institutional ownership does not impact on the relationship between tax avoidance and the cost of debt, regardless the level institutional ownership is high or low. This study concludes that first, corporate tax avoidance can reduce the cost of debt, thereby the use of tax – savings instead of debt to finance firm projects; and second, the level of institutional ownership does not have the effect on this relationship, inferring that institutional investors of the sample Malaysian firms might not provide enough scrutiny to which managerial actions on firms` performance are subjected.
format Thesis
qualification_name masters
qualification_level Master's degree
author Shokirjonovich, Utkirjon Kholbadalov
author_facet Shokirjonovich, Utkirjon Kholbadalov
author_sort Shokirjonovich, Utkirjon Kholbadalov
title The Relationship of Corporate Tax Avoidance, Cost of Debt and Institutional Ownership: Evidence From Malaysia
title_short The Relationship of Corporate Tax Avoidance, Cost of Debt and Institutional Ownership: Evidence From Malaysia
title_full The Relationship of Corporate Tax Avoidance, Cost of Debt and Institutional Ownership: Evidence From Malaysia
title_fullStr The Relationship of Corporate Tax Avoidance, Cost of Debt and Institutional Ownership: Evidence From Malaysia
title_full_unstemmed The Relationship of Corporate Tax Avoidance, Cost of Debt and Institutional Ownership: Evidence From Malaysia
title_sort relationship of corporate tax avoidance, cost of debt and institutional ownership: evidence from malaysia
granting_institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business
publishDate 2011
url https://etd.uum.edu.my/2878/1/Utkirjon_Kholbadalov_Shokirjonovich.pdf
_version_ 1747827451008909312
spelling my-uum-etd.28782016-04-24T00:58:15Z The Relationship of Corporate Tax Avoidance, Cost of Debt and Institutional Ownership: Evidence From Malaysia 2011-05 Shokirjonovich, Utkirjon Kholbadalov Abdul Wahab, Nor Shaipah Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business HD2709-2930.7 Corporations The primary aims of this study are to identify whether there is any relationship between corporate tax avoidance and the cost of debt, and whether the level of institutional ownership moderates this relationship, with two hypotheses tests on sample of 110 listed firms in the main board of Bursa Malaysia during the year 2005 – 2009. Two models are constructed for testing two hypotheses of the study. The research framework comprises seven variables. Dependent variable is the cost of debt, while corporate tax avoidance and institutional ownership are independent variables, and four control variables, such as firm age, leverage, firm size, and cash flow from operation. All variables are directly achievable from the data stream and annual reports of firms, excluding tax avoidance. So, in this study book – tax difference (BTD) is used as a proxy for corporate tax avoidance which is developed by Manzon and Plesko (2002) and followed by Desai and Dharmapala (2006, 2009). This study supports prior papers with negative relationship between tax avoidance and the cost of debt, suggesting corporate tax avoidance activity can reduce the cost of debt of the firms. The significant and positive relation statistical result between corporate tax avoidance and the cost of debt indicates that tax – favored effect of corporate tax avoidance can serve as a debt for firms; hence tax avoidance serves as a substitute for the use of debt, which is consistent with trade – off theory. Additionally, the empirical evidence suggests that there is no significant effect of institutional ownership on this relationship, meaning that the level of institutional ownership does not impact on the relationship between tax avoidance and the cost of debt, regardless the level institutional ownership is high or low. This study concludes that first, corporate tax avoidance can reduce the cost of debt, thereby the use of tax – savings instead of debt to finance firm projects; and second, the level of institutional ownership does not have the effect on this relationship, inferring that institutional investors of the sample Malaysian firms might not provide enough scrutiny to which managerial actions on firms` performance are subjected. 2011-05 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/2878/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/2878/1/Utkirjon_Kholbadalov_Shokirjonovich.pdf application/pdf eng validuser masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia Carey, M., Prowse, S., Rea, J., Udell, G., 1993. The economics of private placements: a new look. Financial Markets Institutions and Instruments. 2, 1–66. Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., Shevlin, T., 2010. Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms? Journal of Financial Economics, 98, 41–61. Chung, R., Firth, M., Kim, J., 2002. Institutional monitoring and opportunistic earnings management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8, 29–48. Cook, R., D., 1982. Residuals and Influence in Regression. New York: Chapman and Hall. Cox, D.R., 1984. Interaction. International Statistical Review, 52, 1–25. DeAngelo, H., Masulis, R.W., 1980. Optimal capital structure under corporate and personal taxation. Journal of Financial Economics, 8, 3–29. Desai, M.A., Dharmapala, D., 2006. Corporate tax avoidance and high powered incentives. Journal of Financial Economics, 79, 145–179. Desai, M. A., A. Dyck, and L. Zingales. 2007. Theft and taxes. Journal of Financial Economics, 84, 591 – 623. Desai, M.A., Dharmapala, D., 2009a. Corporate tax avoidance and firm value. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 537–546. Desai, M.A., Dharmapala, D., 2009b. Earnings management, corporate tax shelters, and book-tax alignment. National Tax Journal, 62, 169–186. Dyreng, S.D., Hanlon, M., Maydew, E.L., 2008. Long-run corporate tax avoidance. The Accounting Review, 83, 61–82. Dyreng, S. D., Hanlon, M., Maydew, E. L., 2009. The Effects of Executives on Corporate Tax Avoidance. Working Paper. Everitt, B., S., 2003. The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. CUP. Graham, J.R., Lang, M.H., Shackelford, D.A., 2004. Employee stock options, corporate taxes, and debt policy. Journal of Finance, 59, 1585–1618. Graham, J.R., Tucker, A., 2006. Tax shelters and corporate debt policy. Journal of Financial Economics. 81, 563–594. Gravile, J. G., 2009. Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion. Congressional Research Service Report for US Congress. Grubbs, F. E., 1969. Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics, 11, 1–21 Hair, J., F., Anderson, R., Tatham, RL., Black, W., C., 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River. Hanlon, M., and S. Heitzman. 2009. A review of tax research. Working Paper. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hartzell, J.C., Starks, L.T., 2003. Institutional investors and executive compensation. Journal of Finance, 58, 2351–2374. John, Ch., Cleveland, W., Kleiner, B., Tukey, P., 1983. Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. Wadsworth. Kraus, and Litzenberger, R. H., 1973. A State-Preference Model of Optimal Financial Leverage. Journal of Finance, 911 – 922. Lim, Y.D., 2010. Tax Avoidance and Underleverage: Korean Evidence. Working Paper. University of New South Wales. Lim, Y. D., 2011. Tax avoidance, cost of debt and shareholder activism: Evidence from Korea. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35, 456 – 470. Mackie-Mason, J.K., 1990. Do taxes affect corporate financing decisions? Journal of Finance, 45, 1471–1493. Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance (revised), 2007, Securities Commission of Malaysia. Manzon Jr., G.B., Plesko, G.A., 2002. The relation between financial and tax reporting measures of income. Tax Law Review, 55, 175–214. Mironov, M., 2010. Tax Evasion and Growth: Evidence from Russia. Working Paper. Molina, C.A., 2005. Are firms underleveraged? An examination of the effect of leverage on default probabilities. Journal of Finance, 60, 1427–1459. Noor, R. M., Mastuki, N. a., 2009. Book-Tax Difference and Value Relevance of Taxable Income: Malaysian Evidence. Journal of Financial Reporting & Accounting, 7(2), 19-40. Noor, R. M., Fadzillah, N. S., Mastuki, N. A., 2010. Corporate Tax Planning: A Study on Corporate Effective Tax Rates of Malaysian Listed Companies. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 1(2), 189-193. Otusanya, O. J., (2011). The role of multinational companies in tax evasion and tax avoidance: The case of Nigeria. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(3), 316-332. Paetzold R., L., (1992). Multicollinearity and the use of regression analyses in discrimination litigation. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 10, 207–228. Pasternak, M., Rico, C., 2008. Tax Interpretation, Planning, and Avoidance: Some Linguistic Analysis. Akron Tax Journal, 33. Petersen, M.A., Rajan, R.G., 1994. The benefits of lending relationships: evidence from small business data. Journal of Finance, 49, 3–37. Phillips, J. D. 2003. Corporate tax-planning effectiveness: the role of compensation- based incentives. The Accounting Review, 78, 847-874. Pittman, J., Fortin, S., 2004. Auditor choice and the cost of debt capital for newly public firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37, 113–136. Plesko G. A., 2004. Corporate Tax Avoidance and the Properties of Corporate Earnings. National Tax Journal, 7, 1-20. Shackelford, D., Shevlin, T., 2001. Empirical tax research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 321–387. Sheather, S., J., Jones, M., C., 1991. A reliable data – based bandwith selection method for kernel density estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. B 53 (3), 683–690. Shleifer, A., Vishny, R., 1986. Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy, 94,461–488. Slemrod, J., 2004. The economics of corporate tax selfishness. National Tax Journal, 57, 877–99. Trezevant, R., 1992. Debt financing and tax status: tests of the substitution effect and the tax exhaustion hypothesis using firms responses to the economic recovery tax act of 1981. Journal of Finance, 47, 1557–1568. Wahab, N. A., Holland, K., 2011. Tax planning, Corporate Governance and Equity Value. Working paper Wang, X., 2010. Tax Avoidance, Corporate Transparency, and Firm Value. Working Paper. Wilson, R.J., 2009. An examination of corporate tax shelter participations. The Accounting Review, 84, 969–999. Zulkafli, A. H., Samad, M. F. A., Ismail, M. I., 2009. Corporate Governance in Malaysia. Working Paper.

Similar Items