税负粘性:一个诠释企业税负痛感的新视角
|
摘要
本文利用中国A股制造业上市公司2007-2016年的面板数据,尝试从企业税负与业绩之间的动态运动关系来揭示企业税负痛感产生的内在动因。研究表明,在税制结构、税收转嫁困境和稳定性经营三因素作用下企业税负相对于业绩呈现出粘性特征,即相对于业绩上升所带来的税负增加大于业绩下降所引起的税负减少。税负粘性是税负痛感产生的内在动因,为解释企业税负痛感提供了理论支撑。进一步研究发现,市场地位、产权性质、避税行为和成长性等因素会影响企业税负粘性程度,具体表现为市场地位越高、国有企业、避税程度越小和具有成长性的企业具有更强的税负粘性,从而在业绩下降时承受更大的税负痛感。研究结论有利于企业理性对待当前的税负状态,也为税制改革提供参考。
Based on the panel data of Chinese A-share manufacturing listed companies from 2007 to 2016,this paper attempts to reveal the intrinsic motivation of corporate tax pain from the dynamic relationship between corporate tax burden and operating performance. The results show that under three factors of tax structure,tax transfer dilemma and stable operation,the tax burden of enterprises is sticky relative to performance,that is,the increase of tax burden relative to performance is greater than the decrease of tax burden caused by performance decline. The stickiness of tax burden is the intrinsic motivation of corporate tax burden"pain",which provides theoretical support for explaining the pain of enterprise tax burden. Further research finds that many factors such as market status,property rights,tax avoidance behavior and corporate growth will affect the degree of tax stickiness,specifically enterprises with higher market position,stateowned enterprises,enterprises with lower tax avoidance degree,growth-oriented enterprises have stronger tax stickiness,which will bear greater tax pain when performance declines. The conclusion of the study is helpful for enterprises to treat the current tax burden rationally,and also provides a reference for tax system reform.
Based on the panel data of Chinese A-share manufacturing listed companies from 2007 to 2016,this paper attempts to reveal the intrinsic motivation of corporate tax pain from the dynamic relationship between corporate tax burden and operating performance. The results show that under three factors of tax structure,tax transfer dilemma and stable operation,the tax burden of enterprises is sticky relative to performance,that is,the increase of tax burden relative to performance is greater than the decrease of tax burden caused by performance decline. The stickiness of tax burden is the intrinsic motivation of corporate tax burden"pain",which provides theoretical support for explaining the pain of enterprise tax burden. Further research finds that many factors such as market status,property rights,tax avoidance behavior and corporate growth will affect the degree of tax stickiness,specifically enterprises with higher market position,stateowned enterprises,enterprises with lower tax avoidance degree,growth-oriented enterprises have stronger tax stickiness,which will bear greater tax pain when performance declines. The conclusion of the study is helpful for enterprises to treat the current tax burden rationally,and also provides a reference for tax system reform.
引文
[1]陈冬,孔墨奇,王红建.投我以桃,报之以李:经济周期与国企避税[J].管理世界,2016(5):46-62.
[2]程宏伟,吴晓娟.税制结构、股权性质及企业税负粘性[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版),2018(4):77-86.
[3]丛屹,周怡君.当前我国税制的“税负刚性”特征、效应及政策建议[J].南方经济,2017(6):53-63.
[4]方军雄.我国上市公司高管的薪酬存在粘性吗?[J].经济研究,2009(3):110-124.
[5]费方域.契约人假定和交易成本的决定因素[J].外国经济与管理,1996(5):26-29.
[6]冯延超.中国民营企业政治关联与税收负担关系的研究[J].管理评论,2012(6):167-176.
[7]高培勇.论完善税收制度的新阶段[J].经济研究,2015(2):4-15.
[8]李文.税制结构与我国企业税收负担[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版),2017(5):16-24.
[9]刘骏,刘峰.财政集权、政府控制与企业税负[J].会计研究,2014(1):21-27.
[10]刘行,赵健宇,叶康涛.企业避税、债务融资与债务融资来源[J].管理世界,2017(10):113-129.
[11]刘媛媛,刘斌.劳动保护、成本粘性与企业应对[J].经济研究,2014(5):63-76.
[12]马海涛,段琦.“供给侧”财政改革背景下的税制重构[J].苏州大学学报,2016(3):100-109.
[13]庞凤喜,张念明.供给侧结构性改革导向下我国企业税负优化及操作路径研究[J].经济与管理评论,2017(1):83-94.
[14]朴哲范,肖赵华.中小板上市公司增长与盈利能力动态相互影响研究[J].管理世界,2015(5):184-185.
[15]钱金保,常汝用.“死亡税率”还是言过其实——中国企业微观税负测度[J].地方财政研究,2018(1):62-70,81.
[16]秦皓楠,程宏伟,彭茜.会计-税收差异与企业税负粘性[J].商会会计,2018(3):9-12.
[17]王雄元,欧阳才越,史震阳.股权质押、控制权转移风险与税收规避[J].经济研究,2018(1):138-152.
[18]吴联生.国有股权、税收优惠与公司税负[J].经济研究,2009(10):109-119.
[19] Anderson,M. C.,R. D. Banker,S. Janakiraman. Are Selling,General,and Administrative Costs“Sticky”?[J]. journal of accounting research,2003(1):47-63.
[20] Banker,R.D.,D.Byzalov,Chen Lei. Employment protection legislation,adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior[J]. journal of accounting research,2013(55):111-127.
[21] Dechow,M.,G.Sloan,P.Sweeney. Detecting Earnings Management[J]. The Accounting Review,1995,70(3):193-225.
[22] Desai,M. A.,D. Dharmapala. Corporate Tax Avoidance and High-Powered Incentives[J]. Journal of Financial Economics,2006(1):145-179.
[23] Faccio M. Differences between Politically Connected and Nonconnected Firms:A Cross-Country Analysis[J]. Financial Management,2010(3):905-928.
[24] Gupta,S.,K.Newberry.Determinants of the variability in corporate effective tax rate:evidence from longitudinal data[J]. journal of accounting and public policy,1997(25):265-288.
[25] Jones J. Earnings Management During Import Relief Investigation[J]. Journal of Accounting Research,1991(2):193-228.
[26] Plesko,G.A.An Evaluation of Alternative Measures of Corporate Tax Rates[J].Journal of Accounting and Economics,2003(2):20l-226.
[27] Subramanian C.,M. Weidenmier. Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs[J]. Working Paper,2003(2):1-32.
[28] Wilkie P.Corporate average effective tax rates and inferences about relative tax preferences[J]. Journal of the American Taxation Association,1988,10(1):75-88.
[2]程宏伟,吴晓娟.税制结构、股权性质及企业税负粘性[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版),2018(4):77-86.
[3]丛屹,周怡君.当前我国税制的“税负刚性”特征、效应及政策建议[J].南方经济,2017(6):53-63.
[4]方军雄.我国上市公司高管的薪酬存在粘性吗?[J].经济研究,2009(3):110-124.
[5]费方域.契约人假定和交易成本的决定因素[J].外国经济与管理,1996(5):26-29.
[6]冯延超.中国民营企业政治关联与税收负担关系的研究[J].管理评论,2012(6):167-176.
[7]高培勇.论完善税收制度的新阶段[J].经济研究,2015(2):4-15.
[8]李文.税制结构与我国企业税收负担[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版),2017(5):16-24.
[9]刘骏,刘峰.财政集权、政府控制与企业税负[J].会计研究,2014(1):21-27.
[10]刘行,赵健宇,叶康涛.企业避税、债务融资与债务融资来源[J].管理世界,2017(10):113-129.
[11]刘媛媛,刘斌.劳动保护、成本粘性与企业应对[J].经济研究,2014(5):63-76.
[12]马海涛,段琦.“供给侧”财政改革背景下的税制重构[J].苏州大学学报,2016(3):100-109.
[13]庞凤喜,张念明.供给侧结构性改革导向下我国企业税负优化及操作路径研究[J].经济与管理评论,2017(1):83-94.
[14]朴哲范,肖赵华.中小板上市公司增长与盈利能力动态相互影响研究[J].管理世界,2015(5):184-185.
[15]钱金保,常汝用.“死亡税率”还是言过其实——中国企业微观税负测度[J].地方财政研究,2018(1):62-70,81.
[16]秦皓楠,程宏伟,彭茜.会计-税收差异与企业税负粘性[J].商会会计,2018(3):9-12.
[17]王雄元,欧阳才越,史震阳.股权质押、控制权转移风险与税收规避[J].经济研究,2018(1):138-152.
[18]吴联生.国有股权、税收优惠与公司税负[J].经济研究,2009(10):109-119.
[19] Anderson,M. C.,R. D. Banker,S. Janakiraman. Are Selling,General,and Administrative Costs“Sticky”?[J]. journal of accounting research,2003(1):47-63.
[20] Banker,R.D.,D.Byzalov,Chen Lei. Employment protection legislation,adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior[J]. journal of accounting research,2013(55):111-127.
[21] Dechow,M.,G.Sloan,P.Sweeney. Detecting Earnings Management[J]. The Accounting Review,1995,70(3):193-225.
[22] Desai,M. A.,D. Dharmapala. Corporate Tax Avoidance and High-Powered Incentives[J]. Journal of Financial Economics,2006(1):145-179.
[23] Faccio M. Differences between Politically Connected and Nonconnected Firms:A Cross-Country Analysis[J]. Financial Management,2010(3):905-928.
[24] Gupta,S.,K.Newberry.Determinants of the variability in corporate effective tax rate:evidence from longitudinal data[J]. journal of accounting and public policy,1997(25):265-288.
[25] Jones J. Earnings Management During Import Relief Investigation[J]. Journal of Accounting Research,1991(2):193-228.
[26] Plesko,G.A.An Evaluation of Alternative Measures of Corporate Tax Rates[J].Journal of Accounting and Economics,2003(2):20l-226.
[27] Subramanian C.,M. Weidenmier. Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs[J]. Working Paper,2003(2):1-32.
[28] Wilkie P.Corporate average effective tax rates and inferences about relative tax preferences[J]. Journal of the American Taxation Association,1988,10(1):75-88.