Korean Academic Society of Business Administration
[ Article ]
korean management review - Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.919-961
ISSN: 1226-1874 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Aug 2018
Received 29 Dec 2017 Revised 30 Jul 2018 Accepted 02 Aug 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2018.47.3.919

세무위험이 감사보수 및 감사시간에 미치는 영향

박종일* ; 신상이**
*(주저자) 충북대학교 경영대학 경영학부 교수 parkjil@chungbuk.ac.kr
**(교신저자) 충북대학교 대학원 회계학과 박사과정 ssyend@naver.com
The Effect of Tax Risk on Audit Fees and Audit Hours
Jongil Park* ; Sangyi Shin**
*Professor, School of Business, Chungbuk National University, First Author
**Ph. D., Candidate, School of Business, Chungbuk National University, Corresponding Author

초록

본 연구는 상장기업을 대상으로 세무위험 측정치들이 감사인의 감사위험으로 반영되어 감사보수 및 감사시간을 증가시키는지 실증적으로 분석하였다. 특히, 본 연구는 세무위험 측정치로 네 가지를 살펴보았다. 첫 번째와 두 번째 측정치는 Dhaliwal, Lee, Pincus, and Steele(2017)에서 제안된 과거 5년간 과세소득의 변동성(이하 TI_VAR)과 회계이익과 과세소득 간의 5년간 상관성 정도(BT_COV)이고, 세 번째 측정치는 과거 5년간 CASH 및 GAAP 유효세율의 변동성(CASH 또는 GAAP ETR_VAR)이며, 네 번째 측정치는 과거 5년간 회계이익과 과세소득의 차이 변동성(BTD_VAR)이다. 이들 변수 중 TI_VAR, BT_COV 및 CASH ETR_VAR은 선행연구들에서 투자자 측면에서 기업위험과 관련성이 나타난 측정치이고(Hutchens and Rego, 2015; Dhaliwal et al., 2017; Guenther, Matsunaga, and Williams, 2017), BTD_VAR은 본 연구에서 새롭게 제안된 측정치이며, 이들 모두는 세무관련 불확실성을 나타낸다. 아울러 추가분석의 경우 앞서의 세무위험 측정치와 감사보수 및 감사시간과의 양(+)의 관계가 발생액의 질에 따라 차별적인지에 대해서도 살펴보았다. 분석을 위해 본 연구는 분석기간 2003년부터 2016년까지 금융업을 제외한 12월 결산법인 중 분석에 이용가능 했던 감사보수(감사시간)의 최종표본은 6,582개(6,584개) 기업/연 자료이다.

실증결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 감사보수와 감사시간에 영향을 주는 일정 변수를 통제한 후에도 과세소득의 변동성이 높거나, 회계이익과 과세소득 간의 상관성이 낮을수록 감사보수 및 감사시간 모두 유의적으로 높게 나타났다. 또한 이들 세무관련 변수들 간에 각각 추가적인 정보력이 있는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 앞서의 세무위험 측정치에 추가하여 ETR의 변동성을 포함하면 GAAP ETR_VAR은 감사보수 및 감사시간에 대해 각각 유의한 양(+)의 관계로 나타났으며, TI_VAR과 BT_COV는 여전히 유의한 양(+)의 관계를 보였다. 하지만 CASH ETR_VAR은 감사보수 및 감사시간에 대해 유의한 결과를 보이지 않았다. 셋째, 앞서 BT_COV와 ETR_VAR를 포함한 후에도 회계이익과 과세소득의 차이 변동성이 높은 기업은 감사보수 및 감사시간에 대해 유의한 양(+)의 관계를, 또한 GAAP ETR_VAR은 여전히 양(+)의 관계를 보였으나, BT_COV는 더 이상 유의한 관계를 보이지 않았다. 또한 추가분석에 따르면 전체표본을 다시 발생액의 질(AQ)을 기준으로 중위수에 따라 나누어 분석할 경우 발생액의 질이 높은 집단보다 낮은 집단일 때 앞서의 관계는 더 뚜렷한 양(+)의 관계로 나타났다. 이 결과는 낮은 발생액의 질이 주로 세무위험 측정치와 감사보수 및 감사시간 간의 양(+)의 관계에 영향을 준다는 것을 시사한다.

이상을 종합하면, 본 연구는 과세소득의 변동성, GAAP ETR의 변동성 및 BTD의 변동성이 클 때 감사인은 이를 감사위험으로 평가하여 감사보수뿐만 아니라 추가적인 감사노력이 투입된다는 것을 보여주었다는데 의의가 있다. 또한 세무위험을 다룬 선행연구들이 주로 투자자 측면의 기업위험과의 관계를 분석한 것과 달리, 본 연구는 이에 대해 감사인의 감사위험 측면에서 분석한 처음의 연구라는 점에서 의미가 있다. 아울러 본 연구는 앞서의 결과가 재무보고의 질이 낮을 때 더 뚜렷한 반응이 있음을 보여주었다. 따라서 본 연구결과는 감사보수 및 감사시간의 결정모형을 분석한 연구 및 세무위험과 기업위험 간의 관계를 다룬 관련연구에 추가적인 새로운 실증적 증거를 제공할 것으로 기대된다. 또한 본 연구의 발견은 국내 상장기업들에서의 세무위험이 감사위험으로 평가됨을 보여주고 있기 때문에 학계뿐 아니라 과세당국, 규제당국이나 정책당국에게도 유용한 시사점을 제공할 것으로 예상된다.

Abstract

This study investigates whether the relation between the tax risk and audit fees as well as audit hours. Specifically, we utilize tax risk measures that are designed to capture greater tax-related uncertainty, including each of four measures of firms risk related to the volatility of taxable income (hereafter TI_VAR), the covariance between taxable income and book income (hereafter BT_COV), the volatility of cash or GAAP effective tax rates (hereafter CASH ETR_VAR, GAAP ETR_VAR), and the volatility in book-tax differences (hereafter BTD_VAR) over five years (the current year and the previous four years). Each of these measures captures tax decisions that potentially impose significant costs on firms and thus, should influence the market’s assessment of future after-tax cash flows.

Recent research in the tax literature suggests that tax risk is an important construct, and numerous studies have introduced potential academic tax risk measures (e.g., Hutchens and Rego, 2015; Dhaliwal et al., 2017; Guenther et al., 2017 etc.). The effects of tax risk have been discussed in almost every decision context in the extant tax literature, but the relationship between tax risk and auditing has amazingly merited little attention. We explore the relationship between tax risk and auditor pricing as well as auditor effort measured as audit hours. In this study, we investigate whether greater tax risk is associated with increased audit risk, thus tax risk that affect audit pricing and auditors’ additional audit effort. Therefore, we test our prediction that auditors assess higher audit fees and audit hours on client with higher levels of tax risk. Thus, we test four hypotheses about the relation between tax risk and audit fees as well as audit hours. In additional analysis, we next examine whether the effect of tax risk according to accruals quality proposed by Francis et al.(2005) have differential impact on the audit risk by auditors.

For analysis, we consider four additional proxies for tax risk in our empirical tests. First, we follow Dhaliwal et al.(2017) use the volatility of taxable income (TI_VAR), which is the standard deviation of taxable income deflated by lagged total assets calculated for years t-4 through t. Second, we follow Dhaliwal et al.(2017) use the covariance between book income and taxable income (BT_COV), which is the correlation between pretax book income and taxable income deflated by lagged total assets calculated for years t-4 through t. Then, we measure BT_COV is (-1) times, thus higher value of BT_COV indicate increased tax risk. Third, we use the volatility of annual both cash effective tax rates or GAAP effective tax rates over the five prior years (CASH ETR_VAR, GAAP ETR_VAR), which is the standard deviation of cash taxes paid or tax expense divided by pretax income calculated over years t-4 through t as a proxy for tax risk from Hutchens and Rego(2015) and Guenther et al.(2017). Lastly, we use the volatility in book-tax differences (BTD_VAR), which is the standard deviation of book-tax difference scaled lagged total assets calculated over years t-4 through t as our fourth proxy of tax risk proposed by this study. This study sample covers KOSPI and KOSDAQ listed firms in non-financial industries with fiscal year-end in December from 2003 to 2016 period. Our main sample consists of 6,582(6,584) firm-year observations in audit fees (audit hours) data.

We document several findings. First, after controlling for several factors that affect audit fees and audit hours, we find evidence consistent with our hypothesis that there is a positive and significant association between TI_VAR and audit fees as well as audit hours. In addition, we find that there is a positive and significant association between BT_COV and audit fees as well as audit hours. This result suggests that auditors perceive the volatility of taxable income and will be decreasing in the covariance between book income and taxable income as a risk factor that they incorporate into audit fees and hours. Also, these results provide evidence that both TI_VAR and BT_COV provide incremental information about audit risk beyond the volatility of book income as a additional control variable in our test. Second, we also include the GAAP ETR_VAR in the model, we find evidence consistent with our hypothesis that there is a positive and significant association between GAAP ETR_VAR and audit fees as well as audit hours. Nevertheless, it is still positive and significant coefficient TI_VAR as well as BT_COV measures. In contrast, we include CASH ETR_VAR in the model, we find no significant association between CASH ETR_VAR and audit fees as well as audit hours. Third, we also include BTD_VAR, BT_COV, and ETR_VAR in th model, we find evidence consistent with our hypothesis that there is a positive and significant association between BTD_VAR and audit fees as well as audit hours. Nevertheless, it is still positive and significant coefficient GAAP ETR_VAR measures. In contrast, we find no significant association between BT_COV and audit fees as well as audit hours. This is, higher BT_COV do not appear to be associated with increased audit risk even when controlling for BTD_VAR and ETR_VAR, as a additional test variable in our test. Therefore, compared to BT_COV proxy, BTD_VAR is recognized as indicators of audit risk by auditors. Lastly, when we also divided the full samples into high accruals quality and low accruals quality subsamples, according to the median level of accruals quality, we find that a positive and significant relation between tax risk measures and audit fees as well as audit hours is more pronounced among low accruals quality samples than high accruals quality samples. Therefore, this results suggest that low accruals quality drives the association between tax risk and audit risk by auditors.

Overall, this study increases our understanding of which tax risk metrics capture tax-related uncertainties that lead to assessments by auditors of higher audit risk. In particular, our results suggest that the volatility of taxable income, the volatility of GAAP effective tax rates, and the volatility in book-tax differences over five years are superior proxies for a firm’s exposure to tax risk that leads to increased uncertainty about a firm’s future cash flows. Consequently, we shows that auditors, on average, perceive higher values for each of these tax risk metrics to be related to an increase in audit risk. More importantly, we find that the positive association between tax risk and audit fees as well as audit hours is more pronounced for firms with low-quality accruals. Thus, our study makes several contributions to the tax research as well as auditing literature. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to examine the relation between tax risk and audit fees as well as audit hours. Together, our research increases our understanding of which tax risk metrics capture tax-related uncertainties that lead to assessments by auditors of higher audit risk, which serves as an important empirical evidence to academics as well as investors, tax authorities, regulators, and policymakers may provide useful information.

Keywords:

Tax risk, Volatility of taxable income, Covariance between book income and taxable income, Volatility of CASH ETRs or GAAP ETRs, Volatility in BTDs, Accruals quality, Audit risk, Audit fees, Audit hours

키워드:

세무위험, 과세소득의 변동성, 회계이익과 과세소득의 상관성, 유효세율의 변동성, 회계이익과 과세소득의 차이 변동성, 발생액의 질, 감사보수, 감사시간

Acknowledgments

본 논문에 유익한 제언을 해 주신 익명의 두 심사자께 감사를 표한다. 첫 번째 저자는 삼정KPMG의 연구비 지원에 감사드린다.

References

  • 강승구·김진수·고종권(2017), “조세회피와 세무위험이 내재자본비용에 미치는 영향,” 회계저널, 26(5), 311-346.
  • 강정연·고종권(2014), “기업지배구조가 조세회피와 기업가치의 관계에 미치는 영향,” 회계학연구, 39(1), 147-183.
  • 고종권·윤성수·강정연·이광숙(2013), “실증세무연구의 개관,” 회계학연구, 38(2): 367-446.
  • 곽수근·박종일(2010), “유가증권상장, 코스닥등록 및 비상장기업의 감사보수 결정요인에 관한 비교분석,” 회계저널, 19(4), 197-230.
  • 권수영·기은선(2011), “발생액의 질이 감사시간 및 감사보수에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구,” 회계학연구, 36(4), 95-137.
  • 권수영·김문철(2001), “감사보수의 결정요인과 감사보수체계 변화로 인한 효과분석,” 회계학연구, 26(2), 115-143.
  • 권수영·김문철·정태진(2005), “감사시간과 감사품질이 감사보수에 미치는 영향,” 회계학연구, 30(4), 47-76.
  • 기은선(2012), “기업의 사회적 책임활동이 조세회피 및 조세회피에 대한 시장반응에 미치는 영향,” 세무학연구, 29(2), 107-136.
  • 김은주·조용언(2012), “조세회피와 감사품질과 타인자본비용의 관련성,” 국제회계연구, 44, 279-300.
  • 김임현·이윤경(2017), “현금유효세율의 변동성과 세무조사 적발위험,” 세무학연구, 34(4), 9-34.
  • 김진수·고종권(2016), “조세회피와 세무위험이 기업가치에 미치는 영향,” 세무학연구, 33(3), 267-298.
  • 김진수·김임현(2016), “조세회피가 정보비대칭에 미치는 영향: 대형회계법인과 재무분석가의 외부감시효과를 중심으로,” 세무학연구, 33(3), 111-141.
  • 박범진(2014), “재무분석가의 이익예측치에 따른 이익조정이 감사보수에 미치는 영향,” 회계연구, 19(1), 73-101.
  • 박승식·장지인·정길채·배성태(2006), “기업지배구조와 이익조정의 관련성에 대한 실증연구,” 회계정보연구, 24(1), 213-241.
  • 박시연·유관희·유승원(2012), “경영자 예측정보와 감사보수 및 감사시간,” 회계와 감사연구, 55, 65-104.
  • 박종일·박찬웅(2007), “비정상 감사보수와 감사품질이 비정상 감사시간에 미치는 영향,” 회계와 감사연구, 45, 119-159.
  • 박종일·지승민(2016a), “기업의 세무보고 공격성 여부가 회사채 신용등급에 영향을 주는가?,” 회계저널, 25(3), 55-97.
  • 박종일·지승민(2016b), “세무보고 공격성이 감사인이 인지한 기대감사시간, 실제 감사보수 및 감사시간에 미치는 영향,” 회계저널, 25(2), 389-434.
  • 박종일·지승민·신재은(2016), “세무보고 공격성이 재무분석가의 이익예측오차에 미치는 영향,” 경영학연구, 45(6), 1859-1900.
  • 박종일·지승민·신재은(2017), “세무보고 공격성이 발생액의 질에 미치는 영향: 발생액의 질의 구성요소를 중심으로,” 경영학연구, 46(3), 715-753.
  • 신용인·최 관·조현우(2007), “초도감사 보수할인이 감사품질에 미치는 영향,” 회계학연구, 32(1), 173-207.
  • 심충진(2009), “조세회피와 회계감사 보수의 관련성에 관한 연구,” 회계와 감사연구, 50, 1-22.
  • 이창섭·최우석·배성호(2012), “실제이익조정활동과 감사시간 및 감사보수,” 경영학연구, 41(4), 757-787.
  • 전규안·김철환(2008), “회계이익과 과세소득의 차이 계산시 과세소득의 측정방법에 관한 연구,” 세무회계저널, 9(3), 167-190.
  • 전규안·박종일(2009), “회계이익과 과세소득의 차이와 발생액 정보가 감사시간과 감사보수에 미치는 영향,” 경영학연구, 38(2), 319-350.
  • 최 관·백원선(2007), “현금전환가능성에 따른 발생액의 질과 시장이상현상,” 회계학연구, 32(2), 1-26.
  • Balakrishnan, K., J. Blouin, and W. Guay(2012), “Does Tax Aggressiveness Reduce Financial Reporting Transparency?,” Working paper, University of Pennsylvania. [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1792783]
  • Bell, T., B., W. R. Landsman, and D. A. Shackelford (2001), “Auditors’ Perceived Business Risk and Audit Fees: Analysis and Evidence,” Journal of Accounting Research, 39(10), 35-43. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00002]
  • Bratten, B., C. Gleason, S. Larocque, and L. Mills (2017), “Forecasting Taxes: New Evidence from Analysts,” The Accounting Review, 92(3), 1-29. [https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51557]
  • Choi, J. H., J. B. Kim, and Y. Zang(2010), “Do Abnormally High Audit Fees Impair Audit Quality,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29(2), 115-140. [https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2010.29.2.115]
  • Desai, M. and D. Dharmapala(2006), “Corporate Tax Avoidance and High Powered Incentives,” Journal of Financial Economics, 79, 145-179. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2005.02.002]
  • Dhaliwal, D. S., G. Lee, M. Pincus, and L. B. Steele (2017), “Taxable Income and Firm Risk,” The Journal of The American Taxation Association, 39(1), 1-24. [https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-51610]
  • Donohoe, M. P. and W. R. Knechel(2014), “Does Corporate Tax Aggressiveness Influence Audit Pricing?,” Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(1), 284-308. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12027]
  • Drake, K., S. Lusch, and J. Stekelberg(2017), “Does Tax Risk Affect Investor Valuation of Tax Avoidance?,” Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Fiance, 32(1), 1-26. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X17692674]
  • Dyreng, S., M. Hanlon, and E. Maydew(2008), “Long-run Corporate Tax Avoidance,” The Accounting Review, 83(1), 61-82. [https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2008.83.1.61]
  • Dyreng, S., M. Hanlon, and E. Maydew(2014), “Rolling the Dice: When does Tax Avoidance Result in Tax Uncertainty? Working Paper, Duke University. [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374945]
  • Fernando, G. D., R. J. Elder, and A. M. Abdel-Meguid(2008), “Audit Quality Attributes, Client Size and Cost of Capital,” Working Paper, Syracuse University. [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.817286]
  • Francis, J., R. LaFond, P. Olsson, and K. Schipper (2005), “The Market Pricing of Accruals Quality,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(2), 295-327. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.06.003]
  • Frank, M. M., L. J. Lynch, and S. O. Rego(2009), “Tax Reporting Aggressiveness and its Relation to Aggressive Financial Reporting,” The Accounting Review, 84(2), 467-496. [https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.2.467]
  • Guenther, D. A., S. R. Matsunaga, and B. M. Williams (2017), “Is Tax Avoidance Related to Firm Risk?,” The Accounting Review, 92(1), 115-136. [https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51408]
  • Gul, F. A., C. J. P. Chen, and J. S. L. Tsui(2003), “Discretionary Accounting Accruals, Managers’ Incentives, and Audit Fees,” Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(3), 441-464. [https://doi.org/10.1506/686E-NF2J-73X6-G540]
  • Hamilton, R. and J. Steklberg(2017), “The Effect of High-quality Information Technology on Corporate Tax Avoidance and Tax Risk,” Journal of Information Systems, 31(2), 83-106. [https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-51482]
  • Hanlon, M. and J. Slemrod(2009), “What Does Tax Aggressiveness Signal? Evidence from Stock Price Reaction to News about Tax Shelter Involvement,” Journal of Public Economics, 93, 126-141. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.09.004]
  • Hanlon, M. and S. Heitzman(2010), “A Review of Tax Research,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50, 127-178. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.09.002]
  • Hanlon, M. G. Krishnan, and L. Mills(2012), “Audit Fees and Book-tax Differences,” Journal of the American Taxation Association, 34(1), 55-86. [https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-10184]
  • Hanlon, M.(2005), “The Persistence and Pricing of Earnings, Accruals and Cash Flows when Firms Have Large Book-tax Differences,” The Accounting Review, 80(1), 137-166. [https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2005.80.1.137]
  • Hanlon, M., E. Maydew, and D. Saavedra(2017), “The Taxman Cometh: Does Tax Uncertainty Affect Corporate Cash Holdings?,” Review of Accounting Studies, 22(3), 1198-1228. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-017-9398-y]
  • Hasan, I., C. K. Hoi, Q. Wu, and H. Zhang(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), 109-130. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.03.004]
  • Heltzer, W. and S. Shelton(2015), “Book-tax differences and audit risk: Evidence from the United States,” Journal of Accounting, Ethics &Public Policy, 16(4), 691-733.
  • Hutchens, M., and S. O. Rego(2015), “Does greater tax risk lead to increased firm risk?,” Working paper, University of Illinois.
  • Kim, J., Y. Li. and L. Zhang(2011), “Corporate Tax Avoidance and Stock Price Crash Risk: Firm-level Analysis,” Journal of Financial Economics, 100, 639-662. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.07.007]
  • Kothari, S. P., A. J. Leone, and C. E. Wasley(2005), “Performance Matched Discretionary Accrual Measures,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39, 163-197. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.11.002]
  • Lawson, B. and D. Wang(2016), “The Earnings Quality Information Content of Dividend Policies and Audit Pricing,” Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(4), 1685-1719. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12179]
  • Neuman, S. S., T. C. Omer, and A. P. Schmidt (2015), “Assessing Tax Risk: Practitioner Perspectives,” Working paper, University of Missouri-Columbia [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2579354]
  • Palmrose, Z. V.(1989), “The Relation of Audit Contract Type to Audit Fees and Hours,” The Accounting Review, 64(3), 488-500.
  • Simunic, D. A.(1980), “The Pricing of Audit Service: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 161-190. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2490397]
  • Slemrod, J.(2004), “The Economics of Corporate Tax Selfishness,” National Tax Journal, 57, 877-899. [https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2004.4.06]

• 저자 박종일은 충북대학교 경영대학 경영학부의 재무회계 전공 교수로 재직 중이며, 현재 삼정KPMG 회계법인의 ACI(Audit Committee Institute) 교수이다. 홍익대학교 경영대학 경영학부를 졸업하였으며, 동 대학의 대학원에서 경영학석사 및 박사학위(경영학 전공)를 취득하였다. 주요 연구분야는 이익의 질, 감사품질, 회계이익과 과세소득의 차이, 조세회피, 기업지배구조, 재무분석가의 이익예측치의 특성 등이다.

• 저자 신상이는 현재 충북대학교 경영대학 박사과정에 재학 중이다. 대진대학교 경영학과를 졸업하였으며, 충북대학교 대학원에서 회계학과 석사학위를 취득한 후, 동 대학원의 박사과정을 이수한 후 졸업논문을 준비 중에 있다. 주요 연구분야는 이익의 질, 재무분석가의 이익예측치의 특성, 조세회피, 세무위험, 감사위험 등이다.