THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW

Vol. 83, No. 1

2008
pp. 61–82

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance

Scott D. Dyreng
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Michelle Hanlon
University of Michigan
Edward L. Maydew
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ABSTRACT: We develop and describe a new measure of long-run corporate tax avoid-
ance that is based on the ability to pay a low amount of cash taxes per dollar of
pre-tax earnings over long time periods. We label this measure the ‘‘long-run cash
effective tax rate.’’ We use the long-run cash effective tax rate to examine (1) the extent
to which some firms are able to avoid taxes over periods as long as ten years, and (2)
how predictive one-year tax rates are for long-run tax avoidance. In our sample of
2,077 firms, we find there is considerable cross-sectional variation in tax avoidance.
For example, approximately one-fourth of our sample firms are able to maintain long-
run cash effective tax rates below 20 percent, compared to a sample mean tax rate of
approximately 30 percent. We also find that annual cash effective tax rates are not very
good predictors of long-run cash effective tax rates and, thus, are not accurate proxies
for long-run tax avoidance. While there is some evidence of persistence in annual cash
effective tax rates, the persistence is asymmetric. Low annual cash effective tax rates
are more persistent than are high annual cash effective tax rates. An initial examination
of characteristics of firms successful at keeping their cash effective tax rates low over
long periods shows that they are well spread across industries but with some
clustering.
Keywords: effective tax rate; tax persistence; cash tax; long-run tax avoidance.
Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources identified
in the paper.

We thank two anonymous referees, Dan Dhaliwal (editor), George Plesko (discussant), Terry Shevlin, and workshop
participants at the Columbia University Burton Workshop, the 2005 Annual National Tax Association Meetings,
Northwestern University, University of Michigan Public Finance Seminar, Washington University in St. Louis, and
the 2006 Brigham Young University Accounting Research Symposium for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Mr. Dyreng appreciates funding from the Deloitte Doctoral Fellowship. Professor Hanlon appreciates funding from
the Ernst & Young Faculty Fellowship at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan and the Bank
One Corporation Foundation. Professor Maydew appreciates funding from the David E. Hoffman Chair.
Editor’s note: This paper was accepted by Dan Dhaliwal.
Submitted January 2006
Accepted May 2007

61
62 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

I. INTRODUCTION

W
e develop and describe a new measure of corporate long-run tax avoidance. We
use this measure to investigate (1) the extent to which some firms are able to
avoid taxes over periods as long as ten years, and (2) how predictive one-year
tax rates are for tax avoidance in the long run. We measure tax avoidance as the ability to
pay a low amount of cash income taxes (as opposed to GAAP tax expense that one would
find on a firm’s income statement) relative to corporate pre-tax earnings. We are interested
in firms’ global tax avoidance, i.e., the combined effects of income taxes in all jurisdic-
tions in which the firm does business. Accordingly, we compute our cash effective tax rate
measure as the ratio of cash taxes paid across all jurisdictions (domestic, foreign, and state
and local) to the firm’s worldwide pretax book income. We measure the cash effective tax
rate for firms over periods ranging from one to ten years—with the ten-year measure being
the sum of cash taxes paid over ten years divided by the sum of pretax book income over
those same ten years. We refer to the ten-year rate as the ‘‘long-run cash effective tax rate.1
It is important to emphasize that tax avoidance does not necessarily imply that firms
are engaging in anything improper. There are numerous provisions in the tax code that
allow and/or encourage firms to reduce their taxes. In addition, in practice there are many
areas in which the law is unclear, particularly for complex transactions, and firms may take
positions on their returns in which the ultimate tax outcome is uncertain. For purposes of
this study, we define tax avoidance broadly as anything that reduces the firm’s cash effective
tax rate over a long time period, i.e., ten years.2 Thus, our measure will reflect both tax
reductions that are squarely in compliance with the law as well as those that result from
gray-area interpretations.3
Our paper is descriptive in nature as we examine the properties of this new measure,
assess whether long-run tax avoidance occurs, and investigate whether a measure commonly
used in research, the annual effective tax rate, is predictive of our long-run tax avoidance
measure. We do not test specific hypotheses about firms’ propensities to avoid taxes, leaving
that for future research. Rather, we attempt to improve upon the measurement of tax avoid-
ance, specifically in the long run, and evaluate whether firms can indeed avoid taxes over
a long period of time.
Our examination of long-run cash effective tax rates reveals that during the period
1995–2004 the mean (median) ten-year cash effective tax rate is 29.6 percent (28.3 percent).
We are most interested in those firms that are able to hold their cash effective tax rates
well below the mean and median. We find that 546 publicly traded firms, representing
approximately 26.3 percent of our sample, have a ten-year cash effective tax rate at or
below 20 percent during the period 1995–2004.4 Moreover, 9.2 percent of the sample is
able to maintain a ten-year cash effective tax rate at or below 10 percent.5 This evidence

1
We consider five-year time periods as a long-run measure as well. The annual rates are considered short-run
rates.
2
While no measure of tax avoidance is perfect, an important advantage of the long-run perspective is to allow
time for uncertain tax positions to be audited and challenged by the IRS. We discuss this point further below.
3
We use the term ‘‘avoidance’’ rather than tax sheltering, tax evasion, or tax aggressiveness because we do not
intend to imply any wrongdoing on the part of the firm, but rather that the firm is able to avoid paying taxes
on the income it reports to shareholders over a long period of time through all means.
4
We define ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘high’’ rates below. However, generally for low-rate firms we include those firms with a
rate of 20 percent or less and for high-rate firms we include firms with a rate of greater than 40 percent. We
do not intend to imply that there is a ‘‘normal’’ rate that firms should be paying, but rather we just include firms
at the ends of the distributions as either low or high.
5
The top U.S. statutory rate was constant during this ten-year period at 35 percent. We mention this only as a
point of reference for the reader.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 63

suggests that there is a sizeable subset of firms that are able to avoid corporate income
taxes over long periods of time.
We examine annual cash effective tax rates to investigate to what extent they persist
and, thus, how useful they are at reflecting long-run tax avoidance. We find that on average
the annual rates exhibit some persistence over time, but that the persistence is asymmetric.
Low annual effective tax rates are more persistent than are high annual effective tax rates.
Despite evidence of persistence in annual effective tax rates, there is considerable variation
in them both across firms and across time. The data reveal that annual effective tax rates
are not very good predictors of long-run effective tax rates and thus, are not accurate proxies
for long-run tax avoidance. Finally, firms with low long-run effective tax rates come from
a variety of industries, though there is some clustering in certain industries, e.g., petroleum
and natural gas.6
Corporate tax avoidance has received much attention throughout the last 25 years. For
example, evidence of corporate tax avoidance led to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the
largest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in history. More recently, a number of commentators
have perceived a resurgence in corporate tax avoidance activities (e.g., Bankman 2004).
Researchers have employed a number of approaches to shed light on tax avoidance, in-
cluding examining book-tax differences for the aggregate corporate sector (U.S. Department
of the Treasury 1999), in publicly traded firms (Plesko 2000; Manzon and Plesko 2002;
Desai 2003; Yin 2003; Hanlon and Shevlin 2005; Hanlon et al. 2005) and using tabulated
tax return data (Mills et al. 2002; Plesko 2002; Plesko 2004). What is common to these
prior studies is that they focus on annual measures of avoidance. Thus, we do not know if
the same firms are avoiding taxes year after year or whether tax avoidance is a transitory
phenomena based on a particular set of circumstances (e.g., divesting a line of business in
a tax-favored manner). Using a long-run measure of tax avoidance we are able to examine
whether firms are able to avoid taxes over a longer period of time.
We believe our measure will be useful to several groups. Tax researchers can use our
measure (or perhaps slight variations depending on the research question) to address a
number of questions. For example, Frischmann et al. (2007) use our measure to test whether
firms with low effective tax rates have more adverse market reactions surrounding events
related to changes in accounting rules for tax contingencies than firms with high effective
tax rates. Blouin and Tuna (2006) use our measure to investigate whether another variable
(i.e., the estimate of the tax contingency reserve) is associated with tax avoidance. In
addition, Ayers, Jiang, and Laplante (2007) and Ayers, Laplante, and McGuire (2007) use
our measure to classify firms as high tax planning firms when investigating taxable income
as a performance measure and when examining whether book-tax differences are associated
with credit rating changes.
Financial accounting researchers and people who teach financial statement analysis may
be interested to know the extent of cross-sectional variation that exists in long-run tax
avoidance. This same group also may find it noteworthy that annual effective tax rates
appear to vary greatly but have only modest ability to predict long-run avoidance. There
appears to be demand for information about the effective tax rate for firm valuation and
financial statement analysis. For example, Swenson (1999) conjectures that the stock market

6
Oil and gas firms are the beneficiaries of tax incentives designed to encourage oil exploration and production.
Conversely, oil and gas firms may face political pressure during times of high oil prices that could cause them
to forgo tax-planning opportunities and at times has subjected them to additional taxes (e.g., the Windfall Profits
Tax of the 1970s). Because our sample period is mainly one of low oil prices we do not predict high political
costs for oil and gas firms, in line with Watts and Zimmerman’s (1986) observation that political costs vary
with economic conditions.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

64 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

views low-tax firms as better at controlling costs than their high-tax counterparts. In addi-
tion, Lev and Thiagarajan (1993) and Abarbanell and Bushee (1997) both include a measure
of the effective tax rate as a fundamental signal in trying to predict future earnings changes.
Policymakers may find the results useful in appreciating the extent of variation that
exists across firms in cash effective tax rates even when measured over a ten-year period.
Policymakers may also find the measure useful when determining whether a particular
industry or type of firm should have more or fewer tax breaks.7
The paper proceeds as follows. Section II discusses prior related research. Section III
describes our measure of tax avoidance in detail and discusses the differences between our
measure and effective tax rate measures from firms’ financial statements. Section IV pro-
vides a description of our sample, tests, and results. Section V concludes.

II. RELATED RESEARCH

There are two lines of research that are highly relevant for this paper. The first consists
of studies that examine variation in annual effective tax rates.8 The second investigates the
causes and consequences of book-tax differences.9
There is a long line of research that examines variation in annual effective tax rates
and examines the factors associated with effective tax rates (see Callihan [1994] and
Shackelford and Shevlin [2001] for summaries). For example, Zimmerman (1983) examines
firm size (as a component/proxy for a firm’s political cost) and the association with effective
tax rates. Zimmerman (1983) reports that firm size is positively associated with a firm’s
effective tax rate consistent with the political cost hypothesis (see also Gupta and Newberry
1997). Other studies have also included an examination of firm size and annual effective
tax rate measures. The evidence from these studies is mixed, i.e., some studies observe a
negative relation (e.g., Siegfried 1974; Porcano 1986), others report a positive relation (e.g.,
Rego 2003), and still others no association (e.g., Stickney and McGee 1982; Shevlin and
Porter 1992; Gupta and Newberry 1997). In other work, Mills et al. (1998) examine firms’
investments in tax planning and as part of their analyses they investigate the returns to
firms’ investments in terms of effects on the firm’s effective tax rate.
There has also been politically motivated research on corporate effective tax rates. For
example, the Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) published a series of studies that provide a
good example of how effective tax rates have been used in tax policy debates. Based on
effective tax rate calculations, in each of their studies, the CTJ claims that the largest U.S.
corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes. The CTJ studies are widely believed
to have influenced many of the sweeping changes in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, arguably
the largest corporate tax reform in U.S. history. The CTJ studies use annual effective tax
rates and three-year average effective tax rates, but only for U.S. taxes and only for around
250 firms per study.
None of these studies have examined long-run effective tax rates nor have they utilized
cash taxes paid rather than the firm’s tax expense reported on the firm’s income statement.
While it may be possible for firms to avoid taxes in the short run, it is not clear if firms
are able to avoid taxes over the long run.

7
Companies may also be interested in this measure as a way of benchmarking to their peers. Evidence exists
that firms compete in terms of tax rates. For example, in a Forbes article on tax sheltering a shelter promoter
revealed that ‘‘A potential client once said that he would hire the firm if we could get his tax rate down, because
it was higher than their competitors’ and they were embarrassed’’ (Novack and Saunders 1998).
8
See Rego (2003), Mills et al. (1998), Collins and Shackelford (1995), Gupta and Newberry (1997), Shevlin and
Porter (1992), Wilkie (1988), Dhaliwal et al. (1992), and others (see Callihan [1994] for a review).
9
See Hanlon (2005), Mills (1998), Guenther et al. (1997), Manzon and Plesko (2002), and others.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 65

The second line of research that is related to our paper is the extensive literature on
book-tax differences. Firms successful at long-run tax avoidance are likely, though not
necessarily, also firms that are able to sustain large differences between GAAP income and
taxable income. Book-tax differences and tax avoidance are not exactly the same because
tax avoidance can take place in many forms, including generating tax credits and shifting
income to low-tax jurisdictions. Nevertheless, we expect an association between tax avoid-
ance and book-tax differences.10
Just as we are aware of no prior study of long-run tax avoidance, we are aware of no
study of long-run book-tax differences. There have been a number of studies that investigate
causes and consequences of book-tax differences (for example, Manzon and Plesko 2002).
Other studies use the unexplained portion of the book-tax difference as a measure of po-
tential tax sheltering (Desai and Dharmapala 2007). Finally, Frank et al. (2006) use an
estimate of a firm’s permanent differences as a measure of tax-reporting aggressiveness in
their investigation of whether firms are simultaneously aggressive for tax reporting and
financial reporting. All of these studies use annual measures of book-tax differences.
In addition, several recent papers provide evidence that book-tax differences contain
information about financial accounting earnings quality (i.e., earnings management) and not
just tax aggressiveness (see Mills and Newberry 2001; Phillips et al. 2003; Hanlon 2005;
Badertscher et al. 2006). Moreover, accounting textbooks and recent studies also investigate
the potential link between book-tax differences and firm value (e.g., Revsine et al. 1999;
Hanlon 2005; Lev and Nissim 2004). Again, however, none of these studies focus on long-
run measures. It is to this task that we now turn.

III. MEASURING LONG-RUN TAX AVOIDANCE

Problems with Annual GAAP Effective Tax Rates
To understand how we measure long-run tax avoidance it is useful to first consider the
annual GAAP effective tax rate and what it does and does not capture. The GAAP effective
tax rate, which firms are required to disclose in the notes to their financial statements, is
the ratio of total tax expense to pretax income. Thus, the GAAP effective tax rate for a
given firm i for year t (GAAP ETRit) is given by:

Tax expenseit
GAAP ETRit ⫽ . (1)
Pretax incomeit

The first problem with the GAAP ETR as a measure of tax avoidance is that it is based
on only annual data. There can be significant year-to-year variation in annual effective tax
rates, as well as undefined effective tax rates due to negative denominators, that can obscure
inferences about a firm’s tax avoidance. Second, under SFAS No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes, tax expense is composed of the sum of current tax expense and deferred tax
expense. Deferred taxes represent taxes that will be paid (or refunded) in the future as a
result of the reversal of temporary book-tax differences. A great deal of tax avoidance
involves accelerating deductions and deferring income for tax purposes relative to book
purposes, which reduces current taxes but increases deferred taxes. Because GAAP ETRs
include both current and deferred taxes, they will not reflect such forms of tax avoidance.
Using current tax expense in the numerator (rather than total tax expense) can also
present challenges. For example, during our sample period, firms were often able to take

10
Indeed, Mills (1998) reports evidence consistent with large book-tax differences being associated with more
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits and audit adjustments.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

66 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

tax deductions when employees exercised stock options but, under then-prevailing GAAP,
recognized no expense at grant date or exercise date—a permanent difference. Under
GAAP the tax benefits for the deduction were added directly to equity rather than reducing
current tax expense. As a result, current tax expense was overstated relative to the taxes
actually paid for firms with stock option deductions. Additional problems occur because of
book accruals within the tax expense such as the valuation allowance and the tax contin-
gency reserve (or tax cushion).11 All of these issues cause problems in measuring the taxes
actually owed/paid by the firm and thus, problems measuring the extent of a firm’s tax
avoidance.12

Measuring the Long-Run Cash Effective Tax Rate

To overcome the limitations of GAAP ETRs, we make two key modifications. First,
and most importantly, we measure effective tax rates over long time periods, i.e., ten years.
To do this, we sum a firm’s total cash taxes paid over a ten-year period and divide that by
the sum of its total pretax income (excluding the effects of special items) over the same
ten-year period.13 This produces an effective tax rate that more closely tracks the firm’s tax
costs over the long run.14 This is not the same as simply averaging a series of single-year
effective tax rates—averaging would tend to overweight the effects of years with unusually
large or small (even negative) effective tax rates.
The second improvement is that we measure effective taxes using cash taxes paid rather
than GAAP tax expense. For example, cash effective tax rates take into account the tax
benefits of employee stock options, whereas GAAP effective tax rates (using total tax
expense or only current tax expense) do not. Moreover, unlike GAAP effective tax rates,
cash effective tax rates are not affected by changes in estimate such as the valuation allow-
ance or tax cushion. Cash tax paid can be found in the financial statements as a supple-
mental disclosure at the bottom of the statement of cash flows or in the notes to the financial
statements.
We vary the measurement period, N, from one year to as long as ten years. Our resulting
cash effective tax rate for firm i measured over the period t ⫽ 1 to N (CASH ETRi) is:

11
Under SFAS No. 109, firms are required to record a reserve (valuation allowance) against a deferred tax asset
if it is more likely than not that they will not realize the some or all of the benefits of the deferred tax asset in
the future. The tax cushion, or tax contingency reserve, is used when firms need to record a reserve for the
potential future costs associated with a tax position being overturned. Recent evidence suggests that management
can manipulate earnings through these accounts (Gleason and Mills 2002; Miller and Skinner 1998; Schrand
and Wong 2003; Dhaliwal et al. 2004).
12
See Hanlon (2003) for additional discussion of issues related to measurement of taxes owed / paid by the firm.
13
Cash tax paid is data item 317 in Compustat. Special items (data item 17) include a variety of items, for example
restructuring charges, severance pay, any significant nonrecurring item, goodwill impairments, inventory write-
downs when in a separate line item or specifically called nonrecurring, litigation reserves, nonrecurring gains
and losses on the sale of assets, securities, and investments, charges related to floods, fire, and other natural
disasters. Write-downs of goodwill and other assets are GAAP-only items that have no effect on taxes. We
exclude special items because they can be quite large and introduce volatility in one-year ETR measure relative
to long-run ETR measures. For more detail on special items see McVay (2006), Burgstahler et al. (2002), and
Dechow and Ge (2006).
14
Like other effective tax rate measures that divide by a measure of GAAP income, the denominator of our long-
run effective tax rate measure is subject to well-known limitations of GAAP income. For example, the denom-
inator could be affected by activities designed to manage pretax income but that have no effect on taxes paid,
such as management of certain book-only accruals. By measuring effective tax rates over long-periods, our
measure should be less affected by accruals management activities than are annual effective tax rate measures
because our long time period should capture the reversals of the accruals.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 67

冘 Cash Tax Paid

N

it
CASH ETRi ⫽ t⫽1

冘
N . (2)
(Pretax Incomeit ⫺ Special Itemsit)
t⫽1

We recognize that cash taxes paid over short time periods is an imperfect measure of
avoidance because it includes payments to (and refunds from) the IRS and other tax au-
thorities upon settling of tax disputes that arose years ago. When measured over long time
periods, however, the income to which these taxes relate will more likely be included in
the same ratio as the taxes. This reinforces the importance of looking over long horizons
when measuring successful tax avoidance, as we illustrate in the next section.

IV. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Sample Selection
We impose minimal requirements on our sample in order to maximize our coverage.
We require firms to be covered by Compustat, incorporated in the U.S. (FINC ⫽ 0), with
ten consecutive years of non-missing cash taxes paid (data317), income tax expense
(data16), and pretax income (data170) during the years 1995–2004.15,16 Imposing these
requirements results in a sample of 24,390 firm-years, corresponding to 2,439 unique firms
that have an unbroken string of cash taxes paid, income tax expense, and pretax income.
Most of our tests require firms to have positive pretax income when summed over the
ten-year period. This requirement reduces the sample to 2,077 firms. We focus on these
2,077 firms to improve comparability across effective tax rate measures (so we are not
changing both the measure and the sample), and to enhance interpretation of the effective
tax rate measure (an effective tax rate with a positive denominator).

The Distribution of Cash Effective Tax Rates

Table 1 presents distributional characteristics of CASH ETRs, each measured over pe-
riods ranging from one year to ten years for a sample of all Compustat firm-years with
non-missing CASH ETR data over the ten years studied. CASH ETR1 refers to a
CASH ETR (as given by Equation (2)) measured over a one-year period. CASH ETR5
and CASH ETR10 refer to the CASH ETR but measured over five-year and ten-year periods,
respectively.
Examination of the 2,439 unique firms that have available data yields the surprising
finding that the percentage of firms with negative pretax income does not drop much as
the aggregation period increases. For example, 17.78 percent of firm-years in this sample
(4,337/24,390) have negative denominators, while 14.84 percent of the ten-year measures
(362/2,439) have a negative denominator (i.e., aggregate ten-year pretax earnings). In un-
reported tests we find that the 362 firms with negative aggregate ten-year earnings are
predominantly small firms.

15
To eliminate noncorporate firms, we delete firms with SIC code of 6798 (Real Estate Investment Trusts), and
firms with names ending in ‘‘-LP’’ containing ‘‘TRUST’’ and firms with six-digit CUSIPs ending in ‘‘Y’’ or
‘‘Z.’’
16
We impose the U.S incorporation criterion for simplicity but acknowledge that the distinction between U.S.
firms and foreign firms becomes increasingly complicated as firms can be incorporated in one country but have
their headquarters and their stock traded in another. Thus, this screen excludes firms such as Carnival Corp. and
Tyco Intl. Ltd., both of which trade on the NYSE and have their operational headquarters in the U.S. but which
are incorporated in Panama and Bermuda, respectively.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

68 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

TABLE 1
Distributional Characteristics of CASH ETRs at Different Horizons

CASH ETR1 CASH ETR5 CASH ETR10

Panel A: Observations
Unique Firms 2,439 2,439 2,439
Firm Observations 24,390 4,878 2,439
Firm Observations with Denominator ⬎ 0 20,054 4,085 2,077

Panel B: Percent of Observations with Non-Meaningful Interpretations

%Observations with Denominator ⬍⫽ 0 17.78% 16.26% 14.84%
%Observations outside [0,1],
excluding Denominator ⬍⫽ 0 7.58% 4.68% 3.08%

Panel C: Distributional Characteristics

Mean 0.270 0.291 0.296
Std. Dev. 0.212 0.189 0.176
5th Pctl 0.000 0.029 0.066
25th Pctl 0.114 0.180 0.195
Median 0.256 0.277 0.283
75th Pctl 0.366 0.359 0.350
95th Pctl 0.672 0.630 0.621
CASH ETR1, CASH ETR5, CASH ETR10 are calculated by summing cash tax paid (data317) over one, five, and
ten years, respectively, and dividing by pretax income excluding special items (data170–data17) summed over
one, five, and ten years, respectively. The sample for Panel C excludes observations with a negative or zero
denominator. Variables are winsorized at zero and one.

Even when pretax income is positive, non-meaningful CASH ETRs can arise when taxes
paid are negative (causing a negative CASH ETR) or are so high as to exceed pretax income
(causing a CASH ETR greater than 100 percent). The frequency of CASH ETRs that fall
outside the band from zero to one range from 7.58 percent for CASH ETR1 to 3.08 percent
for CASH ETR10. In order to make the CASH ETRs more interpretable, we winsorize the
values at 0 and 1.
Panel C in Table 1 examines the distribution of CASH ETRs. The table reveals that
there is significant variation around the mean and median effective tax rates. At the 5th
percentile CASH ETR1 is zero and at the 25th percentile, CASH ETR1 is only 11.4 percent.
Such low effective tax rates are not as easy to sustain for longer time periods. CASH ETR10
at the 5th percentile is 6.6 percent and at the 25th percentile it is 19.5 percent. However,
it does appear that some firms are successful at tax avoidance even over relatively long
periods of time.
Figure 1 presents histograms of CASH ETRs over one-, five-, and ten-year measurement
periods for firms with positive denominators. To construct the histograms, we divide the
sample into seven groups—firms with CASH ETRs less than 10 percent, firms with CASH
ETRs between 10 percent and 20 percent, and so on up to firms with CASH ETRs greater
than 60 percent. The sample from which we obtain the observations for each panel is
the set of 2,077 firms that have positive denominators (i.e., positive pretax income) for the

The Accounting Review, January 2008

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 69

FIGURE 1
Histograms of CASH ETR at Various Aggregation Horizons
Panel A: Distribution of CASH ETR1 (n ⴝ 20,054)
35
30
Percent of Obs

25
20
15
10
5
0
[0%, 10%] (10%, 20%] (20%, 30%] (30%, 40%] (40%, 50%] (50%, 60%] (60%, 100%]

CASH ETR1

Panel B: Distribution of CASH ETR5 (n ⴝ 4,085)

35
30
Percent of Obs

25
20
15
10
5
0
[0%, 10%] (10%, 20%] (20%, 30%] (30%, 40%] (40%, 50%] (50%, 60%] (60%, 100%]
CASH ETR5

Panel C: Distribution of CASH ETR10 (n ⴝ 2,077)

35
30
Percent of Obs

25
20
15
10
5
[0%, 10%] (10%, 20%] (20%, 30%] (30%, 40%] (40%, 50%] (50%, 60%] (60%, 100%]

CASH ETR10

CASH ETR1, CASH ETR5, CASH ETR10 are calculated by summing cash tax paid (data317) over one, five, and
ten years, respectively, and dividing by pretax income excluding special items (data170–data17) summed over
one, five, and ten years, respectively. The number of observations in each panel reflects the total number of firm-
observations with meaningful CASH ETRs for each aggregation horizon as reported in the third row of Panel A
in Table 1.

CASH ETR10 measure.17 It is clear when looking down the figure that the distribution of

17
Even though this sample (the 2,077 firms) includes only firms with positive pretax income for CASH ETR10,
the shorter interval measures CASH ETR1 and CASH ETR5 contain some negative denominators, which have
to be excluded for the separate analysis of these measures. For example, the N for CASH ETR1 is 20,054 rather
than 20,770 (2,077 ⫻ 10) because 716 (approximately 3.4 percent) of the CASH ETR1 observations have negative
denominators, even after requiring that the CASH ETR10 denominator be positive.
70 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

CASH ETRs tightens as the measurement period increases. With a one-year measurement
period, CASH ETRs are fairly evenly spread across tax rate categories ranging from 0 to
40 percent. Only about 21 percent of the sample has CASH ETR1s between 30 percent
and 40 percent and approximately 23 percent of the sample has a rate between 0 and
10 percent. With a ten-year measurement period, slightly more than 28 percent of
the sample has CASH ETR10s between 30 percent and 40 percent, while only 9 percent
of the sample has a long-run rate between 0 and 10 percent. Thus, it is more difficult to
maintain a low tax rate as one lengthens the time period.
For the remainder of the paper, we classify firms as ‘‘low’’ tax rate firms if their CASH
ETR10 is less than or equal to 20 percent. We classify firms as ‘‘high’’ if their
CASH ETR10 is greater than 40 percent. We note that while the proportion of long-run
rates that are low is smaller than the proportion of annual rates that are low, the proportion
of long-run rates that are low is greater than the proportion of long-run rates that are high.
For example, much more of the sample has a low long-run tax rate (ⱕ20 percent; 26 percent
of the sample) than has a high long-run tax rate (⬎40 percent; 14 percent of the sample).
Thus, there appears to be an asymmetry in CASH ETR10s even after restricting the sample
to those with positive cumulative earnings over the ten-year period.18

One-Year Tax Rates: Persistence and Reliability as a Measure

of Long-Run Avoidance
We have several objectives with this section: (1) to investigate the association of CASH
ETR1 with CASH ETR10, (2) to examine the frequency with which the use of annual
cash effective tax rates results in misclassification of firms’ long-run tax avoidance, (3) to
investigate the extent to which CASH ETR1 persists over time, and (4) to examine whether
the persistence varies based on whether the one-year rate is relatively high or relatively
low.
To examine the association of CASH ETR1 with their long-run counterparts we regress
CASH ETR10 on CASH ETR1. We present the results in Table 2. The first row presents

TABLE 2
Association of CASH ETR1 and CASH ETR10

Dependent Variable Condition Intercept CASH ETR1 Adj. R2 n

CASH ETR10 All Observations 0.206*** 0.299*** 0.146 1,891
CASH ETR10 CASH ETR1 ⬍⫽ 0.2 0.195*** 0.366*** 0.019 712
CASH ETR10 0.2 ⬍ CASH ETR1 ⬍⫽ 0.4 0.199*** 0.337*** 0.027 810
CASH ETR10 0.4 ⬍ CASH ETR1 0.251*** 0.221*** 0.064 369
***, **, * Statistical difference from 0 at the 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent levels, respectively, using a
two-tailed test.
This table examines the association of CASH ETR1 with CASH ETR10. Randomly chosen CASH ETR1s that
have negative denominators are excluded from these tests, resulting 1,891 observations. CASH ETRs are
winsorized at 0 and 1.

18
As stated above, we acknowledge that this may not only be due to consistent aggressive tax planning or
intentional tax avoidance but anything that reduces taxes paid per dollar of income reported to shareholders.
For example in the early part of our sample period, part of this relatively greater persistence for the low-tax
rate firms could be due to the stock option deduction year after year. In addition, firms that generate net operating
losses (NOLs) are allowed to carryover the NOLs to the future, which will increase the persistence of the low
rate even though their taxable income was more volatile.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 71

the results for the entire sample. The data reveal a coefficient on CASH ETR1 of 0.299 (p-
value ⬍ .01) indicating a positive association between the one-year rates and the long-run
measure. However, the coefficient is also significantly different from one (p-value ⬍ 0.01)
suggesting that, while associated to some degree, CASH ETR1s are not good predictors of
long-run cash effective tax rates. The remaining rows partition the sample based on CASH
ETR1. Thus, the second row examines the relation of CASH ETR1 and CASH ETR10 for
observations where a low (less than or equal to 20 percent) CASH ETR1 is observed. For
this subsample, the slope on CASH ETR1 is 0.366 (also significantly different from both 0
and 1). The coefficient on CASH ETR1 for firms whose CASH ETR1 is in the 20–40 percent
range is 0.337 and when the CASH ETR1 is greater than 40 percent the slope drops to
0.221. These data are consistent with relatively high values of CASH ETR1 being less
associated with long-run cash effective tax rates than a CASH ETR1 which is in the range
of 20–40 percent. These data are also consistent with a low CASH ETR1 being more highly
associated with the long-run cash effective tax rate than a high CASH ETR1.
In Figure 2 we graphically examine the relation between one-year and ten-year cash
effective tax rates to see how often a firm would be misclassified by using the annual cash
effective tax rate rather than the long-run cash effective tax rate. To do this, we randomly
select one meaningful (i.e., positive denominator) CASH ETR1 for each firm. In Panel A
we examine the distribution of the randomly selected CASH ETR1s for the 546 firms with
CASH ETR10 less than or equal to 20 percent. For these firms, the figure shows that 50
percent of the randomly selected CASH ETR1 observations are between 0 and 10 percent
and 74.7 percent are between 0 and 20 percent. Thus, many of the randomly selected CASH
ETR1s would correctly identify a firm as a tax-avoider when in fact the firm is a tax-avoider
over the long run. However, the fact that 25.3 percent of observations have a randomly
selected annual rate greater than 20 percent means that using CASH ETR1 observations
would result in the misclassification of successful avoider firms as non-avoider firms 25.3
percent of the time.
Panel B of Figure 2 is similar to Panel A, but includes only firms with CASH ETR10
⬎ 40 percent. This panel shows that firms with high CASH ETR10s have CASH ETR1s
(i.e., one randomly selected rate per firm) that are essentially evenly distributed over the
range of possible values. Thus, the misclassification of firms would be even greater for high
long-run cash effective tax rate firms. For example, if one draws a CASH ETR1 from the
set of firms with high long-run cash effective tax rate (rate ⬎ 40 percent) the annual rate
would fail to indicate that the firm is a high tax-rate firm in 62 percent of the cases.
We next investigate the extent to which one-year cash effective tax rates persist over
time and whether the persistence varies based on whether the one-year rate is relatively
high or relatively low. We first do this using regression analysis. We regress one-year ahead
CASH ETR1 on the current year CASH ETR1 for the full sample and then separately for
the subsamples of observations where the current CASH ETR1 is (1) less than or equal to
20 percent, (2) between 20 percent and 40 percent, and (3) greater than 40 percent. If
annual cash effective tax rates were perfectly persistent, we would observe slope coefficients
of 1 and intercepts of 0. Conversely, if annual cash effective tax rates were completely
mean-reverting, such that each was an independent draw from a distribution with a given
mean, then the slope coefficient would be zero and the intercept would equal the mean
effective tax rate. The results in Table 3 indicate that CASH ETR1 exhibits some persistence.
For example, in the full sample of observations we find that the coefficient on the current
year CASH ETR1 variable is 0.315 and statistically different from 0 at a p-value of less
than 0.01. For the subsample of observations where the current year CASH ETR1 is low
(at or below 20 percent) the coefficient on the current year CASH ETR1 is 0.707 (which is

The Accounting Review, January 2008

72 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

FIGURE 2
Relations between One-Year and Ten-Year CASH ETRs
Panel A: CASH ETR1 for Firms with CASH ETR10 [0%, 20%] (n ⴝ 546)
50

40
Percent of Obs

30

20

10

0
[0%, 10%] (10%, 20%] (20%, 30%] (30%, 40%] (40%, 50%] (50%, 60%] (60%, 100%]
CASH ETR1

Panel B: CASH ETR1 for Firms with CASH ETR10 (40%, 100%] (n ⴝ 307)
50

40
Percent of Obs

30

20

10

0
[0%, 10%] (10%, 20%] (20%, 30%] (30%, 40%] (40%, 50%] (50%, 60%] (60%, 100%]
CASH ETR1

CASH ETR1, CASH ETR5, CASH ETR10 are calculated by summing cash tax paid (data317) over one, five, and
ten years, respectively, and dividing by pretax income excluding special items (data170–data17) summed over
one, five, and ten years, respectively. To achieve one-to-one correspondence between CASH ETR1 and CASH
ETR10, one meaningful CASH ETR1 observation for each firm is randomly chosen from among each firm’s set
of meaningful CASH ETR1 observations.

significantly different from both 0 and 1 at a p-value of less than 0.01). For observations
with a current year CASH ETR1 between 20 percent and 40 percent the coefficient on
CASH ETR1t is 0.499 (also significantly different from both 0 and 1 at a p-value of less
than 0.01) and for firms with a high CASH ETR1 the coefficient is –0.010, which is not
significantly different from 0. Thus, it does appear that overall there is persistence in CASH
ETR1. However, the persistence varies depending upon whether CASH ETR1 is low or high.
If CASH ETR1 is low, it has much greater persistence than if CASH ETR1 is high.
We further examine the persistence of CASH ETR1 by graphing annual cash effective
tax rates and we present these data in Figure 3. We start with the sample of CASH ETR1s
with denominators greater than zero (n ⫽ 20,054 as listed in Table 1). We then restrict this

The Accounting Review, January 2008

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 73

TABLE 3
Persistence of CASH ETR1 by Groups Based on CASH ETR1

Dependent Variable Condition Intercept CASH ETR1 Adj. R2 n

CASH ETR1t⫹1 All observations 0.191*** 0.315*** 0.096 15,904
CASH ETR1t⫹1 CASH ETR1t ⬍⫽ 0.2 0.128*** 0.707*** 0.060 5,621
CASH ETR1t⫹1 0.2 ⬍ CASH ETR1t ⬍⫽ 0.4 0.164*** 0.499*** 0.026 7,268
CASH ETR1t⫹1 0.4 ⬍ CASH ETR1t 0.363*** ⫺0.010 0.000 3,015
***, **, * Statistical difference from 0 at the 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent levels, respectively, using a
two-tailed test.
This table assesses the persistence of CASH ETR1 for one-period-ahead CASH ETR1 and how this persistence
varies with the size of the CASH ETR1. CASH ETR1s that have negative denominators are excluded from these
tests. CASH ETRs are winsorized at 0 and 1. Because we exclude observations with negative denominators in
the CASH ETR1 for year t or t⫹1 and because the regression requires two years of data the sample size is
smaller than the full sample of 20,054.

sample to firm-years between 1995–2000 so that we have four future years for each ob-
servation (n ⫽ 12,467). We then take the sample of firm-years that have CASH ETR1
between 0 and 10 percent (n ⫽ 2,398). This group of firm-years is reflected in Figure 3,
Panel A for the tax group [0 percent–10 percent] and Year 0 (i.e., the tallest bar in the
graph). We then examine the distribution of the next four years’ annual CASH ETRs for
those firms after having a CASH ETR1 between 0 and 10 percent. In Year 1, the data reveal
that approximately 53 percent of those firms have a CASH ETR1 again that is in the lowest
10 percent. In Years 2, 3, and 4, roughly 45 percent of the sample remains in the [0–10
percent] grouping.
For comparison purposes, we create a similar graph (Panel B of Figure 3) of firm-years
with a CASH ETR1 greater than 40 percent from the same initial sample described above.
The data reveal that the high tax rates are much less persistent. For example, in Year 1
only 37 percent of the sample remains in the tax grouping where it started. By Year 4, only
approximately 24 percent of the sample remains in the highest tax group. Thus, consistent
with our regression analysis above, it appears that there is persistence in annual tax rates.
However, low tax rates appear to be much more persistent than high tax rates.

Cash Effective Tax Rates across Industries

To examine whether the low rates we observe are strictly a function of industry mem-
bership, we examine the CASH ETR10 measure by industry. We find there is considerable
variation in long-run cash effective tax rates across industries, with cash effective tax rates
ranging from as low as 19 percent to as high as 37.2 percent. We present these data in
Table 4 by showing the average CASH ETR10 for each industry, following the Fama and
French 30 industry classification system.19 The industry with the lowest cash effective tax
rate is petroleum and natural gas, with an average CASH ETR10 of 19 percent. Other low-
tax industries are transportation (CASH ETR10 ⫽ 21.0 percent), and aircraft, ships and
equipment (CASH ETR10 ⫽ 22.1 percent). The two industries with the highest average
CASH ETR10 are apparel at 35.5 percent and printing and publishing at 37.2 percent.
Table 4 also reports the percentage of the overall sample and the percentage of the
low-tax (CASH ETR10 ⱕ 20 percent) firms that come from each of the various industries.
Petroleum and natural gas, for example, constitutes 3.2 percent of the overall sample of

19
Industry definitions are available at: http: / / mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu / pages / faculty / ken.french / .

The Accounting Review, January 2008

74 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

FIGURE 3
Persistence of High and Low CASH ETR1
Panel A: Persistence of Low CASH ETR1

Panel B: Persistence of High CASH ETR1

CASH ETR1 is cash tax paid (data317) divided by pretax income excluding special items (data170–data17).
The sample in Year 0 is derived from the 20,054 firm-years with positive denominators reported in Table 1. The
sample is further reduced to firm-years between 1995 and 2000 so as to allow for four future observations
(12,067 firm years). The number of observations varies by year in the panels because some firm-years have a
positive denominator in Year 0, but a negative denominator in one or more of Years 1 to 4.

firms but 7.7 percent of the low-tax firms. Thus, these firms are more than twice as likely
as the mean firm to have a low ten-year cash long-run effective tax rate. In short, there is
some evidence of industry clustering of long-run tax avoiders. However, there is also plenty
of firm-specific variation. Specifically, 44.5 percent of long-run tax avoiders come from
industries that have an average CASH ETR10 that exceeds the overall mean CASH ETR10
of 29.6 percent.20

20
Because there is some industry clustering, researchers who go on to use this measure to examine the determinants
of tax avoidance may want to consider using an industry-adjusted long-run cash effective tax rate.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 75

TABLE 4
CASH ETR10 by Industry

Percent of Percent of
Industry n CASH ETR10 Sample Low Tax
Petroleum and Natural Gas 66 0.190 3.18 7.69
Transportation 62 0.210 2.99 5.86
Aircraft, Ships and Equipment 20 0.221 0.96 1.28
Steel Works 34 0.254 1.64 1.83
Recreation 39 0.256 1.88 2.93
Business Equipment 240 0.281 11.56 17.40
Financial Institutions 189 0.287 9.10 9.16
Food Products 49 0.288 2.36 2.56
Retail 144 0.291 6.93 4.21
Business Supplies and Shipping Containers 45 0.295 2.17 2.56
Chemicals 49 0.297 2.36 2.01
Utilities 191 0.301 9.20 8.06
Healthcare, Medical Equip and 131 0.304 6.31 5.13
Pharmaceuticals
Other 83 0.304 4.00 4.21
Personal and Business Services 193 0.306 9.29 9.34
Fabricated Products 93 0.314 4.48 2.56
Construction and Const. Materials 77 0.315 3.71 1.83
Restaurants, Hotels, and Motels 38 0.315 1.83 1.10
Electrical Equipment 42 0.321 2.02 0.92
Communications 36 0.324 1.73 2.01
Consumer Goods 41 0.333 1.97 0.92
Wholesale 93 0.335 4.48 3.11
Automobiles 45 0.345 2.17 1.65
Apparel 44 0.355 2.12 1.47
Printing and Publishing 33 0.372 1.59 0.18
CASH ETR10 is defined in Table 1. Industries are the Fama-French 30 industries. Definitions are available at:
http: / / mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu / pages / faculty / ken.french / . If an industry has fewer than 20 valid observations
for CASH ETR10, then the firms in that industry are placed into an industry labeled ‘‘Other.’’ The industry mean
is the cross-section average of firm specific CASH ETR10 observations within an industry. Observations with
negative denominators are excluded. All tax rates are winsorized at 0 and 1.

Individual Firms with Low Cash Effective Tax Rates

To get a better sense of the types of firms successful at maintaining low long-run
effective tax rates, we sort firms by market value as of the end of 2004 and then rank the
largest 100 firms by CASH ETR10. Table 5 reports data for the 25 firms from this group
of 100 with the lowest CASH ETR10s. We suppress the firm names and report these by
industry membership only. For some of these firms the source of the low CASH ETR10
can be discerned from examining their SEC filings and from knowledge of the tax laws.21

21
However, we note that for many firms why the cash tax rate is low or high is undeterminable because the
disclosures of book-tax differences are limited and because there is no reconciliation between GAAP expense
and cash taxes paid. Thus, we cannot, even by hand-collecting, explain for sure why each of the firms in our
sample has either a high or low cash effective tax rate.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

76 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

TABLE 5
25 Lowest CASH ETR10 Firms among the Largest 100 Firms
(ranked by market value in 2004)

Company CASH ETR10

Financial Institution Firm #1 0.036
Communication Firm #1 0.073
Financial Institution Firm #2 0.080
Aircraft, Ships and Equipment Firm #1 0.081
Business Equipment Firm #1 0.082
Business Equipment Firm #2 0.096
Other Firm #1 0.102
Recreation Firm #1 0.103
Aircraft, Ships and Equipment Firm #2 0.110
Business Equipment Firm #3 0.111
Healthcare, Medical Equip and Pharmaceuticals Firm #1 0.116
Communication Firm #2 0.120
Utilities Firm #1 0.124
Petroleum and Natural Gas Firm #1 0.128
Automobiles Firm #1 0.132
Personal and Business Services Firm #1 0.140
Healthcare, Medical Equip and Pharmaceuticals Firm #2 0.143
Financial Institution Firm #3 0.154
Personal and Business Services Firm #2 0.159
Healthcare, Medical Equip and Pharmaceuticals Firm #3 0.162
Business Equipment Firm #4 0.164
Healthcare, Medical Equip and Pharmaceuticals Firm #4 0.164
Healthcare, Medical Equip and Pharmaceuticals Firm #5 0.173
Financial Institution Firm #4 0.185
Healthcare, Medical Equip and Pharmaceuticals Firm #6 0.187
CASH ETR10 is defined in Table 1. This table reports the 25 lowest CASH ETR10s from among the 100 highest
market value firms at the end of the 2004 fiscal year. Industries are the Fama-French 30 industries. Industry
definitions are available at: http: / / mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu / pages / faculty / ken.french / .

We note that our sample selection criteria exclude foreign incorporated firms even when
they have their operational headquarters in the U.S. and trade on a U.S. exchange. Had we
included such firms in our sample, both Carnival Corporate and Tyco Intl. Ltd. would have
made the Table 5 list of the firms with the lowest long-run cash effective tax rates. Among
large corporations Carnival is a leader in maintaining a low tax rate, with a CASH ETR10
of 0.7 percent.22 Tyco also achieves tax savings from being incorporated in a tax haven, in

22
Carnival is headquartered in Miami but is incorporated in Panama. Under Section 883 of the Internal Revenue
Code, income derived by a foreign corporation from the international operation of ships or aircraft is, under
certain conditions, excluded from U.S. taxation. Because it is incorporated in Panama, Carnival is considered a
foreign corporation for this purpose. Not all of Carnival’s income is exempt under Section 883. For example,
in FYE 2004 Carnival reported approximately $1.9 billion of pretax income and approximately $8 million of
cash tax paid.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 77

its case Bermuda. Tyco is not able to avoid taxes to the extent of Carnival, however, with
a CASH ETR10 of 12.2 percent.23
All of the firms that make the list have a CASH ETR10 lower than 20 percent. Sur-
prisingly, only one of 25 firms is from the petroleum and natural gas industry, the industry
that had the lowest average CASH ETR10.24 Pharmaceutical firms are most heavily repre-
sented on the list of the 25 lowest tax firms, with six firms making the cut. These firms
likely benefit from tax credits for engaging in research and development. There have also
been assertions that pharmaceutical companies are adept at shifting income to low-tax
jurisdictions by transferring intellectual property (e.g., patents) there and charging royalties
to affiliates in high tax countries (Almond and Sullivan 2004).
The firms on this list illustrate that there are many potential causes of a low cash
effective tax rate. A cluster of companies in the Business Services industry are likely on
the list at least in part due to heavy use of employee stock options during this period.
Because employee stock options were generally not expensed for financial reporting pur-
poses during this period but did generate tax deductions, they tend to reduce CASH ETRs.25
Provisions designed to encourage research and development and to encourage exports
also account for some low tax rates. For example, Aircraft, Shipping and Equipment Firm
#1 appears to have experienced tax savings due to a combination of factors, including tax
credits for engaging in research and development, charitable contributions, and export-
friendly provisions that Congress enacted (i.e., the Foreign Sales Corporation [FSC] and
Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act [ETI]), which have since been repealed under pres-
sure due to perceived conflicts with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]).
Financial Institution Firm #1, an insurance company, has investments that generate large
amounts of tax-exempt interest income as well as dividend income from other companies,
which is subject to the dividends received deduction. In sum, an examination of individual
companies shows there are many paths to low long-run cash effective tax rates. Some of
these paths may be firm-specific and idiosyncratic, while others are due to industry mem-
bership or other factors. We leave a more detailed examination of the determinants of long-
run cash effective tax rates to future research.

Descriptive Data on Long-Run Tax Avoiders and High Long-Run Tax Payers
In Table 6 we present some basic descriptive data about some of the characteristics of
the firms in our sample by tax group—for the long-run tax avoiders (Low), the firms with
a CASH ETR10 between 20 and 40 percent (Mid) and firms with a CASH ETR10 greater

23
The tax advantage of being incorporated outside the U.S. is two-fold. First, it removes foreign income from the
U.S. tax system. U.S.-incorporated multinationals eventually face U.S. tax on their worldwide income and have
to rely on foreign tax credits to mitigate double-taxation. Companies with income in low-tax foreign countries
find that particularly onerous, as the U.S. approach to taxation results in foreign earnings being taxed at the
greater of the foreign rate and the U.S. rate. By incorporating in a tax haven, firms avoid having to subject their
foreign income to U.S. corporate income taxes. Second, some have alleged that firms incorporated in tax havens
are able to shift income from high-tax jurisdictions to low- or no-tax jurisdictions through transfer pricing,
intercompany debt, and transfers of intangible assets. These issues are discussed in detail by Desai and Hines
(2002), among others.
24
Upon closer examination it is smaller oil firms that tend to be tax avoiders so they do not make our list of top
100 by size. If we cut the sample by the top 500 largest firms then more oil firms are present.
25
We recognize that some may argue that if stock options had been expensed for financial accounting, then these
firms would not be considered tax avoiders and thus are only there because of a problem with financial ac-
counting. While we recognize this issue to some extent, we also point out that in the late 1990s some of the
largest technology companies appear to have been paying no income taxes (at least in the U.S.) because their
stock option deductions were greater than their taxable income from other sources.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

The Accounting Review, January 2008

78
TABLE 6
Descriptive Data by CASH ETR10 Tax Group

Tax Group
Low Mid High
CASH ETR10 0.20 ⬍ CASH 0.40 ⬍ CASH
⬍⫽ 0.20 ETR10 ⬍⫽ 0.40 ETR10 Differences
n Mean n Mean n Mean Mid-Low High-Mid High-Low
CASH ETR10 546 0.122 1,224 0.296 307 0.604 0.174*** 0.308*** 0.482***
SIZE (Log Assets) 473 6.834 1,119 6.564 275 5.417 ⫺0.270** ⫺1.147*** ⫺1.417***
MVE ($billions) 421 5.010 966 3.952 225 0.727 ⫺1.058 ⫺3.225*** ⫺4.283***
BM 405 0.509 953 0.501 208 0.632 ⫺0.008 0.131*** 0.123***
EP 421 0.078 966 0.090 225 0.071 0.012*** ⫺0.019*** ⫺0.007
ROA 473 0.069 1,119 0.099 275 0.055 0.030*** ⫺0.044*** ⫺0.014***
LEVERAGE 473 0.214 1,119 0.166 275 0.171 ⫺0.048*** 0.005 ⫺0.043***
INTANGIBLES 473 0.088 1,119 0.097 275 0.086 0.009 ⫺0.011 ⫺0.002
R&D 473 0.025 1,119 0.019 275 0.028 ⫺0.006** 0.009** 0.003
ADVERTISING 473 0.007 1,119 0.012 275 0.012 0.005*** 0.000 0.005**
***, **, * Statistical difference from 0 at the 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent levels, respectively, using a two-tailed test.
Compustat data items in parentheses where applicable.
CASH ETR10 is defined in Table 1.
SIZE ⫽ natural log of average total assets (data6); average total assets is computed as total assets (data6) at the end of 2004 plus total assets at the end of
1994 divided by 2;
MVE ⫽ price at the end of fiscal year 1994 (data199) multiplied by shares outstanding (data25) at the end of fiscal year 1994 plus the same quantity at the

Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

end of fiscal year 2004 divided by 2;
BM ⫽ book-to-market ratio computed as book value of common equity (data60) at the end of fiscal year 1994 plus the same quantity at the end of fiscal
year 2004 divided by 2, all divided by MVE;
EP ⫽ earnings-to-price ratio computed as the mean of earnings before tax and special items (data170–data17) between 1995 and 2004 divided by MVE;
ROA ⫽ firm’s return on assets and is computed as the mean of earnings before tax and special items (data170–data17) between 1995 and 2004 divided by
average total assets;
LEVERAGE ⫽ long-term debt (data9) / total assets at the end of 1994 plus the same ratio and the end of 2004, divided by 2;
INTANGIBLES ⫽ ratio of intangibles (data33) to total assets at the end of 1994 plus the same ratio at the end of 2004, divided by 2;
R&D ⫽ average research and development expense (data46) scaled by average total assets; and
ADVERTISING ⫽ average advertising expense (data45) divided by average total assets, where ADVERTISING is missing it is assumed to equal 0.
Two hundred ten firms do not have data in 1994 necessary to calculate the beginning of year 1995 values resulting in 1,867 firms with meaningful observations of
CASH ETR10, and values of the displayed firm characteristics. Additional observations are lost for MVE, EP, and BM because of missing values for MVE in 1994 and
negative or missing values of common equity (data60).
Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 79

than 40 percent (High). The data reveal that the long-run tax avoiders are slightly larger,
have a lower earnings-to-price and lower return-on-assets than do firms with a CASH ETR10
between 20 percent and 40 percent. The long-run tax avoiders are also more highly lev-
eraged and spend more on R&D but less on advertising. From this initial review of these
data it appears that long-run tax avoiders are larger than firms with higher tax rates, sug-
gesting economies of scale to tax avoidance. The greater spending on research and devel-
opment likely saves taxes through the research and experimentation tax credit, but could
also be contributing to the lower return on assets (ROA) and earnings-to-price (EP) since
these costs are expensed in full for financial accounting. The lower spending on advertising
by the long-run tax avoiders is consistent with the idea that firms very susceptible to public
punishment (those with higher spending on advertising) may not avoid taxes to such a large
degree because they fear a public backlash for poor corporate citizenship (see Hanlon et
al. 2007; Hanlon and Slemrod 2007).
The high tax rate firms are much smaller in size relative to the other two groups of
firms, especially in terms of market value. The high tax rate firms have higher research and
development spending as compared to the firms with a long-run cash effective tax rate
between 20 and 40 percent. Both high-tax and low-tax firms have lower ROA and lower
EP ratios than firms in the middle tax group, suggesting the results are not driven by
performance. That is, if long-run cash effective tax rates were driven by profitability (i.e.,
firms with more profits pay more tax), ROA should increase monotonically across the CASH
ETR10 groups. While the univariate analysis does show some patterns in the characteristics
of long-run tax avoidance, we leave a more detailed analysis of the determinants and
consequences long-run tax avoidance to future research.

V. CONCLUSIONS
Despite decades of tax research, little is known about firms’ ability to avoid income
taxes over long periods of time. The purpose of this study is to shed some initial evidence
on this question. We find a significant fraction of firms that appear to be able to successfully
avoid large portions of the corporate income tax over sustained periods of time. Using a
ten-year measure of tax avoidance, 546 firms, comprising 26.3 percent of our sample, are
able to maintain a cash effective tax rate of 20 percent or less. The mean firm has a ten-
year cash effective tax rate of approximately 29.6 percent. This suggests that tax avoidance
is concentrated in a subset of firms. Examining the relation between annual cash effective
tax rates and long-run cash effective tax rates, the evidence is not consistent with annual
cash effective tax rates being good predictors of long-run cash effective tax rates. Thus, the
use of an annual rate to examine tax-avoidance behavior could lead to erroneous inferences
about the long-term behavior of firms.
In addition, the data indicate that annual cash effective tax rates exhibit some year-to-
year persistence, but that the persistence is asymmetric. Low-cash effective tax rates have
greater persistence than do high-cash effective tax rates. Thus, a high annual cash effective
tax rate is much more transitory while low rates are more likely to be sustainable over long
periods of time. The persistence of low annual cash effective tax rates and the apparent
ability of firms to avoid taxes in the long run could be driven by management actions to
avoid taxes or by inherent differences in the groups of firms. In a preliminary examination
of data related to these issues, there is some evidence of industry effects, although a great
deal of variation in cash effective tax rates is not explained by industry. We leave a more
detailed analysis of the causes and consequences of long-run tax avoidance to future
research.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

80 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

There are a number of unanswered questions regarding long-run tax avoidance. First,
why is there so much variation, even among firms in the same industry, in the extent to
which firms avoid taxes? Second, is long-run tax avoidance valued by the market? There
are reasons why it might not be. Under certain conditions, avoidance of explicit taxes comes
at the price of bearing implicit taxes—reductions in pretax rates of return. Third, do firms
that exhibit long-run tax avoidance appear to suffer any tax consequences such as increased
litigation for alleged tax shelters? If, as is likely, tax sheltering is an endogenous choice
based on having high tax rates prior to engaging in the shelter, then the answer to this
question would be no, contrary to many people’s priors. Finally, is there any connection
between long-run tax avoidance and symptoms of governance breakdowns such as account-
ing fraud, as would be suggested by Desai and Dharmapala (2007)? These are some of the
many questions that we hope will be addressed in future research.

REFERENCES
Abarbanell, J. S., and B. J. Bushee. 1997. Fundamental analysis, future earnings, and stock prices.
Journal of Accounting Research 35: 1–24.
Almond, J., and M. Sullivan. 2004. Drug firms park increasing share of profits in low-tax countries.
Tax Notes (September 20): 1336–1343.
Ayers, B., J. Jiang, and S. Laplante. 2007. Taxable income as a performance measure: The effects of
tax planning and earnings quality. Working paper, University of Georgia. Presented at the 2007
Contemporary Accounting Research Conference.
———, S. Laplante, and S. McGuire. 2007. Credit ratings and taxes: The effect of book / tax differ-
ences on ratings changes. Working paper, University of Georgia.
Badertscher, B., J. Phillips, M. Pincus, and S. Rego. 2006. Do firms manage earnings downward in
a book-tax conforming manner? Working paper, University of Connecticut, The University of
Iowa, and University of California, Irvine.
Bankman, J. 2004. The tax shelter battle. In The Crisis in Tax Administration, edited by H. J. Aaron
and J. Slemrod. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Blouin, J., and I. Tuna. 2006. Tax contingencies: Cushioning the blow to earnings? Working paper,
University of Pennsylvania.
Burgstahler, D., J. Jiambalvo, and T. Shevlin. 2002. Do stock prices fully reflect the implications of
special items for future earnings? Journal of Accounting Research 40 (3): 585–612.
Callihan, D. 1994. Corporate effective tax rates: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Accounting
Literature (13): 1–43.
Collins, J. H., and D. A. Shackelford. 1995. Corporate domicile and average effective tax rates: The
cases of Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. International Tax and
Public Finance (Historical Archive) 2 (1): 55–83.
Dechow, P., and W. Ge. 2006. The persistence of earnings and cash flow and the role of special items:
implications for the accrual anomaly. Review of Accounting Studies 11 (September): 253–296.
Desai, M. A., and J. R. Hines, Jr. 2002. Expectations and expatriations: Tracing the causes and
consequences of corporate inversions. National Tax Journal 55 (3): 409–441.
———. 2003. The divergence between book and tax income. In Tax Policy and the Economy No. 17,
edited by J. M. Poterba. Cambridge, MA. National Bureau of Economic Research: 169–206.
———, and D. Dharmapala. 2007. Corporate tax avoidance and high-powered incentives. Journal of
Financial Economics 79 (1): 145–179.
Dhaliwal, D., R. Trezevant, and S. Wang. 1992. Taxes, investment-related tax shields, and capital
structure. The Journal of the American Taxation Association (14): 1–21.
———, C. A. Gleason, and L. F. Mills. 2004. Last-chance earnings management: Using the tax
expense to meet analysts’ forecasts. Contemporary Accounting Research 21 (2): 431–459.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance 81

Frank, M. M., L. J. Lynch, and S. O. Rego. 2006. Does aggressive financial reporting accompany
aggressive tax reporting (and vice versa)? Working paper, The University of Iowa.
Frischmann, P. J., Shevlin, T., and Wilson, R. 2007. Economic consequences of increasing the con-
formity in accounting for uncertain tax benefits. Working paper, Idaho State University and
University of Washington.
Gleason, C. A., and L. F. Mills. 2002. Materiality and contingent tax liability reporting. The Account-
ing Review 77 (April): 317–342.
Guenther, D. A., E. L. Maydew, and S. E. Nutter. 1997. Financial reporting, tax costs, and book-tax
conformity. Journal of Accounting and Economics 23 (3): 225–248.
Gupta, S., and K. Newberry. 1997. Determinants of the variability in corporate effective tax rates:
Evidence from longitudinal data. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 16 (1): 1–34.
Hanlon, M. 2003. What can we infer about a firm’s taxable income from its financial statements?
National Tax Journal 56 (4): 831–863.
———. 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.
———, S. LaPlante, and T. Shevlin. 2005. Evidence on the information loss of conforming book
income and taxable income. The Journal of Law and Economics (October): 407–442.
———, and T. Shevlin. 2005. Book-tax conformity for corporate income: An introduction to the
issues. In Tax Policy and the Economy No. 18, edited by J. M. Poterba. Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research 101–134.
———, L. Mills, and J. Slemrod. 2007. An Empirical examination of corporate tax noncompliance.
In Taxing Corporate Income in the 21st Century, edited by A. Auerbach, J. R. Hines, Jr., and
J. Slemrod. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
———, and J. Slemrod. 2007. What does tax aggressiveness signal? Evidence from stock price
reactions to news about tax aggressiveness. Working paper, University of Michigan.
Lev, B., and S. R. Thiagarajan. 1993. Fundamental information analysis. Journal of Accounting Re-
search 31 (Autumn): 190–215.
———, and D. Nissim. 2004. Taxable income, future earnings, and equity values. The Accounting
Review 79 (4): 1039–1074.
Manzon, G. B., and G. A. Plesko. 2002. The relation between financial and tax reporting measures
of income. Tax Law Review 55 (2): 175–214.
McVay, S. 2006. Earnings management using classification shifting: An examination of core earnings
and special items. The Accounting Review 81 (3): 501–531.
Miller, G. S., and D. J. Skinner. 1998. Determinants of the valuation allowance for deferred tax assets
under SFAS No. 109. The Accounting Review 73 (2): 213–233.
Mills, L. F. 1998. Book-tax differences and Internal Revenue Service adjustments. Journal of Ac-
counting Research 36 (2): 343–356.
———, M. M. Erickson, and E. L. Maydew. 1998. Investments in tax planning. The Journal of the
American Taxation Association 20 (1): 1–20.
———, and K. J. Newberry. 2001. The influence of tax and non-tax costs on book-tax reporting
differences: Public and private firms. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 23 (1):
1–19.
———, ———, and W. B. Trautman. 2002. Trends in book-tax income and balance sheet differences.
Tax Notes 96: 1109–1124.
Novack, J., and L. Saunders. 1998. The hustling of X-rated tax shelters: Respectable tax professionals
and respectable corporate clients are exploiting the exotica of modern corporate finance to
indulge in extravagant tax-dodging schemes. Forbes (December 14): 198–208.
Phillips, J., M. Pincus, and S. O. Rego. 2003. Earnings management: New evidence based on deferred
tax expense. The Accounting Review 78 (2): 491–521.
Plesko, G. 2000. Book-tax differences and the measurement of corporate income. In Proceedings of
the Ninety-Second Annual Conference on Taxation, 1999, 171–176. Washington, D.C.: National
Tax Association.

The Accounting Review, January 2008

82 Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew

———. 2002. Reconciling corporation book and tax net income, tax years 1996–1998. SOI Bulletin
21 (Spring): 1–16.
———. 2004. Corporate tax avoidance and the properties of corporate earnings. National Tax Journal
57 (3): 729–737.
Porcano, T. 1986. Corporate tax rates: Progressive, proportional, or regressive. The Journal of the
American Taxation Association 7: 17–31.
Rego, S. O. 2003. Tax-avoidance activities of U.S. multinational corporations. Contemporary Ac-
counting Research 20 (4): 805–833.
Revsine, L., D. Collins, and W. B. Johnson. 1999. Financial Reporting & Analysis. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Schrand, C., and M. H. F. Wong. 2003. Earnings management using the valuation allowance for
deferred tax assets under SFAS No. 109. Contemporary Accounting Research 20: 579–611.
Shackelford, D. A., and T. Shevlin. 2001. Empirical tax research in accounting. Journal of Accounting
and Economics 31 (1–3): 321–387.
Shevlin, T., and S. Porter 1992. The corporate tax comeback in 1987 some further evidence. The
Journal of the American Taxation Association 14: 58–79.
Siegfried, J. J., 1974. Effective average U.S. corporation income tax rates. National Tax Journal (27):
245–259.
Stickney, C., and V. McGee. 1982. Effective corporate tax rates the effect of size, capital intensity,
leverage and other factors. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (1): 23–45.
Swenson, C. 1999. Increasing stock market value by reducing effective tax rates. Tax Notes (June 7):
1503–1505.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. 1999. The Problem of Corporate Tax Shelters: Discussion, Analysis
and Legislative Proposals. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Watts, R. L., and J. L. Zimmerman. 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Wilkie, P. J. 1988. Corporate average effective tax rates and inferences about relative tax preferences.
The Journal of American Taxation Association 4: 75–88.
Yin, G. 2003. How much tax do large public corporations pay? Estimating the effective tax rates of
the S&P 500. Virginia Law Review 89 (December).
Zimmerman, J. 1983. Taxes and firm size. Journal of Accounting and Economics (5): 119–149.

The Accounting Review, January 2008