FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2156821117> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2156821117 abstract "This study presents the findings of an extensive research project that sought to determine stakeholder expectations regarding companies’ corporation tax practices in the UK, combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The qualitative aspect employed a detailed survey of 61 representatives of four stakeholder groups: industry representatives, consumer bodies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and business decision-makers from FTSE 100 & 250 companies. In general, there was broad agreement on the majority of issues between business decision-makers and industry representatives (‘the business community’); there was also considerable agreement between NGOs and consumer bodies (‘the public body’). The structured survey asked respondents in 30–60 minute telephone interviews a range of questions concerning their views on the fairness of the tax system, whether large UK-based companies pay an appropriate amount of tax, whether they believe there to be a link between corporate tax rates and competition, how they consider big business is perceived in society, what could be done to build trust, who should be involved in designing a firm’s planning process and what should such a process look like. There was an overwhelmingly positive response to participate in the study by all stakeholder groups, which demonstrates the relevance of the debate and the keen interest by all players to have their views heard. 1 - Perceptions of fairness of the UK tax system overall - Overall, the UK tax system is perceived as reasonably fair, with the industry representatives being the most positive, followed by business decision-makers, then NGOs and consumer bodies last. Respondents from all stakeholder groups are almost unanimous that government and politicians are predominantly responsible for issues of fairness regarding tax. Voters, the tax office and large multinational companies are perceived to be responsible to a much lesser degree. 2 - Views of large UK companies - The business community holds a much more positive view than the public body on the question of whether large UK companies pay an appropriate amount of tax. Many respondents believe that there is not a level playing field between large UK companies and multinationals and that the international tax system introduces complexity and distorts competition between companies across countries. Representatives from both the business community and the public bodies recognise a number of steps that have begun to be taken in the UK and internationally to change the tax system, e.g. GAAR (General Anti-Abuse Rule) and BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting), but comments regarding the impact of such efforts are inconclusive at present. 3 - Contribution to society - While most respondents agree that large firms operate within the law, the public body view again rates big companies lower than the business community on whether they contribute their fair share to society and operate in the best interest of society. Respondents indicate that they believe the UK public to be concerned about the extent of corporate contributions to society and trust in companies is perceived to be relatively low, particularly regarding multinationals operating in the UK but not domiciled here. The business community thinks that a general climate of negativity is based on a lack of understanding and bad press coverage, while the public body view is that companies have yet to engage in the tax debate in a meaningful way, need to listen more closely to stakeholder views and adopt more transparent communication about tax.4 - Guiding approaches for companies on tax issues - In terms of guiding approaches that companies could adopt in respect of tax, the top choice among business decision-makers and industry representatives is for companies to engage with industry bodies and politicians to develop new tax legislation. In contrast, consumer bodies would prefer companies to engage proactively with the general public in the UK to deliver on societal expectations regarding company tax, and NGOs favour companies making an effort to operate within the spirit and letter of the law as their top choice. While some changes in corporate behaviour are emerging, such as the closure of banks’ tax structured products divisions and public tax statements by some business leaders, the majority of respondents in this survey agree that businesses should work further on creating a greater degree of transparency and improving clarity in communication about what they are paying and their profits. 5 - A way forward - Key differences exist in respondents’ views on who companies should engage with on tax issues and how future communication should be motivated and disseminated. While the business community looks towards government and policy makers as communication partners, viewing the public as recipients of information in need of education, NGOs and consumer bodies hope there will be a multi-stakeholder debate on corporate tax including a process of listening and informing by businesses, resulting in credible, simple and transparent communication, distributed by companies but verified by independent bodies. For companies concerned about the effects of corporate tax on reputation and stakeholder relationships, this report outlines a process that includes internal and external dialogue to encourage tax strategies that are values congruent, stakeholder relevant and evidence based.Turning now to the quantitative part of the study, this focused on investors as stakeholders and applied various empirical econometric models to a sample comprising all firms that were part of the FTSE All-Share Index, spanning the 1991 to 2014 period. We find that over the past 20 years, typical effective corporation tax rates in the UK have been at comparable levels to those in the US despite the statutory rates in the former having been lower and falling. We observe that post 2006, typical cash effective tax rates in the UK collapsed from above 25% to around 6%; however, total (current plus deferred) tax rates remained close to statutory levels throughout the period investigated. Therefore, it can be argued that historically, UK firms have paid their taxes to a much greater degree than their US counterparts and the widespread populist view of mass tax avoidance among UK firms cannot be substantiated. We find no discernible link between tax rates and stock returns for the UK, no matter how tax payment/tax avoidance is measured. This is true throughout the sample period and for both customer-facing and non-customer-facing companies. However, allowing for industry norms and a host of firm characteristics, companies with lower effective tax rates have significantly higher levels of stock market risk. Firms that are reported in the newspapers in a negative way in relation to their level of corporation tax payment experience very small negative stock returns, which are fully reversed within a month. The initial negative effects and subsequent rebound are both more pronounced for smaller companies. News announcements of the involvement of a firm in a potentially unacceptable tax-related activity, according to the authorities, result in steeper and much longer-lasting falls in share prices, whereas news stories of a more general nature relating to a firm’s tax avoidance or tax payments have no noticeable effect at all." @default.
• W2156821117 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2156821117 creator A5045364107 @default.
• W2156821117 creator A5049205417 @default.
• W2156821117 creator A5075557316 @default.
• W2156821117 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W2156821117 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W2156821117 title "What Stakeholders Expect from Corporations When it Comes to Paying Tax: Corporate Reputation and Optimal Tax Planning" @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1521830857 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1578153808 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1668640235 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1805932287 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1885870930 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1899176997 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1970517215 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1972038977 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1976224743 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1986984203 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1990507840 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W1990624686 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2002446038 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2013479550 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2018459514 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2020191807 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2042061542 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2054139669 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2055061420 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2055249091 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2056389604 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2057190074 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2060563930 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2061525759 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2077717568 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2104795328 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2105329459 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2111364150 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2127951193 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2136120210 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2141679668 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2142152317 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2147480886 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2151306296 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2153039999 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2153629250 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W215760757 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2165478598 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2172281556 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2176562664 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2321192248 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2323670465 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W2603129303 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W283308183 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3009645016 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3121228716 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3121275215 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3121685591 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3121749251 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3121758154 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3121766851 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3121799798 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3122123991 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3122497925 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3122698708 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3122843332 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3122985187 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3123452386 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3123491384 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3123496271 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3123593299 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3123828793 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3123923287 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3124063746 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3124221760 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3124871150 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3125313554 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3125352878 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3125518972 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3125693846 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3125763623 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3125792879 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W3125951730 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W4232111244 @default.
• W2156821117 cites W4235781415 @default.
• W2156821117 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2578969" @default.
• W2156821117 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2156821117 type Work @default.
• W2156821117 sameAs 2156821117 @default.
• W2156821117 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2156821117 countsByYear W21568211172015 @default.
• W2156821117 countsByYear W21568211172021 @default.
• W2156821117 countsByYear W21568211172022 @default.
• W2156821117 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2156821117 hasAuthorship W2156821117A5045364107 @default.
• W2156821117 hasAuthorship W2156821117A5049205417 @default.
• W2156821117 hasAuthorship W2156821117A5075557316 @default.
• W2156821117 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2156821117 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W2156821117 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2156821117 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2156821117 hasConcept C199539241 @default.

• next