19 / 372
臺大管理論叢
第
26
卷第
2
期
19
(2)
Tax-avoidance = CETR
(3)
Tax-avoidance = BTD
Spec = IPS Spec = IPS_D Spec = IMS Spec = IMS_D Spec = IPS Spec = IPS_D
-0.1913***
-0.1891***
2.1018***
2.0749***
1.9291***
1.9509***
(-8.33)
(-8.29)
(6.43)
(6.42)
(5.96)
(6.07)
-0.0217*
-0.0018
0.5892*
0.1223**
0.1545
0.0371
(-1.89)
(-0.43)
(1.92)
(2.18)
(0.84)
(0.62)
0.0008
0.0012
0.1074***
0.1126***
0.1311***
0.1359***
(0.32)
(0.48)
(2.83)
(3.09)
(3.70)
(3.91)
0.0042
0.0042
0.0311
0.0309
0.0319
0.0319
(1.55)
(1.56)
(0.82)
(0.82)
(0.85)
(0.85)
0.0161***
0.0160***
0.7099***
0.7115***
0.7196***
0.7181***
(15.32)
(15.40)
(47.29)
(48.26)
(48.61)
(49.18)
0.0881***
0.0879***
0.1908
0.1899
0.1897
0.1871
(6.09)
(6.08)
(0.94)
(0.94)
(0.93)
(0.92)
-0.0421***
-0.0422***
1.5633***
1.5606***
1.5700***
1.5685***
(-6.85)
(-6.88)
(18.14)
(18.11)
(18.21)
(18.20)
0.0143
0.0141
0.3265*
0.3292*
0.3349*
0.3316*
(1.05)
(1.03)
(1.70)
(1.71)
(1.74)
(1.73)
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
Controlled
7692
7692
7692
7692
7692
7692
27.88
27.86
144.15
144.21
144.00
143.98
0.1014
0.1013
0.3666
0.3667
0.3663
0.3663
are more likely to help their clients engage in tax avoidance activity. The association
between auditor industry expertise and clients’ tax avoidance is not significant in most of
these regressions when using industry portfolio share to proxy auditor industry expertise.
Overall, this study finds evidence that auditor industry expertise is associated with increased
tax avoidance, but only when using industry market share to measure auditor industry
expertise. These results are in line with the prediction of H2.
This study also finds that audit firm size (proxied by
Big10
) is positively associated