Comprehensive Comparison of Tax Aggressiveness Studies: Results

This report provides a comparative analysis of two studies focusing on tax aggressiveness. The first study, by Zummo et al. (2017), employs an explanatory case study design to evaluate the impact of a mandatory tax compliance Act in Australia, examining data before and after its implementation. The second study, by Lanis & Richardson (2012), utilizes an empirical approach based on legitimacy theory to investigate how corporations, both tax aggressive and non-tax aggressive, respond to corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures. The report compares the research objectives, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, sample descriptions, research designs, and the findings and conclusions of both studies. Key aspects of the comparison include the impact of tax compliance laws on tax information disclosure, the role of CSR in influencing tax behavior, and the application of statistical techniques for data analysis. Both studies highlight the significance of tax compliance and the evolving landscape of corporate tax practices.

Similarities and Differences 1
Similarities and Differences of studies
by Name
Class & Course Code
Professor
University Name
The City & State
Date

Similarities and Differences 2
Introduction
This section investigates the similarities and differences between the two studies. The
comparison is based on research objectives (the topic of study), literature review and
theoretical framework, sample description, research design, and findings and conclusion.
Research objectives (the topic of study)
Generally, both studies focus on evaluating how the introduction of a mandatory tax
compliance Act in Australia is likely to impact tax aggressiveness practice by corporates.
However, the first study by Zummo et al., (2017), followed an explanatory case study
research design by analyzing the existing data before and after the introduction of tax
compliance law. On the other hand, the study by Lanis & Richardson (2012), was an
empirical study was based on the legitimacy theory to investigate how tax aggressive and
non-tax aggressive corporations reacted to corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure.
Literature review and theoretical framework
The reviewed literature under the two studies showed that most companies apply tax
aggressiveness as a mechanism to avoid paying their fair tax share. However, the study by
Zummo, et al. (2017), focused on establishing the impact of tax compliance Act 2013 and the
disclosure of tax information to the tax authorities. The literature reviewed showed that the
introduction of tax compliance laws in other G20 countries has significantly increased the
disclosure of tax information and reduced tax aggressiveness practices.
While the study by Lanis & Richardson (2012), focused on the CSR aspect of tax
aggressiveness. The reviewed showed that corporations should act within the societal norms
and bounds. Therefore, companies are under obligation to pay their fair share of taxes to be
regarded as socially responsible. Overall, the two studies focus on two different aspects to

Similarities and Differences 3
address tax aggressiveness and information disclosure. The study by Zummo, et al. (2017), is
based on the impression management theory while the one by Lanis & Richardson (2012), is
based on the legitimacy theory.
Sample description
The study by Zummo, et al. (2017), examined the existing data from the S&P/ASX 200 index
listed companies. This sample choice was chosen because of the ability of such companies to
influence public performance through tax information disclosure. The periods of 2013/2013
and 2014/2015 financial years were chosen to signify the pre- and post-introduction of the
2013 Act. On the other hand, the study by Lanis & Richardson (2012), has a sample size of
40 (20 tax aggressive companies and 20 non-tax aggressive companies). Therefore the two
studies followed different sample techniques (Manly, 2012).
Research design
Both studies applied statistical techniques such as t-tests and t-statistical for data analysis.
However, Lanis & Richardson (2012), used additional techniques like Pearson correlation,
OLS regression and Paired sample statistical for comprehensive analysis. The difference was
caused by the different research types that were used. Zummo, et al. (2017), relied on
secondary data while Lanis & Richardson (2012), used primary data which required an in-
depth analysis (Brennen, 2012).
Findings and Conclusion.
The two studies had different finding and conclusion based on their different objectives.
However, the studies found out that the introduction of tax compliance Act had a significant
impact of tax information disclosure. More companies were willing to disclose tax
information as part of being socially responsible.

Similarities and Differences 4
References List
Brennen, B., 2012. Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies. London: Routledge.
Lanis, R. & Richardson, G., 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility and Tax Aggressiveness:
A test of Legitimacy Theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accounting Journal , 26(1), pp. pp 75-
100.
Manly, B. F. J., 2012. The Design and Analysis of Research Studies. Chicago: Cambridge
University Press.
Zummo, H., Mccredie, B. & Sadiq, K., 2017. Addressing Aggressive tax planning through
Mandatory Corporate Tax Disclosure: And Explanatory case study. EJournal of Tax
Research, 15(2), pp. pp. 359-383.