@article{kim_schmidt_wentland_2020, title={Analysts, Taxes, and the Information Environment}, volume={42}, ISSN={["1558-8017"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-52515}, DOI={10.2308/atax-52515}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN TAXATION ASSOCIATION}, publisher={American Accounting Association}, author={Kim, Sangwan and Schmidt, Andrew P. and Wentland, Kelly}, year={2020}, pages={103–131} }
 @article{neuman_omer_schmidt_2020, title={Assessing Tax Risk: Practitioner Perspectives}, volume={37}, ISSN={["1911-3846"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12556}, DOI={10.1111/1911-3846.12556}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT}, number={3}, journal={CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH}, author={Neuman, Stevanie S. and Omer, Thomas C. and Schmidt, Andrew P.}, year={2020}, month={Sep}, pages={1788–1827} }
 @article{lisowsky_robinson_schmidt_2013, title={Do Publicly Disclosed Tax Reserves Tell Us About Privately Disclosed Tax Shelter Activity?}, volume={51}, ISSN={["0021-8456"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joar.12003}, DOI={10.1111/joar.12003}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH}, author={Lisowsky, Petro and Robinson, Leslie and Schmidt, Andrew}, year={2013}, month={Jun}, pages={583–629} }
 @article{firm and investor responses to uncertain tax benefit disclosure requirements_2013, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/atax-50458}, DOI={10.2308/atax-50458}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT}, journal={The Journal of the American Taxation Association}, year={2013}, month={Oct} }
 @article{bias in quarterly estimates of annual effective tax rates and earnings management_2012, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/atax-10152}, DOI={10.2308/atax-10152}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT}, journal={The Journal of the American Taxation Association}, year={2012}, month={Mar} }
 @article{structural change in the research and experimentation tax credit: success or failure?_2011, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2011.2.03}, DOI={10.17310/ntj.2011.2.03}, abstractNote={This study examines the availability and incentive effects of the Research and Experimentation tax credit following structural changes in the computation of the credit enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA89). We find that overall firm eligibility declined after OBRA89, but eligibility increased for firms in high-tech industries, relative to firms in other industries. Dynamic panel regressions indicate that median research and development spending intensity of high-tech (other) firms increased by approximately 15.9 (9.4) percent from 1986-1989 to 1990-1994. For firms that qualified for the credit, our estimates imply approximately $2.08 of additional research and development spending per dollar of revenue forgone.}, journal={National Tax Journal}, year={2011}, month={Jun} }
 @article{iyer_schmidt_seetharaman_2008, title={The effects of standardized tax rates, average tax rates, and the distribution of income on tax progressivity}, volume={27}, ISSN={0278-4254}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2007.11.006}, DOI={10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2007.11.006}, abstractNote={This study examines the changes in US individual income tax progressivity over the 1986–2003 period using the indexes developed by [Kakwani, N.C., 1976. Measurement of tax progressivity: An international comparison. Economic Journal 87(March), 71–80]. Although progressivity over this time frame has generally been studied in the literature, we provide additional insights by decomposing the changes in index values to account for the effects of concurrent changes in the standardized tax rates, average tax rates, and the income distribution. The decomposition should prove to be particularly useful when different summary indexes lead to conflicting conclusions about progressivity changes, as is often the case. From a policy standpoint, we show that it is the standardized tax rates, a derivative of the legislated tax rates, which need to be monitored and managed to offset the negative progressivity effects of increasing before-tax income inequality.}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Accounting and Public Policy}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Iyer, Govind S. and Schmidt, Andrew and Seetharaman, Ananth}, year={2008}, month={Jan}, pages={88–96} }
 @article{discussion of tax misreporting and avoidance by nonprofit organizations_2007, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jata.2007.29.1.87}, DOI={10.1521/jata.2007.29.1.87}, journal={Journal of the American Taxation Association}, year={2007}, month={Mar} }
 @article{the persistence, forecasting, and valuation implications of the tax change component of earnings_2006, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/accr.2006.81.3.589}, DOI={10.2308/accr.2006.81.3.589}, abstractNote={I examine whether earnings generated by changes in effective tax rates (the tax change component) persist and aid in forecasting future earnings. In addition, this study investigates to what extent investors incorporate the forecasting implications of the tax change component of earnings into stock prices. I find that there is a positive, significant association between the tax change component of earnings and future earnings. I use the interim reporting requirements of APB No. 28 (APB 1973) and FASB Interpretation No. 18 (FASB 1977) to further decompose the tax change component into an initial and a revised portion based on the first quarter estimate of the annual effective tax rates (ETR). I find that the initial tax change component is more persistent for future earnings than the revised tax change component. These results are consistent with my hypotheses that the initial and revised tax change components have differential persistence and forecasting implications, and dispute the broad notion advanced by prior literature that ETR-related earnings changes are transitory. Results from market tests indicate that the market underweights the forecasting implications of the tax change component and the mispricing appears to be driven by the transitory nature of the revised tax change component.}, journal={The Accounting Review}, year={2006}, month={May} }
 @article{“secondary evasion” and the earned income tax credit_2005, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jata.2005.27.2.27}, DOI={10.2308/jata.2005.27.2.27}, abstractNote={This paper documents that the earned income of taxpayers claiming the earned income tax credit (EITC) tends to cluster within $800 intervals surrounding the kink points of the EITC benefit distribution. This clustering is especially strong for head of household taxpayers around the kink point of the phase-in range and, to a lesser extent, for married filing joint taxpayers around the kink point of the phase-out range. The results from logit regression models estimated by filing status and kink point location indicate that “secondary evasion” with respect to the EITC is more associated with the characteristics of head of household taxpayers than those of married filing joint taxpayers.}, journal={The Journal of the American Taxation Association}, year={2005}, month={Sep} }