PART 2: FIRM ATTRIBUTES AND TAX AGGRESSIVENESS IN NIGERIAN QUOTED FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES BY YAKUBU KARIM

Akintoye et al.(2020) examined the impact of tax planning strategies on the profit performance of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. The used the Taro Yamani formula in arriving at a sample of 46 manufacturing firms from 2008 to 2017. The made of use of descriptive and inferential statistics in analysing the secondary data. Their result showed that there is no significant effect of tax planning on the profitability (proxied using ROA) of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The study recommended that tax managers and finance officers should reduce thin capitalization and capital intensity to balance the source of income of manufacturing firms. However, their study focused on the manufacturing firms which is distinctive to the direction of this study – with focus on the financial sector which has stricter regulatory monitoring and large stakeholder’s followership due to the financial intermediary roles they play in the economy.

Yahaya and Yusuf (2020) examined the impact of firm characteristics on tax aggressiveness in Nigerian listed Insurance firms. The focused on firm size, firm age, profitability and leverage as independent variables and measures of firm characteristics. Their sample consists of twenty (20) insurance firms quoted on the Nigerian Stock Exchange from 2010 to 2018. They analysed using the two-step system GMM panel regression model and found that firm size and leverage affect tax aggressiveness positively while firm age and profitability assert negative significant impacts on tax aggressiveness. The study recommended that firm size should be formulated in line with the regulatory provisions. However, their study focused on only the Insurance companies which are just a sub-set of the entire financial sector which is the focus of this study. Hence, it is expected that the outcome of this study will be more generalizable than theirs.

Onatuyeh and Odu (2019) examined the impact of corporate characteristics on tax aggressiveness in Nigeria using secondary data of 49 listed manufacturing companies from 2011-2016. They used panel data regression technique and found that board size and board independence exert negative and significant impacts on tax aggressiveness, while board gender exerts no significant effects on the level of tax aggressiveness. They recommend that listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria should ensure more women are included in their boards of directors. One key con of their study is that their recommendation is at variance with their result. For example, they found that gender diversity has no significant effect on tax aggressiveness and went ahead and recommended for greater women inclusion in the board.

Ifurueze et al. (2018) investigated the effect of corporate tax aggressiveness on firm growth in Nigeria using the ex post facto research design. They made use of secondary data comprising of seven (7) quoted manufacturing companies (2007-2016). They analysed using the pooled OLS method and found that the influence of ETR on firm growth is not statistically significant, and so, should be ignored as a key determinant of firm growth. They also found that leverage (LEV) impact positively on firm growth, but this impact is not statistically significant. They however recommended that on the efficient use of tax rate to generate firm growth should be encouraged. The key observable anomaly of their study, just like as pointed out in Onatuyeh and Odu (2019), is the deviation of their recommendation from the major finding. As observed, aggressive tax practice was found as a non-significant driver of firm growth, and same was recommended for firm growth.

Atu et al.(2018) examined the effect of firm attributes on tax aggressiveness in Nigeria using secondary data comprising of fifteen (15) DMBs from 2013-2017. They deployed the use of the OLS regression technique. Their result showed that firm size, leverage, and liquidity have significant impacts on tax aggressiveness in Nigeria while profitability has a non-significant impact on tax aggressiveness. They recommended that the initial focus of tax authorities should be on creating a tax culture amongst the people, and less on maximizing revenue or enforcing stringent tax compliance measures. The observable defect of this study is the wrong quotation of population as there were only thirteen (13) commercial banks listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange during the period of their study.

Ugbogbo et al.(2018) evaluated the corporate determinants of aggressive tax avoidance in Nigeria from the dimension of the firm-specific attributes. The used secondary data extracted from the annual reports of 40 Nigerian listed companies from year 2013 to 2017. With the aid of the OLS multiple regression technique, they found empirical evidence that firm size has positive relationship with corporate tax aggressive avoidance while profitability and leverage have negative significant relationships with corporate tax aggressive avoidance. They recommend that profitability, firm size and leverage should be given more attention in the course of considering the determinants that affects tax aggressive by various stakeholders, especially in Nigeria. A major defect of their study is that they were not explicit on the number of sectors considered as ‘manufacturing companies’ leading to their reliance on a sample of only 40 companies excluding other sectors that are still into manufacturing such as the oil and gas sector.

Inua (2018) studied the determinants of corporate effective tax rates in Nigeria using a sample of 30 manufacturing companies. Secondary data was used as obtained from the annual accounts of the sampled companies from 2011-2016. Using the panel data regression technique, the result showed that firm leverage, board independence and board size are negatively and significantly related to ETR, while firm size is negatively and non-insignificantly related to ETR. The study recommends that external board members with experience in accounting, finance and management issues should be highly encouraged as this will reduce the tax rate and bring about efficient tax practices. Despite studying the same sector, Inua’ result on firm size contradicts that of Ugbogbo et al. (2018), showing negative and positive relationships respectively. This may be as a result of the miniature sample employed by the former – which applied unscientific method in sampling only 30 companies out of a population of 170.

Salaudeen and Eze (2018) studied the effect of firm-specific attributes on corporate effective tax rate in Nigeria. They sampled a total of 59 non-financial firms from 10 different sectors quoted in the NSE from 2010-2014. They employed the panel data regression technique and found that the level of ETR differs based on sector/industry type. The result also showed that larger and more profitable firms have high tax burden while firms with high leverage, capital intensity, and tax expert (auditor type) are faced with lower ETR. Their result however showed no significant relationship between ETR and labour intensity. They concluded that tax incentives provided by the Nigerian tax authorities are substantially significant even though they vary from sector to sector. They queried the dispersion in the ETR found amongst the different sectors which challenges the equity of the corporate tax system in Nigeria. However, Salaudeen and Eze (2018) did not proffer any recommendation which can be considered a defect to the study.

Salaudeen (2017) also examined the corporate effective tax rates in the Nigerian financial sector and their determinants using a sample of 24 financial companies from listed on the NSE from 2010-2014. Salaudeen used two different proxies of tax aggressive measures, the GAAP ETR and Cash ETR. Using the panel regression analyses, Salaudeen found that profitability, firm leverage and capital intensiveness as the determinants of the both GAAP ETR and CASH ETR, meaning they negatively affect tax aggressiveness. The study recommends the need to increase tax incentives in activities auxiliary to banking services and insurance activities sub sector of the financial services sector where the mortgage firms belong. It is worthy of note that his recommendation was not based on the findings.

Ogbeide (2017) examined the impact of firm characteristics on tax aggressiveness in Nigeria. He sampled a total of 85 non-financial companies listed on the NSE for the period 2012 to 2016. He used the panel data method of regression and found that firm size exerts positive and significant effects on tax aggressiveness, while leverage is significant and exerts negative effect on tax aggressiveness. Also, external audit quality (audit fees) and tax aggressiveness are significantly positively related. The study recommends that listed firms in Nigeria should make it a practice to adequately compensate managers and board of directors strategically as this will assist to reduce their tendency to engage in rent seeking/managerial opportunism and lead to lower effective tax rate. Just like the observation in Salaudeen (2017), Ogbeide (2017) failed to tailor his recommendation to flow from his findings.

Balakrishnan et al. (2017) examined the impact of tax aggressiveness on corporate transparency in United Kingdom. They used secondary data comprising of 40,193 firm-year observations that run from 1990 to 2013 extracted from the Compustat database. They used GAAP-ETR tax aggressive measure in a multiple regression analysis technique and found that aggressive tax planning is significantly associated with lower corporate transparency. The concluded that managers at tax aggressive firms attempt to mitigate these transparency problems by increasing various tax-related disclosures. As a result, firms face a trade-off between tax benefits and financial transparency when choosing the aggressiveness of their tax planning. They, however, did not give any policy recommendation based on their result.

Nwaobia and Jayeoba (2017) examined the effect of tax planning strategies on firms’ liquidity. Various tax planning strategies were discussed but the strategies of Capital Intensity (CAPINT), Thin Capitalization (TINCAP), Lease Option (LOPT) and Industry sector incentives (IND) were selected as the independent variable. The Criterion variable used was firms’ liquidity measured in this study by the Current Ratio (CR) while firm size (SIZE) was adopted as the control variable. Data obtained from 154 firm-year observations were described and regression analysis was used to test the hypothesis developed. The results reveal that tax planning strategies exert negative effects on firms’ liquidity. Their study recommend appropriate measures and skill should be applied in determining appropriate mix of strategies toadopt for tax planning purpose as some strategies if not properly designed and applied mayreduce tax liability at the expense of firm’s liquidity. This researcher considers the sampling of only 11 companies is rather too small for the sample size which makes the outcome of the study non-generalizable.

Irianto et al.(2017) examined the factors that affect the company’s tax avoidance. There are several factors used include size, leverage, profitability, and capital intensity. The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of firm size, leverage, profitability and capital intensity ratio on tax avoidance in manufacture companies listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange 2013-2015. Population taken as the object of observation amounted to 156 manufacturing companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange in the period 2013-2015. Determination of the sample was made by applying purposive sampling method and obtains a sample of 36 manufacturing companies based on certain criteria. Their results showed that the size positive influence on the effective tax rate, while leverage, profitability and capital intensity ratio does not significantly influence tax avoidance practices. Their study did not provide a single recommendation, save for conclusion and summary of findings.

Rania et al.(2017) analysed the effects of the corporate’s characteristics on tax avoidance and to analyse the effects of moderation of earnings management on the relationship between the corporate’s characteristics and tax avoidance. The corporate’s characteristics in their study were proxied using profitability, leverage, and company size. They selected 49 manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange of the period of 2012-2016 as samples using the cluster random sampling technique. The result of their panel data regression with random effect model shows that the characteristics of a company, namely the profitability and the size have a significant negative effect on tax avoidance, whereas the leverage has a significant positive effect on tax avoidance. Their study did not give any recommendation which is considered a major limitation.

Kim and Im (2017) conducted a study on the effect and determinants of small-and medium-sized entities conducting tax avoidance using companies listed on the Korean Stock Exchange. Their sample consists 18,954 audited firms including those external audited from 2011 to 2013. They argue that the financial determinants of tax aggressiveness vary between small (SMES) and big (non-SMEs) companies. They used the BTD measure and found that firm size negatively affected tax avoidance, while profitability, the leverage, the operating cash flow, the capital intensity, the R&D intensity, and the growth rate had a positive effect on tax avoidance. They conclude that there is significant difference between the drivers of tax avoidance of small and large firms. They recommend that large firms should be properly monitored an observed during in order to curtail aggressive tax practices. Their study differs from this current study owing to their focus on unlisted firms.

Yangyang et al. (2017) investigated the effect of liquidity on corporate tax avoidance. They document that firms with higher liquidity engage less in extreme (i.e., either overly aggressive or overly conservative) tax avoidance. The effect of liquidity on tax avoidance is economically meaningful, is robust across alternative measures of tax avoidance and stock liquidity, and holds after controlling for potential endogenous effects. They further document that the effect of liquidity on tax avoidance is amplified for firms with a high proportion of activist shareholders, and is attenuated for firms with high levels of stock price in formativeness. The entirety of the findings was consistent with the view that stock liquidity mitigates extreme tax avoidance by enhancing shareholders’ control over firm management. However, no recommendation, in line the outcome of the study, was found in their work which tends to make the work incomplete in form.

Anouar and Houria (2017) examined the significant relationship that exists between tax avoidance and firm size. The study made use of 45 listed Moroccan corporate groups, over 2011–2015 periods. The study made use of the multiple regression models. The study indicates that highly indebted firms are likely to take advantage of the main characteristics of debt-capital in order to avoid a significant corporate tax burden. They added that tax considerations have made debt financing, the preferential form of financing in areas with high taxation. Their study did not make any policy recommendation, save for suggestions that future studies should look at the determinants of tax avoidance from the areas of the relationship of the directors’ board with the shareholders, the role of the tax authority, the personnel’s skills and the tax havens.

Yetty et al.(2016) studied the role of leverage on corporate tax avoidance in Indonesia using manufacturing firms listed on Indonesian Stock Exchange for the period 2010-2014. The study used the purposive sampling technique to select 108 firms. This study used secondary data such as Annual Reports and Accounts that was published during the observation year. The multiple linear regression equation was used and the study results revealed that leverage does not have a significant effect on tax avoidance. The study did not make recommendations for policy in line with their results, they only suggested that future researchers should expand the study by including other variables that are absent in their study.

Dharma and Ardiana (2016) examined the effects of the leverage, the fixed asset intensity, the size, and the political connections in the manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. The results showed that the leverage and the fixed asset intensity had a positive effect on tax avoidance. The size negatively affected tax avoidance, whereas the political connections negatively affected tax avoidance but were not significant. They did not explicitly provide any recommendations and that constitutes a major defect of the study.

Ana et al.(2015) investigated the determinants of effective tax rates: firms’ characteristics and corporate governance using 45 publicly-listed Porto corporate groups, over 2010–2013 periods. The study employed the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression and found a positive relationship between profitability and effective tax rates. The study states that firms with high profitability are most likely to engage in tax avoidance practices in order to reduce their tax liabilities. They conclude that larger and more profitable firms have higher ETRs, while capital intensity, leverage and R&D expenses have a negative impact on ETRs. They did not provide any recommendation based on the findings of each variable in their study and that is one aspect of research study that this current study will not overlook.

Ezugwu and Akubo(2014) studied the effect of high corporate tax rate on the profitability of corporate organizations in Nigeria. The study used the down-stream oil sector of the economy as the population which comprises forty-five (45) corporate organizations that pay their corporate taxes, as obtained from Federal Inland Revenue Service, Lagos office. Data collected was tested using regression analysis. Their findings show that high corporate tax rate impact negatively on realized profit and depict a direct positive relationship between corporate tax rate and realized profit. A major issue with their study is the use of questionnaire which is highly subject to manipulation as well as their focus on only Lagos State for which the findings may not be same in other states of the country.

Akanksha et al. (2013) examined the impact of corporate tax aggressiveness and the role of debt in the U.S.A. The study sample consisted of 9,648 unique firms, over the period 1986-2012. The impact of leverage on tax aggressiveness was tested using the U.S model’s predictions. Findings showed that leverage deters tax aggressiveness. It was also evident that although leverage reduces tax aggressiveness in absolute value, it exacerbates it when the latter is measured as a proportion of the firm’s pre-tax book income. This is consistent with the hypothesis that leverage may actually cause the manager to avoid more taxes in the non-bankrupt states of the world, when the perceived benefits therefrom are positive.

Stanfield (2011) used data from Compustat for the years 1992 to 2009 for U.S to analyse tax avoidance and illiquidity of firms. The study found greater tax avoidance or lower ETR (cash taxes paid divided by pre-tax income) for firm with insufficient cash, that is, an inverse relationship with liquidity and tax avoidance. Cash or liquidity is measured by the quick ratio, free cash flows, and insufficient cash holdings. Stanfield also found an increase in tax avoidance for firms that meet or just beat the consensus cash flow forecast. The study recommends that firms should only employ debt as capital only when necessary as the study reveals a positive relationship between leverage and effective tax rate as an increase in the use of leverage will increase the effective tax rate of firms. And the recommendation of the study did not spread to the other variables and thus incomplete.

Heshmati et al.(2010) analysed the effects of ETRs on the size distribution of Swedish firms from 1973 – 2002. Time and industry effects were considered. They found that ETRs differ by firm size, industry and over time. Smaller firms had a higher ETR than larger firms, and there was inequality in mean and variance of ETRs between industrial sectors. They conclude that ETRs affect the size distribution of firms as well as the composition of industries, and that the Swedish tax system favours capital-intensive sectors and firms. Despite the fact that their study did not make any recommendation, their study of a 27-year period amounting to 6,357 firm-year observations) is highly commendable and shows evidence of a robust result in the Swedish context.

Rohaya et al.(2010) showed evidence that larger companies endure higher effective tax rates (ETR) in the examination of Malaysian public companies listed on Bursa Malaysia. This conclusion was established during official assessment system and self-assessment system tax regimes. The study also concluded that lower ETRs are significantly related to highly leverage companies, greater investment in fixed assets and lower investment in inventory. They recommend that tax authorities to undertake tax auditing and investigation to trace illegal tax planning activities, but did not provide recommendations based on the variables used in the study. The results of the investigation by Abdul-Wahab and Holland (2012) which sought to investigate the relationship between tax planning savings of firms and their value utilised the regression model and a negative relationship. They conclude that the relationship between firm value and tax planning activities from the perception is negative, and that as tax planning activities increase, the tax costs and risks outweighs the benefits. However, their study is based on perceptions and lacks strong empirical underpinning.

Rego (2003) examines whether multinational corporations avoid more taxes than U.S. domestic-only companies, resulting in lower effective tax rates. He finds that the scale of international operations results in more tax avoidance opportunities which leads to lower domestic and foreign ETRs. The study points out that after controlling for pre-tax income, foreign operations, industry membership, year, and geographic location, larger firms exhibit higher ETRs which is an indication that larger firms are subject to political costs which increase their ETRs. Also, Rego (2003) documents that after controlling for firm size, companies with a higher level of pre-tax income exhibit lower ETRs indicating a negative relation between pre-tax income and ETRs. He concludes by affirming the evidence of economies of scale and economies of scope to tax planning, and recommends that both researchers and regulators should consider ‘size’ as a strong driver of tax avoidance practices. While this researcher agrees with the postulations of Rego concerning size, that may not be relevant in the Nigerian context considering the minimal presence of multinationals in the Nigerian financial sector.

2.4 Gap in Literature

The review of the prior studies by both foreign and local threw up some gaps in literature. Firstly, majority of the related researches which have been conducted in Nigeria were largely limited to manufacturing companies and non-financial sector (See for example: Onatuyeh & Odu, 2019, Ifurueze et al, 2018, Inua, 2018, Ugbogbo et al, 2018, Salaudeen & Eze, 2018, Salaudeen & Akano, 2018, Salaudeen & Ejeh, 2018; among others). The only study among the log that sampled the Nigerian banking sector is that of Atu et al (2018) but the variables used were limited to firm size, profitability, liquidity and leverage; excluding firm complexity and firm age which this present study incorporates. Secondly, almost the entire reviewed studies by Nigerian authors used the GAAP effective tax rate (ETR) as proxy/measure for tax aggressiveness and did not consider other measures of tax aggressiveness. This constitutes a gap in literature which the introduction of the Total BTD measures based on the recommendation by the recent study of Kusbandiyah et al (2021). It is expected that the outcome will contribute to the existing knowledge and enabling the understanding as to whether the inconsistences in prior studies can be attributed to methodological issues or sector-based heterogeneities.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

This study adopts ex-post facto research design and this is because the data for the study are historical in nature as they already exist in the secondary form. This study is also considered longitudinal because the sample objects of the study covers different firms for various years and with use of verifiable archival information that cannot be manipulated by the researcher.

3.2 Population of the Study

The target population of the study consist of all quoted financial services companies in Nigeria. As at year ended December 2021, there are a total of forty-eight (48) companies listed under the financial sector on the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) among which includes thirteen (13) Commercial Banks and thirty-seven (35) other financial institutions (including Insurance Firms, Mortgage Banks, Micro-Finance Banks and one Islamic Bank).

3.3 Sample Size of the Study

The sample size of the study is the same as the population. Considering that the researcher tends to achieve a robust result that will be useful for generalisation purpose,

3.4 Sampling technique

The study adopted the Census sampling technique and therefore captured the entire population.

3.5 Sources of Data

The study made use of secondary data which were sourced from various annual reports of the sampled financial companies deposited at the libraries and website of the NSE (https://ngxgroup.com). The research covers a period of ten (10) financial years (2012-2021). The nine-year period is being proposed because there is need to generate data for the estimations from the same accounting reporting regime (that is, IFRS) – especially since Nigeria adopted IFRS in 2012.

3.6 Data Analysis Method

The study conducted normality test on the data to be used for analysis using descriptive statistics and panel unit root test where necessary. Other conventional diagnostic tests such as multicollinearity, heteroskedasticity, and Ramsey RESET Test will also be conducted to address the basic regression analysis assumptions. The relationships between and amongst the variables will be examined using the correlation analysis and to also help check for possible multicollinearity. For the purpose of the hypotheses tests, the effect of firm attributes on tax aggressiveness was examined using panel multiple regression. In deciding which of the regression model (fixed effect and random effect) to interpret for the analysis, the study employed the Hausman test for endogeneity.

3.7 Model Specification

The econometric models of the study as adapted from the studies of Ilaboya et al. (2016), Ogbeide (2017) and Atu et al. (2018). The models of Ilaboya et al. (2016) and Ogbeide (2017) specified that tax aggressiveness is a function of firm size, audit quality, leverage, and interest charges, while the model used by Atu et al. (2018) specified tax aggressiveness to be a function of firm size, leverage, profitability and liquidity. The above models were thus modified with the introduction of firm complexity, as earlier justified in the summary of review.

Thus, in order to ascertain the effect of firm attributes on tax aggressiveness of quoted financial services companies in Nigeria, this study proposes the following panel regression models in a bid to providing answers to the formulated null hypotheses of this study.

The functional linear equation for the model is shown below.

BTD = f(SIZ + AGE + ROA + SUBS)

The general econometric model for the study is specified thus:

BTD = β0 + 1SIZit + β2AGEit + β3ROAit + β4SUBSit + µit ……….. Model

Where:

0 = represents the constant

β1 – β4= represents the parameters to be estimated

= Book tax difference (proxy for tax aggressiveness)

=Firm size

= Firm age

= Firm profitability

SUBS = Subsidiaries representing Firm complexity

i = Firms

t = Time/Period

µ = the error term.

3.8 Operationalization of the variables

The measurements and sources of the variables used in this study are defined in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Operationalization of Variables

Variables

Acronym

Type

Measurement

apriori sign

Source/Used by

Book Tax Difference

BTD

Dependent

Pre-tax income-taxable income/total assets (Taxable income = dividing income tax expense by statutory tax rate)

-nil-

Kusbandiyah et al. (2021); Kim & Jang (2018)

Firm size

SIZ

Independent

Natural log of total assets

Ilaboya et al. (2016)

Firm age

AGE

Independent

Current year less year of incorporation

–

Ilaboya et al. (2016)

Firm profitability

ROA

Independent

Ratio of profit after tax to total asset

Salaudeen (2017)

Firm complexity

SUBS

Independent

Number of a firm’s operating segments or subsidiaries.

Balakrishnan et al. (2017)

Source: Researcher’s compilation (2022).

Also, considering that the study projects to employ two different measures of tax aggressiveness as dependent variables in a dual model approach, some model comparison tests such as root mean squared error (RMSE) and the mean absolute error (MAE) was used to compare the forecasting performance of the two models. The model that passed as the most fitted with better forecast ability will be relied upon for the tests of hypothesis and making inferences. However, the outcome of both models formed part of the discussions and for making inferences.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSES OF RESULTS

4.1 Data Presentation

The set of data used for this study which comprises figures for Nigerian quoted financial services companies: Subsidiaries of the companies (SUBS), Firm size (FSZ), Natural logarithm of firm size (L_FSZ), firm profitability (ROA), Firm Age (AGE) and book tax difference (BTD) the dependent variable for a ten year period between 2012 and 2021 is attached as Appendix A.

4.2 Data Analysis

4.2 1 Univariate Analyses: Descriptive Statistics

This sub-section presents the preliminary analysis of the data using descriptive statistics as presented in Table 4.1 below.

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

BTD 460 0.013 0.049 -0.463 0.509

L_FSZ 459 7.718 1.092 5.58 10.07

AGE 459 18.203 12.21 51 52

ROA 459 0.018 0.128 -0.692 1.13

SUBS 461 3.464 4.851 0 27

Source: STATA 15 software output.

As observed from Table 4.1, the variable of BTD showed a mean value if 0.013 which represents the average book-tax difference (BTD) level of the sampled financial companies. The positive book-tax difference is suggestive that the sampled firms, on the average, engaged in upward earnings management (tax avoidance) activities. According to Prawira (2017), unlike the ETR tax aggressive measures, the bigger the BTD, the bigger the company is tax aggressive. The variable of FSZ and AGE have mean values of 7.718 and 18.203 respectively that are less than their standard deviations (1.092 and 0.128 in that order) indicating that these variables do not disperse vey widely during the period under study. However, ROA and SUBS have standard deviation (0.128 and 4.851 respectively) which are higher than their mean values (0.018 and 3.464 in the same order) indicating that these three variable were more widely dispersed from their mean values. Also, the mean value of AGE (measured by the number of years since listing on the NGX) show that the average listing age of the sampled firms is approximately 18 years. The oldest company among the sample (Union Bank) has being listed for 52 years as at 2021, while the newest listed company in the sample (Jaiz bank) was just a year old as at 2012 and Omoluabi (Living Trust) mortgage bank of 2013

On the performance of the companies in terms of firm profitability (ROA), it could be deduced from the result that ROA has a mean value of 0.018 (about 1.8%). The positive ROA indicates an upward profit trend among the sample taken together, while the negative minimum value of -0.692 is an indication that some of the sampled companies did not manage their assets effectively towards income generation within the 10 year period covered by the study.

On the complexity of the firms, in terms of the numbers of operating business segments, the mean value of SUBS showed 3.46 which means that the sampled firms have an average of 3 subsidiaries.. Also, while the minimum value of zero suggests that some of the sampled companies (such as Jaiz bank and Fidelity Bank) have no active subsidiary within the 9-year period studied, some (like UBA) have up to 27 active subsidiaries within the studied periods

4.2.2 Bivariate Analysis

As part of the preliminary analysis of the data, this sub-section (as reported in Table 4.2) presents the results of the correlation matrix for observing the associations among the variables and determining if there is presence of multicollinearity in the series.

Table 4.2 Correlation Matrix for Multicollinearity

Table 4.2 below shows the correlation coefficients of the variables obtained with the aid of Pearson correlation matrix. The decision rule is the accept the presence of multicollinearity is a pair or more of the independent variables correlate above 0.85 or reject multicollinearity if none of the independent variables correlate with another above the stated threshold.

Table 4.2 Pearson Correlation Matrix

BTD SUBS L_FSZ ROA AGE

BTD 1.000

SUBS 0.570 1.000

L_FSZ 0.609 0.621 1.000

ROA 0.029 0.039 0.047 1.000

AGE 0.280 0.480 0.383 0.059 1.000

Source: STATA 15 (2022).

From the outcome of the correlation matrix presented in Table 4.2, it can be observed that the measures of firm size (FSZ), firm age (AGE), firm profitability (ROA) and firm subsidiaries (SUBS) are all positively correlated with the tax aggressive measure of book-tax-difference (BTD) with correlation coefficients of 0.609, 0.280, 0.029 and 0.570, implying that the variables of FSZ, AGE, ROA and SUBS all move in the same direction with the independent variable (BTD).

The highest correlation among the independent variables is between SUBS and AGE at 0.480 which means that, based on the decision rule, there is no multicollinearity as the highest correlation is below 0.85 (Hair et al.,2005)

Regression Diagnostic Tests

Some diagnostic tests were conducted to ensure that the basic assumptions underlying regression modelling are not violated. This sub-section presents the outcomes of Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for multicollinearity, the heteroskedasticity testsfor variance stability and the Ramsey RESET test for omitted variables.

4.2.3 Variance Inflation Factor Test

Table 4.3 below presents the results of the variance inflation factor to confirm or disprove the correlation coefficient as provided in Table 4.2 above. The decision rule is to accept that effect of multicollinearity in the model is severe if the mean VIF is greater than 10 or that there is severe effect of multicollinearity in the model if the mean VIF is less than 10.

Table 4.3 Variable Inflation Factor

Variable VIF 1/VIF

L_FSZ 2.19 0.456

AGE 1.38 0.723

ROA 1.01 0.993

SUBS 2.04 0.489

Mean VIF 1.66

Source: STATA 15 output (2022).

Results presented in Table 4.3 above show that the highest VIF was 2.19 for firm size (FSZ) while the mean VIF was 1.66. Based on the decision rule, multicollinearity does not exist and/or if does, it is of inconsequential effect in the model.

4.2.4 Heteroskedasticity Test

Table 4.4 presents the results of the heteroskedasticity test to establish the stability of the residuals variance of the model. The decision rule is reject the null hypothesis which states that the model has constant variance if the p-value is lower than or equals to 0.05 or accept the hypothesis is the p-value is higher than 0.05

Table 4.4 Heteroskedasticity Test: Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey:

F-statistics 627.24

Prob 0.353

Source: STATA 15 output.

Table 4.4 above reveals that the model gas a p-value of 0.353 which is greater than 0.05 and based on the decision rule, the model has constant variance and hence homoskedal as heterokedasticity is not present.

4.2.5 Ramsey RESET

Table 4.5 below shows the result of the Ramsey regression equation specification test conducted to determine whether or not any indispensable variables were omitted in the model. The decision rule is that there are omitted variables if the model has a p-value lower than or equals to 0.05 or does not have omitted variables if the p-value is higher than 0.05.

Table 4.5 Ramsey RESET

Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of btd

Ho: model has no omitted variables

F(3, 440) = 1123.41

Prob > F = 0.1946

Source: STATA 15 software output.

Table 4.5 the outcome of the Ramsey reset test for model mis-specification was reported to test the accuracy of the regression model. The result reveals a t-statistic of 1123.41 and a probability value of 0.1946 (19%). The p-value of 0.19 is higher than 0.05 and based on the decision rule, there is no evidence of mis-specification in the equation as there is no omitted variables.

4.2.6 Multivariate Analysis

This sub-section presents the analyses of the panel regression model as specified in the third chapter of the study. The Pooled OLS, Fixed and Random Effect techniques were all estimated (as deposited in the appendix) in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the results. However, since one of the cons of the pooled OLS technique is that it does not recognize the heterogeneity among samples and our sample cuts across different sub-sectors (insurance, deposit money banks, mortgage bank, Islamic bank, microfinance banks and other financial institutions and securities) making up the financial sector, the study relied on the fixed and random effect techniques. However, in order to choose the best among the two, the Hausman test was thus employed to help determine the most appropriate model between the fixed and random effects. The abridged outcome of the Hausman tests is presented in Table 4.5 below, while the full result can be found in the appendix section.

Table 4.6 Result of the Hausman Test

Test Summary

Chi-Sq. Statistic

Chi-Sq.

d.f.

Prob.

Cross-section random

111.0024

0.030

Source: STATA 15 Output (2022).

From the above result, the null hypothesis (Ho) is that the random effect model is consistent while the alternative (H1) is that, fixed effect model is consistent. The decision rule is to reject the null hypothesis if p-value is less than 0.05, otherwise if p-value is higher than 0.05, accept the alternative hypothesis. From the result of the Hausman test as presented in Table 4.6, the probability value is 0.030 and since it is lower than the critical p-value of 5%, it then means that the fixed effect model is more appropriate for the study than the random effect in capturing the relationships in the panel estimation. The extracted summary of the fixed effect results is presented in Table 4.7 below.

Table 4.2.7 Panel Regression Result

The summary of the regression analysis of the model using fixed effect method is presented in the table below using fixed effect estimation. The system output is attached as appendix B.

Table 4.7 Regression Analysis

BTD | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t|

L_FSZ 0.276 0.117 2.36 0.022**

AGE -1.880 1.033 -1.82 0.061

ROA -0.650 0.216 -3.01 0.000***

SUBS 1.142 0.342 3.34 0.000***

_cons -0.092 0.011 -0.82 0.272

R-sqd. overall 0.4117

F-statisics 111.62

Prob>F 0.0000

Note: *** = 1%, ** = 5% significance levels

Source: STATA 15 software output (2022).

As observed from Table 4.7, the F-statistic value of 111.62and the corresponding probability value of 0.0000 (at 1% significance) show that a significant linear relationship exists between the dependent variable BTD and the explanatory (independent) variables taken together. The R-squared overall of (0.4117) approximately 41% which represents the coefficient of determination indicates that about 41% of the systematic cross-sectional variations of the dependent variable(BTD) has been explained by the independent variables of SIZ, AGE, ROA and SUBS jointly. This shows that the model has a fairly low explanatory power as about 59% of variances in BTD was unaccounted for by the variables not included in the regression model and has been captured by the error term.

Table 4.7 further show that SUBS which measures the complexity of the firm and firm size (FSZ) have significant positive relationship with book tax differences (BTD) with p-values of 0.000 and 0.022 respectively. The results also show that ROA has a significant (0.000) but (-3.01) negative relationship, while, AGE has an insignificant (0.061) negative (1.82) relationship with BTD.

4.3 Test of Hypotheses

The four null hypotheses formulated in the course of the study were tested in this sub-section. The decision rule is to accept the HO (null hypothesis) when the probability value exceeds the significance test value of 0.05 (5%), but if the probability value is less than or equals to 0.5 (5%), the null hypothesis should be rejected.

Ho1: There is no significant effect of firm size on tax aggressiveness in Nigerian quoted financial companies.

Table 4.7 shows that firm size (FSZ) has a beta coefficient of 0.276, a t-statistics of 2.36 and a p-value of 0.022, which is less than0.05 (5%) significance value. Based on the decision rule, the null hypothesis which states that firm size has no significant effect on tax aggressiveness is rejected.

Ho2: There is no significant effect of firm age on tax aggressiveness in Nigerian quoted financial companies.

The result in Table 4.7 shows that firm age (AGE) with a negative coefficient of -1.880, a t-stat. of -1.82 and p-value of 0.061 (significant only at 10% level) is statistically not significant as the p-value of 0.061 is greater than 0.05. Based on the decision rule, the null hypothesis that firm age has no significant relationship with tax aggressiveness is accepted.

Ho3: There is no significant effect of firm profitability on tax aggressiveness in Nigerian quoted financial companies.

Table 4.7 shows that ROA has a coefficient of -0.650, a t-stat. of -3.01 and a p-value of 0.000 which is significant at the 1% level. This finding indicates that ROA has a significant negative relationship with tax aggressiveness of the examined companies. In line with the decision rule, the null hypothesis that firm profitability has no significant relationship with tax aggressiveness is hereby rejected.

Ho4: There is no significant effect of firm complexity on tax aggressiveness in Nigerian quoted financial companies.

Table 4.7 shows that firm complexity measured by the number of the firms’ subsidiaries (SUBS) has a positive coefficient of 1.243, a t-stat. of 3.21 and a p-value of 0.001 (at 1% significance), which is lower than the 0.05 critical value. The findings shows that the null hypothesis four (Ho4) which states that firm complexity has no significant effect of tax aggressiveness in Nigerian listed financial companies is rejected.

4.4 Discussion of Findings

The study finds that firm size (FSZ) has a significant effect on tax aggressiveness measured by book tax difference (BTD) with a positive coefficient of 0.276, a t-statistics of 2.36 and a p-value of 0.022 indicating that a unit increase the firms’ total asset will lead to increase in their tax aggressiveness. This finding agrees with those of Atuet al. (2018), Rani et al. (2018), Iriantoet al. (2017), Ogbeide (2017), Pratama (2017), Ugbogboet al. (2018), Salaudeen and Akano (2018) who reported that firm size has a significant effect on tax aggressiveness, but, it disagrees with those of Inua (2018) and Ogundajo (2016) who observed that firm size has an insignificant effect on tax aggressiveness.

The study finds that firm age(AGE) has an insignificant negative effect on tax aggressiveness measured by book tax difference (BTD) with a coefficient of -1.880, a t-statistics of -1.82 and a p-value of 0.061 indicating that a unit increase the firms age of existence will lead to a decrease in their tax aggressiveness. This finding corroborates those of Nwaobia et al. (2016) and Ogundajo and Onakoya (2016), Fernández-Rodríguez et al. (2019), Ogundajo and Onakoya (2016) and Pratama (2017) who reported that firm age has an insignificant effect on tax aggressiveness.

The study finds that firm profitability measured by return on asset (ROA) has a significant negative effect on tax aggressiveness measured by book tax difference (BTD) with a coefficient of -0.650, a t-statistics of -3.01 and a p-value of 0.000 indicating that a unit increase the firms’ profitability will lead to a significant decrease in their tax aggressiveness. This finding is line with those of Zhu et al. (2019), Rani et al. (2018) and Chytiset al. (2018) who reported that profitability has a significant effect on tax aggressiveness, but, it contradict those of Atuet al. (2018), Salawu and Adedeji (2018) and Onyali and Okafor (2018) who observed that profitability has an insignificant effect on tax aggressiveness.

The study finds that firm complexity represented by the number of subsidiaries (SUBS) has a significant positive effect on tax aggressiveness measured by book tax difference (BTD) with a coefficient of 1.142, a t-statistics of 3.34 and a p-value of 0.000 indicating that a unit increase the firms’ subsidiaries lead to significant increase in their tax aggressiveness. This finding agrees with those of Chen et al. (2010) and Pratama (2017) who reported that firm complexity has a significant effect on tax aggressiveness.

Table 4.5 Summary of Findings

Hypothesis Statement Decision

Ho1: Firm size has no significant effect of tax aggressiveness of Rejected

financial institutions in Nigeria.

Ho2: Firm age has no significant effect of tax aggressiveness of Accepted

financial institutions in Nigeria.

Ho3: Profitability has no significant effect of tax aggressiveness of Rejected

financial institutions in Nigeria.

Ho4: Firm complexity has no significant effect of tax aggressiveness Rejected

of financial institutions in Nigeria.

Source: Table 4.7 above.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

The following were the major findings of the study:

The study found evidence that the impact of firm size on tax aggressiveness (using the BTD measure) is negative and statistically non-significant. This means that the level or degree of tax avoidance practices by Nigerian financial companies does not depend on their size – in terms of total assets.
Using the BTD measure of tax aggressiveness, the study found that the variable of firm age has an inverse and non-significant impact on tax aggressiveness. This means that in the context of the Nigerian financial sector, and holding other variables constant, the listing age of a company does not have any meaningful impact on the tax planning activities.
The study also found that the variable of firm profitability (using ROA) affects tax aggressiveness negatively and significantly. This means that in the Nigerian financial sector of both countries, and in the context of this study, highly profitable financial companies are associated with lesser tax aggressive behaviour.
The study also found evidence of a significant positive relationship between firm complexity and tax aggressiveness in Nigerian listed financial companies. This implies that in the context of this study and holding other variables constant, the highly diversified financial companies are associated with higher degree of tax aggressiveness.

5.2 Conclusion

Recent occurrences, such as the dwindling prices of crude oil in the global market, have grossly threatened Nigeria’s major source of government revenue. Resultantly, government’s attention has since shifted to taxation and other sources of government revenue as a means of boosting revenue generation for the financing of government’s expenditures. Company income tax is considered very vital in augmenting the size of tax revenue generation as it captures the taxes of all incorporated entities in the country. While government’s efforts to foster greater compliance through tax reforms may not have yielded the desired optimal results due to tax avoidance strategies of listed corporations, researchers have increased the enquiry into the determinants of firms’ level of tax aggressiveness.

Against the backdrop of the knowledge that different characteristics the company influences several organisational outcomes, and in a bid to contribute to the existing literature, this study was designed to empirically ascertain the company-specific characteristics that affect the level of tax aggressiveness in Nigeria. Specifically, the study examined how firm size, age, profitability, and firm complexity relate with tax aggressiveness in Nigeria. The study employed the total book-tax-difference (BTD) measure of tax aggressiveness which has been scarcely used in related studies in this context. The census method of sampling was adopted in selecting the entire fifty (50) companies listed under the financial sector of the NGX beginning from 2012 to 2020. The four (4) aforementioned firm-specific attributes constitute the independent variables, run against BTD as proxy for tax aggressiveness. In all, the four independent variables culminated into four null hypotheses which was tested in the previous chapter based on the outcome of the fixed effect panel regression model in line with the suggestion of the Hausman test.

The result showed that among the four firm-attributes that made up the independent variables of the study two: FSZ, SUBS and ROAwere found statistically significant at the 5%, 1%, 10%, and 5% levels of significance while the remaining AGE had an statistically insignificant owing to high probability values. Based on the above outcomes, as already summarised in sub-section 5.2 above, it can thus be concluded that in terms of the impact of firm attributes on tax aggressiveness of listed financial companies in Nigeria (proxied using the BTD measure of tax aggressiveness), the major variables of interests are firm size, firm profitability and firm complexity; while firm age we statistically non-significant and implicationally, can be considered as not of crucial importance within the 9-year period captured by the study.

5.3 Recommendations

In view of the findings and conclusions drawn from the results of the study, the following recommendations were proffered for possible policy implementation.

Based on the result that large financial companies are likely more tax aggressive, the regulatory bodies and tax authorities should beam their searchlight on the tax saving strategies of larger-sized companies, with a view of discouraging aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Also, due to the significance of the variable, tax auditors should regard the size of the companies when accessing red flags of potential tax offenders.
The notion that older firms have higher reputational risks and would resort to less-risky tax management practices did not hold in the context of the Nigerian listed financial companies as the variable was non-significant. However, due to the obtained negative sign, regulators should increase their monitoring on newly listed firms while encouraging appropriate tax savings strategies and greater compliance.
Considering that highly profitable financial firms are found to be less tax aggressive, the key stakeholders should that financial companies adhere to strong corporate governance mechanisms in order to ensure that the intended gains from tax avoidance activities are not opportunistically misused by the managers.
On firm complexity, the notion that highly diversified firms engage in less tax aggression did not hold in the context of this study, rather on the contrary. This could be because most diversified Nigerian financial companies have subsidiaries and cross-border affiliations with foreign countries where that have to contend with their local and complex tax laws. Thus, there is need for government to establish trade agreements with many more countries (to guard against multiple taxation) and increase focus on creating tax culture in order to foster voluntary compliance amongst multinationals.
Contribution to Knowledge

This research has contributed to existing knowledge by responding to the recent call by Alkurdi and Mardini (2020) for the inclusion of the book-tax-difference (BTD) measure of tax aggressiveness in developing countries. This is considered a valuable contribution to literature in the Nigerian context which can ignite the needed paradigm shift from the dominant conventional use of the ETR measures in prior Nigerian studies.

5.5 Suggestion for Further studies

The following suggestions are made for further studies:

The study covers only the firm-specific attributes based on its defined scope. Future researchers can consider other variables such as those related to the corporate governance of listed firms in line with the requirements of the current Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance which became operational in January 2020. There are indications from literature that strong governance mechanisms can influence firms’ tax avoidance policies.
The study was delimited to only companies listed in the financial sector of the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX). Considering that sector-based heterogeneities can influence the behaviours of certain company variables, these current findings may likely not hold for companies in the other sectors (i.e. the non-financial companies). Thus, future studies should expand the scope to cover the non-financial companies in order to enhance the generalisation potentials of the findings. Alternatively, future researchers can conduct a sector-based comparative analysis on the determinants of tax aggressiveness in order to provide more robust evidence as to whether industry heterogeneities moderate the impact of firm attributes on tax aggressiveness.
This study was limited to a single measure of tax aggressiveness. Future studies should compare the BTD measures (for example, Total, Permanent and Temporary BTD) with the ETR measures (for example, Cash and Long-Run Cash ETRs) in order to understand which has better forecast accuracy as well as to understand the behaviours of the different explanatory variables towards the variations of different proxies of tax aggressiveness.

REFERENCES

Adediran, S. A., Alade S. O., & Oshode, A. A. (2013), The impact of tax audit and investigation

on revenue generation in Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(26), 171-176.

Ajibaiye, A. O., Mustapha, L. O., & Okpanachi, J. (2018). Effect of firm attributes on financial performance of listed oil and gas firms in Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Finance, 2(2), October, 33 – 42.

Alkurdi, A., & Mardini, G. H. (2020). The impact of ownership structure and the board of directors’ composition on tax avoidance strategies: Empirical evidence from Jordan. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 18(4), 795-812. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-01-2020-0001.

Armstrong, C.S., Blouin, J. L. & Larcker, D.F. (2012). The incentives for tax planning. Journal of Accounting and Economics 53(2), 391-411.

Atu, O. G., Uniamikogbo, E., & Atu, O. O. K. (2018). Firm attribute and tax aggressiveness in the Nigerian banking sector. Journal of Taxation and Economic Development,17(1), 161-178

Ayers, B., Jiang, J., & Laplante, S. (2009). Taxable income as a performance measure: The effects of tax planning and earnings quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(1): 15-54.

Badertscher, B. A., Katz, S. P., & Rego, S. O. (2013). The separation of ownership control and corporate tax avoidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(2), 228-250.

Balakrishnan, K., Blouin, J., & Guay, W. (2018). Tax aggressiveness and corporate transparency. The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52130

Bird, A. & Karolyi, S. 2017. Governance and taxes: Evidence from regression discontinuity. The Accounting Review 92, 29-50.

Boateng, K. (2018). Determinants of bank profitability: A comparative study of Indian and Ghanaian banks. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), 5(5), 643-654.

Boussaidi, A., & Hamed, M. S. (2015). The impact of governance mechanisms on tax Aggressiveness: Empirical evidence from Tunisian context. Journal of Asian Business Strategy, 5(1), 1-12.

Buijink, W. Janssen, B., & Schols, Y. (2001). Corporate tax competition in the European Union, MARC, Maastricht University.

Cabello, O.G., Gaio, L.E., & Watrin, C. (2019). Tax avoidance in management-owned firms: evidence from Brazil. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 25, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-04-2018-0117

Callihan, D. (1994). Corporate effective tax rates: a synthesis of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 13(2), 1–43.

Chadefaux, M., & Rossignol, J. L. (2006). The effective tax rate. French Review of Accounting, 386(1), 8-10.

Chen, K.P. & Chu, C.Y.C. (2005). Internal Control vs. external manipulation: A model of corporate income tax evasion. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(4), 151–164.

Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Shevlin, T. (2010). Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms? Journal of Financial Economics95(3), 41-61.

Chen, X., Hu, N., Wang, X., & Tang, X. (2014). Tax avoidance and firm value: Evidence from China. Nankai Business Review International, 5(1), 25–42.

Chen, Y., Ge, R., Louis, H., & Zolotoy, L. (2019). Stock liquidity and corporate tax avoidance. Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, 24(1), 309-340.

Chytis, T., & Gerantonis, D. (2018). Tax avoidance and corporate governance attributes: evidence from listed companies in Greece. 15th International Conference on Enterprise, Systems, Accounting, Logistics and Management (15th ICESALM 2018) 24-26 June, Kefalonia, Greece.

Crocker, K. J., &Slemrod, J. (2005). Corporate tax evasion with agency costs. Journal of Public Economics89(9-10), 1593-1610.

Delgado, F. J., Fernández-Rodríguez, E., & Martínez-Arias, A. (2018). Corporation effective tax rates and company size: Evidence from Germany. Economic Research, 31(1), 2081–2099. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2018.1543056.

Derashid, C.,& Zhang, H. (2003). Effective tax rates and the industrial policy hypothesis: evidence from Malaysia. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 12(1): 45-62.

Desai, M. A. (2003). The Divergence between Book and Tax Income in J. M. Poterba (ed.) Tax Policy and the Economy. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 17,169-206.

Desai, M. A., & Dharmapala, D. (2006). Corporate tax avoidance and high-powered incentives. Journal of Financial Economics.79(2), 145–179

Desai, M. A., &Dharmapala, D. (2009). Corporate tax avoidance and firm value. Review of Economics and Statistics. 91(1), 537–546.

Desai, M. A., Dharmapala, D., (2009). Earnings management, corporate tax shelters, and book-tax alignment. National Tax Journal, 62(2), 169–186

Desai, M., Dyck, A. &Zingales, L. (2007). Theft and taxes. Journal of Financial Economics. 84(3), 591-623.

Dhaliwal, D., Huber, R., Lee, H., & Pincus, M. (2012). Book-tax differences, uncertainty about fundamentals and information quality, and cost of capital. University of Arizona, Working Paper.

Dharma, I. M. S., & Ardiana, P. A. (2016). Leverage influence, fixed asset intensity, company size, and political connection on tax avoidance. E-Journals of Udayana University accounting, 15, 584 – 613.

Dharmapala, D (2008). What problems and opportunities are created by tax havens? Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 24(4), 661–79.

Dyreng, S., & Lindsay, B., (2009). Using financial accounting data to examine the effect of foreign operations located in tax havens and other countries on US multinational firms’ tax rates. Journal of Accounting Research. 47(5), 1283-1316.

Dyreng, S., Hanlon M., & Maydew E. (2010). The effects of executives on corporate tax avoidance, The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1163-1189.

Dyreng, S., Hanlon, M. & Maydew, E. (2008). Long-run corporate tax avoidance. The Accounting Review, 83(1): 61–82.

Ebrahim, A., Gcabo, R., Khumalo, L., &Jukka, P. (2019). Tax research in South Africa. SA-TIEDWorking Paper #27 | March 2019.

Etter-Phoya, R., Lima, S., & Meinzer, M. (2019). Corporate income taxation in the digital age: Africa in the Corporate Tax Haven Index 2019. Tax Justice Network Publication, 1-37.

Firmansyah, A., &Muliana, R. (2018). The effect of tax avoidance and tax risk on corporate risk. Journal of Finance and Banking, 22(4), 643-656. https://doi.org/10.26905/jkdp.v22i4.2237.

Frank, M., Lynch, L., & Rego, S. (2009). Tax reporting aggressiveness and its relation to aggressive financial reporting. The Accounting Review 84(2), 467-496.

Ftouhi, K., Ayed, A., & Zemzem, A. (2010). Tax planning and firm value: Evidence from European companies. International Journal of Economics and Strategic Management of Business Process, 4, 1-9.

Graham, J., & Tucker, A. 2006. Tax shelters and corporate debt policy. Journal of Financial Economics 81, 563–594.

Gupta, S., & Newberry, K. (2007). 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. (2005). The persistence and pricing of earnings, accruals, and cash flows when firms have large book-tax differences. The Accounting Review, 80(4), 137-166.

Hanlon, M., & Heitzman, S. (2010). Tax research: real effects, reporting effects, and governance. MIT working paper.

Harrington, C., & Smith, W. (2012), Tax avoidance and corporate capital structure. Journal of Finance and Accountancy, 11(2), 1–20

Hasan, I.K., Kim, I., Teng, N., & Wu, Q. (2016). The effect of foreign institutional ownership on corporate tax avoidance: International evidence. Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers, 26, 1-47. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:NBN:fi:bof-201608241387.

Heshmati, A., Johansson, D., & Bjuggren, C. M. (2010). Effective corporate tax rates and the size distribution of firms. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 10, 297-317.

Higgins, D., Omer, T., & Phillips, J. (2012). Tax avoidance versus aggressiveness: The influence of a firm’s business strategy. Working paper, University of Connecticut.

Hsieh, Y-C. (2012). New evidence on determinants of corporate effective tax rates. African Journal of Business Management, 6(3), 1177-1180.

Hutchens, M., Rego, S. O., & Williams, B. (2019). Tax avoidance, uncertainty, and firm risk. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-46. http://doi,org/ 10.2139/ssrn.3348559

Hyung, J. N., Sung, O. P., & Soo, A. C. (2017). Firm Age, Sales Growth, and Tax Aggressiveness: Focus on SMEs. Tax Research, 17(12), 123- 146.

Ibobo, B. I., Egbule, A. C., &Arukaroha, S. J. (2018). Effect of board characteristics firms performance and effective tax planning in Nigeria food manufacturing sector. Journal of Economics, Management and Social science, 4(2), 65 – 76.

Ilaboya, O. J., Obasi, R., & Izevbekhai, M. O. (2016). Firm level characteristics and effective tax rate. ICAN academic conference proceedings, 573-593.

Ilaboya, O. J., Izevbekhai, M.O., & Ohiokha, F. I. (2016). Tax planning and firm value: A review of literature. Business and Management Research, 5(2), 81-91.

Irianto, B. S., Sudibyo, Y. A., &Wafirli, A. (2017). The influence of profitability, leverage, firm size and capital intensity towards tax avoidance. International Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 5(2), 33–41.

Izevbigie, J. N., & Ebohon, G. E. (2019). Internally generated revenue and state viability: comparative analysis of two states in Nigeria. International Journal of Development and Management Review (INJODEMAR), 14(1), 96-106.

Jacob, J. (1996). Taxes and transfer pricing: income shifting and the volume of intra-firms transfers. Journal of Accounting Research. 34(3), 301–312.

Jalan, A., Kale, J. R., & Meneghetti, C. (2013). Debt, bankruptcy risk, and corporate tax aggressiveness. https://finance.business.uconn.edu.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1998). Divisional performance measurement: foundations of organizational strategy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Jihene, F., & Moez, D. (2019). The moderating effect of audit quality on CEO compensation and tax avoidance: Evidence from Tunisian context. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 9(1), 131-139.

Junpath, S.V., Kharwa, M.S.E., & Stainbank, L.J. (2016). Taxpayers’ attitudes towards tax amnesties and compliance in South Africa: An exploratory study. South African Journal of Accounting Research, 4, 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10291954.2015.1070565

Kawor, S., Kportorgbi, H. K. (2014). Effect of tax planning on firms’ market performance: evidence from listed firms in Ghana. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(3), 162 – 168

Kern, B. & Morris, M. (1992). Taxes and firm size: The effect of tax legislation during the 1980s. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 14(1), 80-96.

Khurana, I., & Moser, W. 2013. Institutional shareholders’ investment horizons and tax avoidance. American Accounting Association, 35, 111–134.

Khurana, I. K., & William, J. M. (2012), Institutional shareholders’ investment horizons and corporate tax avoidance. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, In-Press.

Killian, S., & Doyle, E. (2005). Tax aggression among tax professionals: the case of South Africa. Journal of Accounting, Ethics and Public Policy, 4(3), 160-189.

Kim, J. H., & Lm, C. C. (2017). The study on the effect and determinants of small-and medium-sized entities conducting tax avoidance. Journal of Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies, 4(3), 149-169.

Kim, J., Li, Y. & Zhang, L. (2011). Corporate tax avoidance and stock price crash risk: Firm level analysis. Journal of Financial Economics. 100(3), 639-662.

Kirchler, E., & Maciejovsky, B. (2001). Tax compliance within the context of gain and loss situations, expected and current asset position, and profession. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 173-194.

Kraft, A. (2014). What really affects German firms’ effective tax rate? International Journal of Financial Research,5(3), 1-19.

Landry, S., Deslandes, M., & Fortin, A. (2013). Tax aggressiveness, corporate social responsibility, and ownership structure. Journal of Accounting, Ethics and Public Policy, 14(3), 611 – 645.

Lang, M., & McNichols, M. (1997). Institutional trading and corporate performance (No.1460). Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

Lanis, R., & Richardson, G. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31(1), 86-108.

Lanis, R., Richardson, G., & Taylor, G. (2015). Board of director gender and corporate tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(3), 115-132.

Lisowsky, P. (2010). Seeking shelter: empirically modelling tax shelters using financial statement data. The Accounting review, 85(5), 1693-1720.

Maiye, O., & Isiadinso, O. (2018). Nigeria: Nigeria’s unchanging tax-to-GDP ratio. Modaq Anderson Articles,http://www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/x/760270/tax+authorities/Nigerias+Unchanging+TaxToGDP+Ratio.

Manzon, G. B., & Plesko, G. A. (2002). The relation between financial and tax reporting measures of income. Tax Law Review, 55(1), 175-214.

Markle, K. S., & Shackelford, D. A. (2010). Cross-country comparisons of corporate income taxes. NBER Working Paper No. 16839.

Martani, D., Anwar, Y., & Fitriasari. D. (2011). Book-tax gap: Evidence from Indonesia. China-USA Business Review,10(4) 278-284

Martinez, A. L., & Silva, R. (2017). Fiscal aggressiveness and the cost of third-party Capital in Brazil. Journal of Management, Finance and Accounting, 07(01), 240-251. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.18028/2238-5320/rgfc.v7n1p240-251

Martinez, A.L., Reinoso, J. E. T., Antonio, R. M., & Santos, R. B. (2019). Financial derivatives, hedge accounting and tax aggressiveness in Brazil. SSRN Electronic Journal,1, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3406683.

Martinez. A. L., & Rodrigues, A. M. (2019). The effect of corporate diversification on tax aggressiveness in Brazilian companies. Electronic Journal, 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3386433.

McGuire, S., Omer, T., & Wang, D. (2012). Tax avoidance: does tax-specific industry expertise make a difference? The Accounting Review.87(3), 975-1003

Mgbame, C. O., Chijoke-Mgbame, M. A., Yekini, S., & Yekini C. K. (2017). Corporate social responsibility performance and tax aggressiveness. Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 9(8), 101-108.

Mills, L. (1998). Book-tax differences and Internal Revenue Service adjustments. Journal of Accounting Research. 36(1), 343-356.

Mills, L., Erickson, M., & Maydew, E. (1998). Investments in tax planning. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 20(1), 1–20.

Minnick, K., & Noga, T. (2010). Do corporate governance characteristics influence tax management? Journal of Corporate Finance, 16(2), 703-718.

Mohammed, T., & Ines, R. (2012). The determinants of corporate tax avoidance in Tunisian context. International Journal of Revenue Management 6(3/4), 158 – 174.

Mohanadas, N. D., Abdullah, A. S., & Pheng, L. K. (2019). CSR and tax aggressiveness of Malaysian listed companies: Evidence from an emerging economy. Social Responsibility Journal. https://doi.otg/10.1108/srj-01-2019-0021.

Murphy, K. (2004). Aggressive tax planning? Differentiating those playing the game from those who don’t. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00011-4.

Musa, S. U., Saad, N., & Ibrahim, I. (2017). Compliance behaviour of small corporate taxpayers in Nigeria: A pilot study. International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, 07(1), 1-6.

Nwaobia A., & Jayeoba, O. (2017). Tax planning and firms’ liquidity. www.ssrn.com.

Nwaobia, A. N., Kwarbai, J. D., & Ogundajo, G. O. (2016). Tax planning and firm value: Empirical evidence from Nigerian consumer goods industrial sector. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 7(2), 172-183.

Nworu, O. C. (2017). Export: improving Nigerian government revenue base and economic diversification. Human Resource Management Research, 7(1), 65-73.

Obi, C. K. (2018). Revenue generation in Nigeria: Diversifying from primary sectors to non-primary sectors. ACTA UniversitatisDanubius, 14(1), 168-178.

Oduor, J., Ngoka, K., &Odongo, M. (2017). Capital requirement, bank competition and stability in Africa. Review of Development Finance, 7(1), 45–51.

Ofoegbu, G. N., Akwu, D. O., & Oliver, O. (2016). Empirical analysis of effect of tax revenue on economic development of Nigeria. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 6(10), 604-613.

Ogbeide, S. O. (2017). Firm characteristics and tax aggressiveness of listed firms in Nigeria: Empirical evidence. International Journal of Academic Research in Public Policy and Governance, 4(1), 556 – 569.

Ogundajo, G. O., & Onakoya, A. B. (2016). Tax planning and financial performance of nigerian manufacturing companies. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research jn Social and Management Sciences, 2(7), 64-80.

Oladipupo, A. O., & Obazee, U. (2016). Tax knowledge, penalties and tax compliance in small and medium scale enterprises in Nigeria. iBusiness, 8, 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ib.2016.81001.

Olaoye, C.O., & Ekundayo, A.T. (2019) Effects of tax audit on tax compliance and remittance of tax revenue in Ekiti State. Open Journal of Accounting, 8, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojacct.2019.81001.

Onyali, C. I., & Okafor, T. G. (2018). Effect of corporate governance mechanisms on tax aggressiveness of quoted manufacturing firms on the Nigerian. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 8(1), 1-20.

Osho, A. E., Efuntade, A. O., & Jemiseye-Dav, R. A. (2020). The impact of taxation on transfer pricing in Nigeria economy. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 177, 140-151.

Owolabi, S. A., & Obida, S. S. (2012). Liquidity management and corporate profitability: case study of selected manufacturing companies listed on the Nigerian stock exchange. Business Management Dynamics, 2(2), 10-25

Oyeleke, O. E. O., Erin. O., & Emeni, F. (2016). Female directors and tax aggressiveness of listed banks in Nigeria. 3rd International conference on African development issues covenant university press, 293 – 299.

Phillips, J. D. (2003). Corporate tax-planning effectiveness: The role of compensation-based incentives. The Accounting Review 78(3), 847–874.

Phillips, J. D., Pincus, M., & Rego, S. O. (2003). Earnings management: New evidence based on deferred tax expense. The Accounting Review.78(2), 491– 521.

Plesko, G. A. (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(2), 17-31.

Pratama, A. (2017). Company characteristics, corporate governance and aggressive tax avoidance practice: a study of Indonesian Companies. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research,6(4), 70-81

Prawira, I. F. A. (2017). Corporate governance and tax aggressiveness, an evidence on manufacturing companies in Indonesia. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 5(2), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijaes.v5i2.8132

Priya, K., & Nimalathasan, B. (2013). Liquidity management and profitability: A case study of listed manufacturing companies in Sri Lanka. International journal of Technological Exploration and Learning, 2(4), 161-165

Rania, S., Susetyo, D., & Fuadah, (2017). The effects of the corporate’s characteristics on tax avoidance moderated by earnings management: Indonesian evidence. www.ssrn.com.

Rao, M. G., & Rao, R. K. (2012). Taxes and death are inevitable, but GAAR is avoidable. Economic and Political Weekly Journal, 47(43), 10-13.

Rego, S. O., & R. Wilson. (2012). Equity risk incentives and corporate tax aggressiveness. Journal of Accounting Research 50(3), 775–810.

Rego, S. O. (2003). Tax-avoidance activities of U.S. multinational corporations. Contemporary Accounting Research 20(4), 805-833.

Ribeiro, A. I. M., Cerqueira, A., & Brandão, E. (2015). The determinants of effective tax rates: firms’ characteristics and corporate governance (No. 567). http://www.fep.up.pt/investigacao/workingpapers/wp567.pdf.

Richardson, G., & Lanis, R. (2007). Determinants of variability in corporate effective tax rates and tax reform: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 26(2), 689-704.

Richardson, G., Taylor, G., & Lanis, R. (2013). The impact of board of director oversight characteristics on corporate tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32(3), 68–88.

Robinson, J. R., & Sikes, S. A. (2006). Is aggressive financial and tax reporting related to the orientation of the corporate tax function? National tax association proceedings from the 99th annual conference on Taxation, Boston, Massachusetts.

Robinson, J., Sikes, S., & Weaver, C. (2010). Performance measurement of corporate tax departments. The Accounting Review 85, 1035–1064.

Rodríguez, E. F., & Arias, A. M. (2014), Determinants of the effective tax rate in the BRIC countries. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 50, 214-228.

Salaudeen, Y. M. (2017). Corporate effective tax rates in the financial services sector: Evidence from Nigeria. International Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 5(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijat.v5n1a6.

Salaudeen, Y. M., & Ejeh, B. U. (2018). Equity ownership structure and corporate tax aggressiveness: the Nigerian context. Research Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), 90-99. http://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2018.828.

Salaudeen, M., & Eze, U. (2018). Firm specific determinants of corporate effective tax rate of listed firms in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 10(2), 19-28.

Salawu, R. O., & Adedeji, Z. A. (2017). Corporate governance and tax planning among non-financial quoted companies in Nigeria. African Research Review, 11(3), 42-59.

Salihu, I. A., Annuar, H. A., & Sheikh Obid, S. N. (2015). Foreign investors’ interests and corporate tax avoidance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, 11(2), 138–147.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2015.03.001.

Salihu, I. A., Sheikh, O. S. N., &Annuar, H. A. (2014). Measures of corporate tax avoidance: empirical evidence from an emerging economy. International Journal of Business and Society, 14(3), 412-427.

Sanusi, L. S. (2012). Banking reform and its impact on the Nigerian economy. Presentation during Warwick’s economic summit. University of Warwick, Warwick.

Scholes, M., Wolfson, M., Erickson, M., Maydew, E., &Shevlin, T. (2005). Taxes and Business Strategy: A Planning Approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River. Pearson Prentice

Shevlin, T. J. (2002). Commentary: Corporate tax shelters and book tax differences. Tax Law Review, 55, 427-443.

Siegfried, J. (1972). The relationship between economic structure and the effect of political influence: Empirical evidence from the federal corporation income tax program. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin.

Siegfried, J. J. (1974). Effective average U.S. corporation income tax rates. National Tax Journal 27(2), 245-259.

Slemrod, J. (2004). The economics of corporate tax selfishness. National Tax Journal, 99(2), 12-32.

Tang, T., & Firth, M. (2010). Can book-tax differences capture earnings management and tax management? Empirical evidence from China. The International Journal of Accounting, 46(2), 175- 204

Taylor, G., & Richardson, G. (2014). Incentives for corporate tax planning and reporting: Empirical evidence from Australia. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, 10(2), 1-45.

Uchendu, O., Ironkwe, U. I., & Nwaiwu, J. N. (2016). Corporate governance mechanism and tax planning in Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research, 2(9), 45-59.

Umezurike, S. A., & Asuelime, E. L. (2015). Exploring diplomatic crisis of Nigeria and South Africa between 1994 and 2013. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 4(1), 65-73.

Vieira, A. (2013). Corporate governance and taxes. Dissertation, School of Economics and Management, University of Porto.

Wang, X. (2012). Tax avoidance, corporate transparency, and firm value. University of Texas Austin, Working Paper.

Watts, R., & Zimmermann, J. (1986). Positive Accounting Theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Weisbach, D. A. (2002). Ten truths about tax shelters. Tax Law Review 55, 215–53.

Wilson, R. J. (2009). An examination of corporate tax shelter participants. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 969-999.

Zemzem, A., & Ftouhi, K. (2013). The effects of board of directors’ characteristics on tax aggressiveness. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(4), 140 – 147.

Aminu Aminu lauds Vice President on Chief of Staff appointment

The National President, Youth and Civil Society Coalition for Development comrade Aminu Aminu has commended the Nigerian Vice President Kashim Shetima for appointing Senator Ibrahim Hassan Hadejia as the Chief of Staff to the Vice President.

Comrade Aminu Aminu who described the appointment as apt noted that given the integrity, expertise, patriotism and incorruptible nature of Senator Ibrahim Hassan Hadejia, his appointment as the chief of staff to the Vice President is putting a round peg in a round hole.

This appointment is in line with the public expectations of the present government of appointing only those who are sincere, patriotic, detribalized, knowledgeable, trustworthy, courageous and determined for the development of this country.

“We at the Youth and Civil Society Coalition for Development (YCSCD)” thank the Vice President, His Excellency Kashim Shetima for the right choice he made in who becomes in charge of his staff at the VP’s office.

The National President of the YCSCD, Comrade Aminu Aminu, congratulated the appointee and wished him God’s guidance as he undertakes the daunting task in the office of the chief of Staff to the Vice President.

Comrade Aminu Aminu assured the appointee of the support of the Nigerian youth particularly those in Jigawa State, praying for God’s protection, guidance, and favour to the VP’s chief of Staff.

The National President, of YCSCD, Comrade Aminu Aminu further suggested that the current Director General National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi is another desirable breed that suits ministerial appointment from Jigawa State.

Malam Kashifu Inuwa, Comrade Aminu said is one of the few Nigerian technocrats who believed in the country and can put their lives on the line for the country. The likes of Malam Kashifu, and Comrade Aminu Aminu noted should rally around President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and support him in the task of navigating Nigeria to the promised land.

Comrade Aminu Aminu said Nigerians have put their trust in President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu as such the President will do everything possible to ensure that the right people are allowed to assist him deliver on the mandate given to him by the Nigerians.

Back home in Jigawa, the National President Comrade Aminu noted, the New Governor would like to sit only credible people allowed to represent the State at the federal level and who can complement the Governor’s effort in transforming the state for the better.

Comrade Aminu Aminu on behalf of the pan-Nigerian youth Congratulated the new federal government appointees in the persons of Jorge Akume, the New Secretary to the government of the Federation, the chief of staff to the President Femi Gbajabiamila, and that to the Vice President Ibrahim Hassan Hadejia on their well-deserved appointments.

Comrade Aminu Aminu assured the YCSCD’s commitment to pray for the present administration to be able to put the necessary mechanism in place for effective governance in Nigeria.

DG CONYSSA congratulates Tajudeen Adeogun on appointment

By Emmanuel Daudu

The Director General, Coalition of Nigeria Youth on Security and Safety Affairs, CONYSSA, Amb. Ade Mario Emmanuel has congratulated Mr. Tajudeen Adeogun on his appointment as the S.A. to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Presidential Matters.

Mario, according to a congratulatory message he signed and made available to journalists in Abuja during the weekend described Tajudeen’s appointment as well deserved stressing that his hard work has earned him the appointment meritoriously.

“Tajudeen Adeogun is widely known for his intellectual prowess and sincere commitment to national security and nation-building. His contributions in this sphere have not only carved an edge for himself but have brought him distinction among his contemporaries. He has built integrity across all he does and is always committed to ensuring that results are attained around all tasks assigned to him.

“This is the kind of person in Tajudeen Adeogun. We don’t doubt his capacity as to him delivering in his new office. He has proven capability over and over again and we Nigerian youths believe in him. He will not fail us, he will not fail Nigerians”, Mario added.

While praying for him for God’s wisdom, guidance, and protection, he charged him to put his best on the ground to make Nigerians proud stressing that his wealth of knowledge and understanding should be seen practically by the results he would command within the scope of his duties.

Kogi State gubernatorial attack: SDP narrates experience

USMAN ALIYU

The candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Alhaji Muritala Yakubu Ajaka escaped assassination few meters away from lokoja yesterday

Alhaji Murtala Yakubu Ajaka’s car and his entourage on approaching Lokoja at the vicinity of the ram market at about 3:00pm two power bikes and Toyota Hilux overtook his car and forced it to a stop.

In a statement signed by Mr Faruk Adejoh-Audu, Director of Public Communications to Muritala Ajaka Organisation, said, the assault was heralded by a Mercrdes Benz Limousine with governor Yahaya Bello’s official crest accompanied by an open pick- loaded with masked and hooded men bearing AK 47 Assault Rifles.
Mr Faruk further emphasize that the men jumped down and began shooting sporadically at Ajaka’s car.
They shot for over 5 minutes at Ajaka’s bullet proof car unprovoked.
The media director also said while the ugly situation where going on, governor Yahaya Bello’s car was parked a few meters in front and was used to barricade the road.
When they ceased, Ajaka’s car, a Lexus SUV though a bullet proof was totally damaged and demobilised.
Among the gunmen identified is one Friday Makama a notorious thug and a former kogi State member House of Assembly who was recently appointed Director General for Fireams Recovery by governor Yahaya Bello.
Also identified among the hoodlums was one Bashir Gegu the Commissioner for Solid Minerals who has a gross reputation for thuggery.
Mr Ajaka who was on his way to keep an appointment with the Mai Geri, The first class traditional ruler of Lokoja and The Attah Igala in Idah decided to abort the journey and return to Abuja after conferring with the Commander of the Lokoja Naval Base.
This again is another low scored by Mr Yahaya Bello in the exercise of crude power and brute force.
Bello is on record to have unleashed guns and gunmen on several citizens in the course of his eight years draconian rule. Several persons have been killed by his hoodlums during electioneering while others are missing .
Ajaka until recently was a member of the APC who was forced out of the governorship nomination by Mr Yahaya Bello who used minions and proxies to obtain an injunction from a Lokoja High Court restraining him from participating in the primaries.
The brute action yesterday is obviously in a continuation of Bello’s desperation to stop Yakubu from continuing in the election.
We appeal to the new President of the Federal Republic, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu to demonstrate that his administration will not permit the brigandage of the last eight years which has led to the deaths of thousands in Nigeria.
Election is still five months away, but if Mr Bello does not get a strong signal that violence would not be allowed in the new administration several of our citizens will be killed by his thugs and gunmen before the polls.

NCoS Promotes 17,636 personnel

In a bid to motivate officers and men of the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) for efficient service delivery, the Civil Defence Corrections Fire and Immigration Services Board (CDCFIB) as well as the Controller General of Corrections (CGC) have released the promotion of 17,636 officers and men across the board, in its 2022 promotion exercise.

Umar Abubakar ANIPR, FCAI, Assistant Controller of Corrections
Public Relations Officer
For: Controller General of Corrections said, in a letter number CDCFIB/S.33/VOL.VIII dated May 24, 2023, from CDCFIB, 10,131 officers from the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Corrections to Assistant Controller of Corrections benefited from the exercise. On the other hand, the Controller General of Corrections (CGC), Haliru Nababa, FICMC, MFR, mni, approved the promotion of 7,505 junior officers.

In his congratulatory message, Nababa, charged the beneficiaries to see the elevation as an opportunity to put in their best in the discharge of their duties.The CG admonished the beneficiaries to note that promotion comes with additional responsibility; hence, it is expected of them to brace up to the tasks ahead. He also called on those that did not benefit this time not to feel bad as more opportunities abound in the future.

The Corrections boss reiterated that the Service will not relent in its commitment towards improving the welfare of staff as well as promoting reformation and rehabilitation of inmates in custody.

UNESCO Laureate Prof. Sir Bashiru Aremu invited by the United Nations as a participant at the Leaders Summit of the UN Global Compact

By Emmanuel Daudu

UNESCO Laureate and Vice-Chancellor, Crown University Int’l Chartered Inc., USA, Prof Sir Bashiru Aremu has been invited to attend the Leaders Summit of the UN Global Compact scheduled to hold on the 19th day of September 2023 in New York.

This which was communicated in a letter signed by the Assistant Secretary-General and CEO of, the United Nations Global Compact,
Sanda Ojiambo pointed out that Prof. Sir Bashiru Aremu is an African educational icon who can make lots of input at the think-thank summit for a better Africa on or before 2030.

According to the letter, “Dear UNESCO Laureate Prof Sir Bashiru Aremu,
For more than 20 years, the United Nations Global Compact has built a global movement of sustainable companies and stakeholders. Now, we need leaders
like you to take this movement to the next level. Please join us at the Leaders Summit of the UN Global Compact at the Javits Center in New York on 19
September 2023 to recommit and accelerate action on the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).

“As we approach the mid-point of implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a clear message has emerged: Governments and
businesses are making progress, but not nearly at the pace and scale needed.

“The converging crises of climate change, a deadly global pandemic, worsening social and economic inequality, unchecked corruption and the devastating
consequences of the war in Ukraine have caused unprecedented disruption and global transformation.

“The good news is that it is still possible to achieve the SDGs by 2030 but it will take urgent, scalable multi-stakeholder action to dramatically accelerate
progress. It will require that we take a clear stand and demonstrate bold
leadership to transform business models and economies so they become more
just and inclusive — leaving no one behind.
The Leaders Summit is our opportunity to comprehensively review the private sector’s contribution to advancing the SDGs and explore business leadership
during converging crises, the critical role of a principle-based approach, global trends, and tools and partnerships needed to achieve the 2030 Agenda fully.

“This inclusive day-long event aims to inspire and challenge organizations to set measurable, credible and ambitious targets aligned with five
systemic areas — living wage, climate change, water stewardship, gender equality, and SDG investments.
We hope you will join us on 19 September for inspiring plenary sessions, interactive breakout sessions, a bustling activation hub featuring UN partners,
and a networking lunch and reception. Meet forward-thinking business leaders
and help deliver the SDGs. The time to act is NOW”, the letter added.

Reacting to the invitation, Prof. Bashiru Aremu thanked the United Nations for the opportunity given him to join world leaders to proffer solutions to world issues, pointing out that it is no doubt that he would make it a point of duty to attend and make his life changing contributions despite his busy schedules.

Sen. Dr. George Akume: President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Auspicious Choice for Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) by Arc. Bob Achanya

On the 1st of June 2023, Nigeria’s North-Central Zone woke up to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s gift with the announcement of the appointment of His Excellency, Senator George Akume as the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF). While many opine that the President, made a courageous and significant decision by appointing Senator George Akume from Guma Benue State, North Central geopolitical zone as the Secretary to the Federal Government (SGF), of Nigeria.

The appointment comes at a crucial time when Nigeria needs capable leaders to navigate the challenges faced by the nation. Senator George Akume’s political experience, track record, consistency, and dedication to public service make him a promising choice for the role. As a former Governor of Benue State, Senator Akume’s background already speaks to his potential performance as SGF, and the positive impact he can bring to Nigeria.

Senator George Akume comes into the SGF office with an enviable Background and Political Experience. As a seasoned politician, he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to public service throughout his career. Born on December 27, 1953, in Benue State, Nigeria,

Akume began his political journey in the early 1990s when he served as the Executive Chairman of Guma Local Government Area. He later represented Benue West Senatorial District in the Nigerian Senate for three consecutive terms (2007-2019). His impressive tenure as a senator earned him the respect of his colleagues and constituents alike.

During his time in the Senate, Akume served as the Minority Leader and later as the Senate Minority Whip, showcasing his exceptional leadership skills. He was instrumental in pushing for legislation to address critical issues such as security, education, and agriculture.

As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Army, Akume played a vital role in ensuring the welfare of the Nigerian Armed Forces.On his performance as Secretary to the Federal Government, Senator George Akume’s appointment as SGF is a testament to President Tinubu’s confidence in his abilities.

The role of the SGF is crucial as it serves as the coordinating link between the presidency, ministries, departments, and agencies of the government. Akume’s extensive political experience and track record make him well-suited for this position.

As SGF, Akume is expected to facilitate effective coordination among the different arms of government. His experience as a governor, and senator, and in diverse leadership positions within the subnational space, the National Assembly, and the Buhari administration’s federal executive council will enable him to build bridges and foster cooperation among diverse stakeholders.

This coordination will be vital in implementing government policies and programs efficiently.Senator Akume has consistently demonstrated a commitment to good governance throughout his career.

In enhancing governance he has consistently advocated for transparency, accountability, and the rule of law, all of which are crucial elements for effective governance. As SGF, Akume can leverage his influence and expertise to ensure that government policies and programs are implemented with integrity and in the best interest of the Nigerian people.

Emphasizing current socioeconomic development challenges, there is no gainsaying that Nigeria faces numerous socioeconomic challenges, including insecurity, poverty, power, unemployment, and infrastructure deficits.

Senator Akume’s appointment provides an opportunity to address these issues head-on. His past involvement in agricultural and rural development initiatives positions him well to contribute to the government’s efforts in revitalizing the agricultural sector, promoting job creation, and improving infrastructure across the country.

The security situation in Nigeria demands urgent attention and a coordinated approach. With the administration’s resolve to tackle Security and Conflict Resolution in a more creatively precise way, Senator Akume’s experience as a state governor and as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Army indicates his understanding of the importance of security in national development.

His appointment as SGF presents an opportunity for him to contribute to strategies aimed at addressing insurgency, banditry, and communal conflicts, fostering peace, and ensuring the safety of all Nigerians.The appointment of Senator George Akume as the Secretary to the Federal Government (SGF) by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a significant step towards effective governance and socioeconomic development in Nigeria and a recognition of the support and long-agitation of the people of North Central Nigeria and reward for their electoral support. Senator Akume’s political experience, leadership skills, and commitment to public service make him the ideal choice for this crucial role. His performance as SGF has the potential to enhance coordination, promote good governance, and address pressing challenges such as security and socioeconomic development in Benue state, the North Central zone, and entire Nigeria.

As Nigerians, we have every reason to be optimistic about the positive impact Senator Akume can bring to the nation as SGF.

Congratulations to our Distinguished Senator George Akume, SGF.Bob Achanya is the Director General of African Center for Asia +B Studies, Abuja.

PART 2: FIRM ATTRIBUTES AND TAX AGGRESSIVENESS IN NIGERIAN QUOTED FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES BY YAKUBU KARIM

FIRM ATTRIBUTES AND TAX AGGRESSIVENESS IN NIGERIAN QUOTED FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES BY YAKUBU KARIM

19PGAC7036

BEING A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES, PRINCE ABUBAKAR AUDU UNIVERSITY, ANYIGBA, KOGI STATE, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (M.Sc.) DEGREE IN ACCOUNTING, DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES.

NOVEMBER, 2022.

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this Thesis is as a product of my personal effort and is the report of my research work supervised by Dr. S.A. Adediran. It has not been presented in any previous works for any degree and that works cited have been properly acknowledged and referenced accordingly.

———————————————— —————
YAKUBU KARIM DATE
19PGAC7036

CERTIFICATION
This thesis entitled: Firm Attributes and Tax Aggressiveness in Nigerian Quoted Financial Services Companies satisfies the regulation governing the award of Master of Science (M.Sc.) Degree in Accounting of the School of Postgraduate Studies, Prince Abubakar Audu University, Anyigba, Kogi State, for its contribution to knowledge and literary presentation.

——————————————————- —————————Dr.S. A. ADEDIRAN DATE
SUPERVISOR

—————————————————– ————————–
Dr. FRIDAY AUDU DATE
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT

—————————————————— —————————
EXTERNAL EXAMINER DATE

—————————————————- ————————— Prof. W. S. ONOGU DATE
Dean, School of Postgraduate Studies.

Dedication
I dedicate my research project to Almighty Allah and my beloved Wife, Daughter and Son

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My gratitude goes to Almighty Allah for seeing me through this program and for his grace upon my life and for his strength to carry out this project work. .
I also say a big thanks to my wonderful supervisor Dr. S. A. Adediran who in spite of his tight schedule, was able to make correction in my project to give it a wonderful quality.
I must register my profound gratitude to the Head of Department; Dr Friday Audu who also contributed to shaping this work especially at defence session, Prof. S. R. Abdullahi is specially acknowledged for his fatherly role in my life and I pray for God to bless him. Dr. Adejoh Edogbanya is acknowledged for his readiness to clarify any conflicting issues he came across in the course of this project. Other Lecturers who helped to make the programme worthwhile are Dr. Sunday Simon, Dr. Moses Elaigwu, Dr. James Ugwu and Dr. Daniel Akubo. I remain grateful to them all.
A special thanks go to my late parents, Brothers and Sister, may almighty Allah forgive their shortcomings. My gratitude goes to my lovely wife Mrs Yakubu Hauwa, My sweet daughter Yakubu Fasiha and my lovely son Yakubu Faizullahi for their care. I equally thank my friends and colleague who through their goodwill contributed immensely towards the success of this programme. God bless them all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page 1
Declaration 2
Certification 3
Dedication 4
Acknowledgements 5
Abstract 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study 9
1.2 Statement of problem 11
1.3 Objectives of the Study 13
1.4 Research Hypotheses 14
1.5 Scope of the Study 14
1.6 Significance of the Study 15
1.7 Limitation of the Study 15
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study 16
2.1.2Concept of Firm Attributes 16
2.1.2 Firm Size and Tax Aggressiveness 17
2.1.3 Firm Age and Tax Aggressiveness 19
2.1.4 Firm Profitability and Tax Aggressiveness 19
2.1.5 Firm Complexity and Tax Aggressiveness 21
2.1.6 Concept of Tax Aggressiveness 22
2.1.7 Book-Tax Difference 24
2.2 Theoretical Review 27
2.3 Empirical Review 29
2.4 Gap in Literature 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design 43
3.2 Population of the Study 43
3.3 Sample Size 43
3.4 Sampling Techniques 43
3.5 Sources of Data 43
3.6 Method of Data Analysis 44
3.7 Model Specification 44
3.8 Operationalisation of the variables 45
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Data Presentation 47
4.2 Data Analysis 47
4.3 Test of Hypotheses 54
4.4 Discussion of findings 55
4.5 Summary of Findings 57
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary 58
5.2 Conclusion 59
5.3 Recommendations 60
5.4 Contribution for further study 61
5.5 Suggestion for Future Study 61
References 63
Appendices

Abstract
The study examines the relationship between different firm attributes on tax aggressiveness in Nigeria. The firm attributes, as independent variable, was represented by firm size, firm age, firm profitability and firm complexity; while the dependent variable (tax aggressiveness) was measured using the book-tax differences (BTD). The sample consists of the entire forty eight (48)financial services firms of the Nigerian Exchange Group for the period of ten financial years (2012-2021). Panel data were extracted from the financial statements of the sampled companies for the 10-year period covered by the study. The data analysis was performed using STATA 15 econometric software and the techniques employed include: descriptive statistics, correlation matrix and panel regression technique. The fixed effect panel estimation technique was found suited for the data based on the outcome of Hausman specification test. The outcome of the hypotheses tests showed that the variables of firm size and firm complexity (SUBS) have significant positive effect on tax aggressiveness, while, profitability has significant negative effect on tax aggressiveness. The result also reveals that, firm age has insignificant negative effect on tax aggressiveness of the financial services firms examined during the period covered by the study. The study recommends, among others, that financial firms in Nigeria should ensure they have enough assets and diversify their business for a more tax aggressive pursuit.

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Taxes are compulsory levies imposed by the relevant tax authorities on the income and profit of individuals and corporate entities from which infrastructure are provided and maintained, as well as provision of public amenities to the society. Government requires tax revenue to augment its public expenditures and in the provision of public goods (Osho et al.,2020). One of the underlying features of tax, according to Olaoye and Ekundayo (2019), is that, it is a mandatory payment enforced by government for which no immediate gain is received in return, at least in a short-run. Thus, nobody pays tax with a smile because taxpayers instantly receive nothing identifiable in return for their contributions. This makes tax payment quite unattractive to taxpayers. As a result, not every national government, especially in developing countries, are able to effectively achieve optimal tax compliance level (Chytis et al.,2018). In many cases, a large proportion of the informal sector of the economy escapes the tax net entirely (Oladipupo & Obazee, 2016), while companies in the formal sector try to avoid taxes by engaging in tax aggressive and avoidance strategies in order to minimise their tax burden (Hutchens et al.,2019).
Corporate tax aggressiveness has been described “as wide range of operations with the sole aim of reducing the total tax debt or tax liability of an entity” (Martinez et al., 2019, p.4). Chen et al. (2010) defined it as the manipulation of the financial statement by corporate entities in order to lower their taxable income. Martinez and Rodrigues (2019), in their own view, stated that tax aggressive companies are those that adopt adequate tax avoidance mechanisms in order to reduce income tax expenses. For organisations, taxes are considered as a significant cost because it removes part of their earnings without apparent and immediate compensation, while tax avoidance increases net cash flows, which can be used to boost corporate investment, fulfil debt obligations, or be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends or share buybacks (Jihene & Moez, 2019). However, government consider tax avoidance as a major problem because it threatens the economy of any nation. For this reason, studies on tax aggressiveness and its possible determinants have continued to attract massive research interest among academic researchers (Chytis et al.,2018).
Most prior studies (Onyali & Okafor, 2018; Salihu et al.,2014) opine that corporate tax aggressiveness is among the most severe tax compliance issue threatening the revenue generation of different nations around the world, howbeit in different magnitudes. Thus, every nation has several anti–avoidance tax laws geared towards discouraging tax aggressiveness among corporations. For instance, the Nigeria government, through the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), initiated and implemented the tax amnesty programme between 2017 and 2018 which offered a 12-month window of opportunity for corporate taxpayers to regularise their tax liabilities. These are all efforts towards widening the existing tax nets. However, available indices suggest that, despite Nigeria having a corporate tax of 30%, the tax-to-GDP ratio as at 2018 remained at 6.1% (Maiye & Isiadinso, 2018). This aligns with the position of Onyali and Okafor (2018) that despite governments’ efforts, companies do engage in tax aggressive policies by exploiting available loopholes in the tax law through the help of tax experts.
There are several reasons to be concerned about the tax aggressive behaviours of the Nigerian financial companies as well as their possible determinants. Among them is the fact that the economy of every nation largely depends on a robust and effective banking system which serves as a vehicle for funds allocation among the various subsectors of the economy (Boateng, 2018). Thus, sustaining the financial health of financial companies (including banks and other financial institutions) is considered paramount just as governments desire to maximise their full tax potentials. Previous studies (Ilaboya et al.,2016; Martinez & Rodrigues, 2019; Ogbeide, 2017; Zemzem & Ftouhi, 2013) suggest that varying firm attributes (such as firm size, firm age, profitability, auditor type, firm complexity and ownership structure) play important roles in determining firms tax management strategies as well as the level of firms’ tax aggressiveness. However, there is lack of convergence amongst prior studies that firm attributes are the major determinants of tax aggressiveness. This study is thus incentivised to re-examine the tax aggressive behaviours of Nigerian financial firms with a view of expanding the existing understanding on the determinants of tax aggressiveness from the firm-specific attributes perspective.
1.2. Statement of Problem
Economically, available indices suggest that Nigeria does not generate much revenue from income taxes as they should. For example, according to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), as reported in McCulloch et al. (2020), out of the estimated 70 million economically active individuals in Nigeria, only 19 million are tax registered as PAYE (Pay as You Earn). Similarly, out of about 30 million registered corporate organisations, only 2.5 million tax-registered corporate bodies (just above 8%) are captured on the CAC list, leaving the rest out of the tax net(Awodipe, 2018). Closing these wide gaps between the taxable income group and the percentage of actual collected taxes poses a major challenge to the government. Government usually consider tax offenses as highly grievous, although tax aggressiveness is classified as tax avoidance practices and are viewed as legal in most jurisdictions. Etter-Phoya et al.(2019) posit that some countries require taxpayers to report tax avoidance schemes they have used and tax advisers to report tax avoidance schemes they have marketed or sold. No African country, including Nigeria, (except South Africa) requires taxpayers or advisers to report uncertain tax positions for which reserves have been created in annual company accounts (Etter-Phoya et al, 2019). Thus, in most nations that do not largely depend on natural resources in financing their budget, “tax is considered inevitable just like death” (Chytis et al, 2018).Adediran et al. (2013) assert that the Nigeria tax system has failed in the area of its administration, as personal and company income tax administration in Nigeria today do not measure to the appropriate standard.

A look at the literature shows the level of tax aggressiveness varies across companies because each company has peculiar characteristics. As a result, a handful of previous researches have examined the determinants of tax aggressiveness from the dimension of firm-specific attributes using different proxies. On the studies by Nigerian authors for example, Ogbeide (2017) used audit fees, firm size, leverage and interest charges as proxies for firm characteristics, while Ilaboya et al (2016) used firm size, profitability (ROA), leverage, ownership concentration and capital intensity. Atu et al.(2018) used firm size, leverage, liquidity and profitability, while Salawu and Adedeji (2017) used quality of external auditor, ownership concentration, firm value, leverage, profitability, size, growth opportunities and capital intensity as both firm characteristics and corporate governance variables. Salaudeen and Eze (2018) used firm size, leverage, profitability, capital intensity, inventory intensity, labour intensity and auditor type. Some others used variables outside the firm attributes, such as Oyeleke et al.(2016) which used female directors and Onyali and Okafor (2018) which studied the board of director characteristics.
A look at some of the findings of the previous Nigerian studies shows some level of inconsistencies. For example, while Ogbeide (2017) and Salaudeen and Eze (2018) found all the firm attributes they studied as significant determinants of tax aggressiveness; Ilaboya et al (2016), Salawu and Adedeji (2018), Onyali and Okafor (2018) and Atu et al (2018) found that firm size, leverage and firm profitability (respectively) are all insignificant in explaining variations in tax aggressiveness using varying samples of companies in Nigeria. These observed conflicting evidences in prior studies are indications that the issues relating to firm attributes’ influence on tax aggressiveness is far from being settled empirically; hence, the need for further studies in a bid to identifying the possible reasons for the lack of convergence in prior studies.
To this effect, one major discoverable reason for lack of convergence in prior studies is the measure of tax aggressiveness adopted in those studies. Annuar et al.(2014) categorised the tax aggressive measures into two groups: the book-tax differences (i.e. gap between book and taxable income) and effective tax-based (i.e. ratio of tax to income) measures. Majority, if not all, of the existing studies by Nigerian authors used the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Effective Tax Rate (ETR) as proxy for tax aggressiveness and did not consider other measures of tax aggressiveness. Given the heterogeneities that exist among listed companies and the varied opportunities for tax planning across different subsectors, it is unlikely that using a single pattern of Effective Tax Rate(ETR) measure would produce a result different from those reviewed. Despite the fact that all the tax aggressive measures have differing limitations, this study intends to adopt the Total Book Tax Difference (BTD) measure of tax aggressiveness in a bid to reconciling the observed conflicts in prior studies using a sample of Nigerian quoted financial services companies.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The broad objective of this study is to determine the relationship between firm attributes and tax aggressiveness in Nigerian listed financial companies. However, the specific objectives are to:

evaluate the effect of firm size on tax aggressiveness in Nigerian quoted financial services companies.;
ascertain how firm age affects tax aggressiveness in Nigerian quoted financial services companies.;
identify the effect of firm profitability on tax aggressiveness in Nigerian quoted financial services companies.; and
analyse how firm complexity affects the level of tax aggressiveness among Nigerian quoted financial services companies.
1.4 Research Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were formulated and were tested in the course of this study:
HO1: Firm size has no significant effect on tax aggressiveness of Nigerian quoted financial services companies..
HO2: Firm age has no significant effect on tax aggressiveness of Nigerian quoted financial services companies..
HO3: Firm profitability has no significant effect on tax aggressiveness of Nigerian quoted financial services companies.
HO4: Firm complexity has no significant effect on and tax aggressiveness of Nigerian quoted financial services companies.
1.5 Scope of the Study
The scope of the study is limited to all the financial companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) as at year ended 2021, Nigeria has a total of forty-eight (48) companies listed under the financial sector of the Exchange. This number comprises thirteen (13) Commercial Banks and thirty-seven (35) other financial institutions (including Insurance Firms, Mortgage Banks, Micro-Finance Banks and one Islamic Bank). The study covers a ten year period starting from 2012 – 2021. The choice of year 2012 as the start year of the study is because it marked the year the Nigerian listed companies commenced reporting using the IFRS, while year 2021 represents the most current year for data availability of data.
1.6 Significance of the Study
The outcome of this study was beneficial to:
i. tax policymakers to understand the firm-specific factors that influences the level of tax aggressiveness which could possibly lead to tax evasion which is detrimental to a country’s revenue base and its public spending.
ii. users of financial statement and tax administrators so as to improve their level of awareness on the extent of tax aggressiveness by financial institutions in Nigeria.
iii. academic scholars, researchers and students in the field of finance, taxation, business and accounting in their bid to further their knowledge on issues of tax planning which simply refers to the process and scheme by which tax payers arrange their affairs and businesses in such a manner as to attract lowest possible tax rates under applicable tax laws. The study also bridges the existing knowledge gap as this the study will add to existing literature on the use of dual tax aggressive measures in a model comparison studies.
1.7 Limitation of the Study
This study is limited to the financial services companies in Nigeria and so the findings as reported here does not apply to the non-financial services companies operating even within the same economy. The data for the study were extracted from the financial statements of the sampled companies for the period of ten year from 2012-2021, any attempt to generalise the findings on period prior to or after the particular ten years will be a mis-application and therefore wrong.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEWOF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study
The conceptual framework of this study comprises the independent variables namely: firm size, firm age, firm profitability, and firm complexity; and the dependent variable of tax aggressiveness.

Figure 2.1: The Framework of the Study
Source: Adapted from Ilaboya et al. (2016).

2.1.1 Concept of Firm Attributes
These are variety of variables that characterises a company and affects corporate decisions both internally and externally and can therefore contribute towards determining firms’ tax management strategy as well as the corporate tax aggressive behaviours (Ilaboya et al, 2016; Martinez & Rodrigues, 2019; Ogbeide, 2017; Zemzem & Ftouhi, 2013). For the purpose of this study, the focus is on firm size, age, profitability and complexity.

2.1.2 Firm Size and Tax Aggressiveness
In the context of this study, and in line with literature, firm size represents the magnitude of the firm in terms of how large or small the firm is. Firms are usually classified as either large or small firms based on their total assets or number of employees as the case may be. It is measured in most studies using the natural log of total assets (Ilaboya et al., 2016 and Ogbeide, 2017). Firm size approximates the degree of capital market frictions, where transactions costs are relatively lower for larger firms (Fischer, et al., 1989). Interest groups and policy makers have long been drawing on average effective tax rates (ETRs) to conveniently support their arguments in tax reform debates and discussions on corporate tax provisions (Callihan, 1994). This focus of the debate on corporate size led to a stream of research investigating whether there is a systematic relation between firm size and annual average ETRs.

Empirical studies showed different conclusion related to the relationship between effective tax rate and company size. Several researchers found positive relation between ETR-based avoidance proxies and company size (Minnick & Noga, 2010; Vieira, 2013; Kraft, 2014), which is consistent with the political cost hypothesis, meaning that large firms are characterized by higher visibility and thus subject to greater regulatory activity (Watts & Zimmerman 1986). According to this theory, effective tax rates are a proxy for political cost for the reason that taxes paid are a mean of wealth transfer from firms to other social groups. Effective tax rate is also a proxy for firms’ success; therefore, if larger firms are more successful than smaller firms, the larger firms would be exposed to more political scrutiny.
As larger firms are subject to higher scrutiny from tax authorities they have reluctance to reduce effective tax rates. Consequently, larger firms are expected to have a higher taxation burden when compared with firms which have a smaller dimension since taxes paid represent political costs which shall be borne by firms. Another competing theory argues that since larger firms have more power and more resources to manage taxes it is expected that they have lower ETRs. Using a non-ETR measure of tax avoidance, Wilson (2009) similarly finds a positive relation between tax shelter participation (as a proxy for particularly aggressive tax planning) and firm size. Rego (2003) finds that larger firms have higher effective tax rates.
Meanwhile, several studies conclude that ETR has negative relation with company size (Derashid & Zhang, 2003; Richardson & Lanis, 2007). This is in line with the political power or clout theory, assuming that large firms have greater resources for lobbying and more sophisticated tax planning activities (Siegfried, 2012, Porcano 2006). Others find no association between ETRs and firm size (Gupta & Newberry 2007; Mills et al., 2008). Gupta and Newberry (2007) stated that inconsistencies between ETR and company size are sample specific (related to sample selection), and it won’t happen to companies with longer histories. This means, if the sample used is companies with longer histories the result would show there are no significant relation between ETR with company size. Meanwhile, if the sample used is the companies with shorter histories the result would show there are significant relation (either negative or positive) between ETR and company size. Research in Indonesia on the relation between ETR and company size by Soepriyanto (2008) concluded that ETR has no significant relationship with company size.
Richardson and Lanis (2007) tested the association between firm size and ETRs in an Australian setting. For a sample of publicly-listed firms over the period from 1997-2003, the authors find results in line with the political power theory and posit a significant negative association between firm size, measured as the natural logarithm of total assets (at book value), and ETRs. However, Richardson and Lanis (2007) pointed to limitations of their research design in terms of data unavailability: there is no control for foreign operations and ownership structures and it cannot be said whether results would also apply to non-listed firms as there are no such firms included in the sample. Most recent studies confirm the existence of a positive relationship between firm size and the effective tax rate (Richardson et al., 2013; Desai & Dharmapala, 2006). Several authors consider effective tax rate as the most relevant measure of the ability of the company to optimize its tax burden and invariably avoid tax (Chadefaux & Rossignol, 2006).
2.1.3 Firm Age and Tax Aggressiveness
Firm age represents the age of the bank in terms of the difference between their year of incorporation and the current year. Generally, theory postulates a difference between old and young firms concerning their probability to alter contractual outcomes that depend on accounting numbers. Political cost theory can be used to explain the association between the age of company and tax avoidance. Desai and Dharmapala (2006) argue that the older the company, the broader its business and the higher its reputational risk. This is so because older firms are usually larger and tend to hold more grounds than newer firms and as such, will be exposed to more political scrutiny. Older firms tend to mitigate risk and choose actions that do not trigger higher risk. Previous research in the field of tax aggressiveness practices. Zemzem and Ftouhi (2013) show contrasting views concerning age as one of the company attributes which makes it open for further evaluation in this study.

2.1.4 Firm Profitability and Tax Aggressiveness
Profitability is the degree to which the company makes profit or financial gains from their economic activities. Profitability is commonly measured as either return on assets or return on equity. Literature suggests that firms’ profitability is an intuitive indicator with capacity to influence effective tax rate. For Dunbar et al. (2010), when profitability is measured based on pre-tax income it is expected that more profitable firms have higher earnings and, consequently, pay more taxes. This point of view is the one most evident in the literature (Ribeiro et al., 2015).An early study by Gupta and Newberry (2007) finds that tax avoidance is associated with firm profitability. Gupta and Newberry (2007) were among the first to investigate the association between GAAP ETRs and multiple firm-level characteristics. Multivariate results derived from micro-level panel data show that ETRs are significantly associated with a number of other firm characteristics besides size such as firm profitability. Profitability is commonly measured as either return on assets or cash flow from operations.

The basic argument is that more profitable firms arguably have a greater incentive to reduce their tax burden as compared to firms that are less profitable (Dunbar et al, 2010).More profitable firms generally pay higher taxes. On the other hand, one could argue that more profitable firms have greater incentives to engage in tax avoidance due to the greater potential savings (Rego 2003; Frank et al. 2009; McGuire et al. 2012). Manzon and Plesko (2002) argue that more profitable firms can make better use of tax deductions, exemptions, and credits. Lisowsky (2010) showed that tax avoidance is positively associated with performance. Rego (2003) also asserted that firms with higher pre-tax income have lower effective tax rates, ceteris paribus. Profitable companies may have a greater incentive than loss companies to engage in tax planning (Rego, 2003), which should lead to lower effective rates. A positive association between firm profitability and ETR was found by Richardson and Lanis (2007), Minick and Noga (2010) and Armstrong et al. (2012). Derashid and Zhang (2003) and Kraft (2014) document a negative influence of firms’ profitability on ETRs.
Dhaliwal et al. (2011) assert that companies with net operating losses (NOL) have little incentive to implement tax planning strategies that reduce effective rates and subsequently find a positive association between the existence of an NOL and effective tax rates. This relationship, however, can be complicated by a firm’s position with regard to valuation allowances and current taxes payable. These complications may help to explain a negative association between NOLs and ETRs that is evidenced in other prior research (Dyreng & Lindsey, 2009; Higgins, Omer, & Phillips, 2011; Rego, 2003). Phillips (2003) and Dhaliwal et al. (2011) find a negative association between Book (i.e. GAAP) ETR and ROA, which supports this assertion. However, Dyreng et al. (2010) and Robinson et al. (2010) find that ROA is positively related to Book ETR.
2.1.5 Firm Complexity and Tax Aggressiveness
According to Wahba and Elsayed (2010), firm complexity refers to what extent the firms’ operations and activities are diversified and interrelated. It is among the firm-specific attributes that usually influence several organisational outcomes. In the context of this study, the premise of existing literature (Chen et al., 2010; Chen et al.,2019; Pratama, 2017) is that the more complex the firm is, the greater the tax burden should likely be. In line with the economies of scale, the potential influencing effect of firm complexity on tax aggressiveness is more likely to be valid since complex firms are characterised by larger subsidiaries and business segments, especially conglomerates or cross-border financial institutions with foreign affiliations.

Researchers like Barinov et al. (2016) suggest that earnings reporting behaviours of conglomerates and single-segment firms differ significantly, and this most likely transcends to tax aggressive behaviours since there is likelihood that complex firms have higher tax burden. Markarian and Parbonetti (2007) classified firm complexity into two: internal and external complexity. Internal complexity refers to the sophistication of internal work processes, production technologies, and the work processes of employees, while external complexity relates to the external competitive structure (proxied by the number of business subsidiaries and geographic segments). The latter category is the focus of this study since it is practically observable that majority of the financial institutions in Nigeria have multiple subsidiaries.

2.1.6. Concept of Tax Aggressiveness
The term corporate tax aggressiveness lacks universal definition as it might connote “different thing to different people” (Hanlon & Heitzman, 2010). Given this, they have been several definitions of corporate tax aggressiveness put forward by researchers in recent times. Hanlon and Heitzman (2010) describe tax aggressiveness as a continuum of tax planning strategies where something like municipal bond investments are at one end (lower explicit tax, perfectly legal), then terms such as ‘noncompliance’, ‘evasion’, aggressiveness’, and ‘sheltering’ would be closer to the other end of the continuum. The practice of tax aggressiveness along this continuum sets up an interesting and relevant agency dilemma (Lietz, 2013). Research shows that some level of tax aggressiveness avoidance is desirable. If a firm pays less tax through legitimate tax saving strategies, shareholders benefit as will even the management when incentives are properly aligned (Slemrod, 2004). Thus, the terms such as tax management; tax planning; tax sheltering; and tax aggressiveness are interchangeably used with tax avoidance in the literature (Lanis & Richardson, 2012; Tang & Firth, 2011).

Rego (2003) defines tax aggressiveness as a reduction of the present value of tax payments. Thus in a general sense tax aggressiveness is a strategy of minimizing taxes. Effective tax avoidance seeks to minimize taxes but only to the extent that such planning maximizes after-tax returns (Scholes et al., 2009). In a broad sense, tax aggressiveness is a term that suggests a firm is avoiding taxes by all means, which may or may not include tax sheltering or tax evasion (Dyreng et al., 2008). According to Kirchler and Maciejovsky (2001), tax avoidance as a concept is simply an attempt to reduce tax payments by legal means, for instance by exploiting tax-loopholes
Tax aggressiveness is generally the legal exploitation of the tax system to one’s advantage to attempt to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law while making a full disclosure of the material information to the tax authorities (Desai & Dharmapala, 2009). Desai and Dharmapala (2009) also defined tax aggressiveness as a transfer of value from the state to shareholders, asserting that tax avoidance strategies are designed by creating information asymmetry between tax authorities and the firm so as to prevent the detection from tax authorities. Wang (2010) went further to define tax aggressiveness as representing a continuum of tax planning strategies, encompassing activities that are perfectly legal and more aggressive transactions that fall into the grey area (for example, abusive tax shelters). According to Pasternak and Rico (2008), tax aggressiveness is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one’s own advantage, to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. Annuar et al. (2014) simply defined corporate tax aggressiveness as a reduction in the explicit corporate tax liabilities.
Guo (2014) considers tax aggressiveness as any activity that reduces tax paid given the level of earnings. Tax avoidance includes any transaction that has any effect on the firm’s tax burden. This includes real activities which have tax benefits, lobbying activities aimed at reducing a firm’s tax burden, and activities undertaken solely for the purpose of avoiding taxes. Mughal and Akram (2012) also opined that tax avoidance can be defined as the activity of tax payers in which they try to find out different ways to lessen or eliminate his tax liability and do not show their legal income without violating law.
In summary, this tax aggressiveness is simply said to take place within the legal context of the tax system that is, individuals or firms take advantage of the tax code and exploit loopholes, i.e. engage in activities that are legal but run counter to the purpose of the tax law. Usually, tax avoidance encompasses special legal activities with the sole purpose to reduce tax liabilities. Thus, in the context of this study, this researcher defined tax aggressiveness as companies’ efforts to minimise their tax liabilities by exploiting the loop holes in accounting principles, especially through the engagement of tax experts. An example for tax aggressiveness is strategic tax planning where financial affairs are arranged in order to minimize tax liabilities by using tax deductions and taking advantage of tax credits.
Due to its nature, tax aggressiveness is extremely difficult to measure (Desai & Dharmapala, 2009). There have been several measures of corporate tax aggressiveness used in the prior literature. These measures are mostly based of the estimates from the financial statements and could be classified into three groups. The first group includes those measures that consider the multitude of the gap between book and taxable income. These comprise of total book-tax gap; residual book-tax gap and tax-effect book-tax gap. The second group has to do with those constructs that measure the proportional amount of taxes to business income. They include the effective tax rates (this comes in several variants like accounting/GAAP ETR; current ETR; cash ETR; long-run cash ETR; ETR differential; ratio of income tax expense to operating cash flow; and ratio of cash taxes paid to operating cash flow). The third group involves other measures such as discretionary permanent differences. Considering the ETR measures have been severally used by prior studies, this study will employ the Book Tax Difference (BTD).

2.1.7 Book-Tax Difference
According to Rego (2003), tax aggressive activities can create book-tax differences, which are either temporary or permanent differences between a company’s financial accounting and taxable income. Thus, the numerator is based on taxable income and the denominator is based on financial accounting income to accommodate book-tax differences. The book-tax difference (BTD) is also used as a proxy for the measurement of tax avoidance activity. It focuses on the magnitude of the difference between the accounting income and taxable income (book-tax gap). Although the causes of BTG are many and usually classified as permanent and temporary differences, the size of the gap suggests the presence of tax avoidance practices (Kim et al., 2011). To buttress the argument, Mills (1998) find a positive relationship between BTG and larger audit adjustment and tax audit among US firms. There are two commonly used measures of BTG to capture tax avoidance; these are total book-tax gap and residual book-tax gap. There are a number of studies that suggest book-tax differences can be used as a signal of tax planning activity (Badertscher et al., 2010). The book-tax difference was developed by Manzon and Plesko (2002) and followed by Desai and Dharmapala (2009). Book-tax differences are differences between income reported to capital markets and tax authorities. The literature on taxation e.g. on tax avoidance, tax planning and tax sheltering holds the view that the positive book-tax differences and a low effective tax rates reflect the behavior of tax avoidance (Plesko, 2004).
Desai (2003) posits that the growing difference between book and taxable income in the US during the 1990’s was caused by increased levels of tax sheltering. In addition, Wilson (2009) finds that book-tax differences are positively associated with actual cases of tax sheltering. Despite evidence that large positive book-tax differences are associated with tax avoidance activity, this measure has limitations. Manzon and Plesko (2002) and Hanlon (2003) identify firm specific characteristics associated with book-tax differences that are not necessarily reflective of corporate tax planning. Additionally, results in Phillips et al. (2003) and Hanlon (2005) suggest that temporary book-tax differences are associated with earnings management activities. To the extent that earnings management and innate firm characteristics unrelated to tax avoidance are the primary determinants of book-tax differences.
Manzon and Plesko (2002) developed a model for measuring total BTG and Chen et al. (2010) use the model for the measurements of tax aggressiveness among US companies. As total BTG may also be affected by the firm’s earning management practices, Desai and Dharmapala (2006) try to capture the unexplained portion of the total BTG, otherwise known as “abnormal total BTG” (Hanlon & Heitzman, 2010), and thus develop the residual BTG. This measure has been used to measure tax avoidance in Chen et al. (2010); Desai and Dharmapala (2009); and Kim et al. (2011). Another form of BTG is developed in Tang and Firth (2011). The measure is termed Tax-effect BTG. It is argued that commonly used BTG is an income-effect BTG, and it uses the general company income tax rate. As for tax-effect BTG, it is based on the difference between income tax expense and current tax expenses, and thus relevant in a business setting where firms are subjected to different tax rates.
The general equation of corporate tax avoidance components using book-tax difference (BTD) is stated below;
BTDit = FIit – TIit
BTDit – book-tax difference for firm i in year t;
FIit – financial income;
TIit – taxable income.
Financial income is the income reported to capital markets, and it is the firm`s pre – tax income given in the income statement. Taxable income is not disclosed in the financial statements.
Table 1 presents the summary of each of the proxies with citations of their original sources.
Table 2.1: Summary of the Tax Aggressiveness Measures adopted
Measure Definition/formula Description Original source(s)
Book Tax Different (BTD) Commercial profit-Profit Fiscal/Total Asset The total difference between Pre‐tax book income and taxable income scaled by total assets. The bigger the BTD, the bigger the company is tax aggressiveness. Mills et al (1998), Prawira (2017)
Source: Researcher’s compilation (2020)

2.2Theoretical Review
2.2.1 Agency Theory
Agency theory was propounded by Jensen and Meckling (1976). Agency theory is used in explaining the agency relationship between the managers (as agents) and the shareholders (as principals) – where the conflict of interest is bound to exist which may lead to the former acting to maximise their own interests other than those of the latter, thereby creating agency problem. According to the agency-view of tax avoidance, conflicts between firm owners and its management may arise because managers who are generally expected to make tax-effective decisions may in fact behave opportunistically and divert corporate wealth for their private benefit (Jensen & Meckling 1976; Desai & Dharmapala, 2006).

Slemrod (2004) and Chen and Chu (2005) were among the first to view corporate tax avoidance within an agency framework. Tax avoidance is related to agency problem that is, tax avoidance is perceived as a tool of the creation a shield for managerial opportunism and diversion of rents. According to this view, theoretically, corporate tax avoidance can create a shield for expedience activities of managers and diversion of rents (Desai & Dharmapala, 2006). Desai and Dharmapala (2006) suggest an agency-view on tax avoidance, stating that agency costs in form of managerial rent extraction may result from a complimentary relationship between tax avoidance and managerial diversion. Self-interested managers might use tax avoidance strategies to mask the opportunistic extraction of rents (Desai et al., 2007).
2.2.2 Political Economy Theory
The political economy theory which was propounded by Buhr (1998) posits that accounting systems act as mechanisms used to create, distribute and mystify power. This theory is based upon economic theories of self-interest. The emergence of pressure groups creates a threat to companies who may face increased government intervention in the form of regulatory actions which then create political costs (Uwuigbe, 2011). Companies are therefore predicted to counter possible political costs by resorting to government lobbying and providing social responsibility disclosures (Watts &Zimmerman, 1978). Deegan (2000) describes the classical political economy theory as that which tends to perceives accounting reports and disclosures as a means of maintaining the favoured position of those who control scarce resources (capital), and as a means of undermining the position of those without scarce capital. It focuses on the structural conflicts within society.
The usefulness of political economy theories is that they do not focus solely on the economic self-interest and wealth-maximization of the individual or corporation, instead, they consider the political, social and institutional framework within which the economic activities take place (Gray et al., 1995).
2.2.3 Adopted Theory for the Study (Political Economy Theory)
This study was anchored on the political economy theory. This theory is relevant to this study because firms being regulated by government on tax issues are in the dilemma of compliance with stiff tax regulations imposed on them not without a cost and meeting the economic bottom line of firms which is the primary objective of corporate firms with a view to maximize shareholders’ wealth. The economic self-interest of managers of firms is perceived as the reason why they engage in tax aggressiveness in order to achieve the firm’s underlining economic goals.

2.3Empirical Review
This sub-section presents a systematic review of prior related studies on determinants of tax aggressiveness from both foreign and Nigerian authors. The researcher arranged the review synchronically (new to old) especially those that focused on company-related characteristics.

Jaffar et al.(2021) studied the determinants of tax aggressiveness using company characteristics including company size, profitability, capital incentive, leverage, financial distress and ethnicity. They sampled a total of 105 companies listed in Bursa Malaysia from 2014 to 2018 and employed the balanced pooled OLS regression technique. They found that only profitability and financial distress are significant determinants of tax aggressiveness, while the other variables like (company size, capital intensity, inventory intensity, leverage, and ethnicity) were not statistically significant in explaining the variances in tax aggressiveness in Malaysia. Although they did not proffer any policy recommendation, they acknowledged that they used only a small sample size in their analysis implying that their results cannot be generalized to the overall population of companies in Malaysia, specifically to the larger size of firms. The study recommended that covering both small and larger size of firms in future research may yield a better result on the relationships.

Kusbandiyahet al. (2021) examined determinants of tax avoidance using some corporate governance variables that can as well proxy for company characteristics, for example ownership structure. They sampled a total of 28 companies for 6yrs (2012-2017) and used panel regression method. Their result showed that institutional foreign ownership, family ownership and independent directors did not significantly influence tax avoidance, while the CG-score Index has a significant effect on tax avoidance among companies listed in Bursa Malaysia. They did not provide any policy recommendation, save for suggestion for further studies in which they recommend the use of permanent BTD and temporary BTD as tax avoidance measures,
Akintoye et al.(2020) examined the impact of tax planning strategies on the profit performance of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. The used the Taro Yamani formula in arriving at a sample of 46 manufacturing firms from 2008 to 2017. The made of use of descriptive and inferential statistics in analysing the secondary data. Their result showed that there is no significant effect of tax planning on the profitability (proxied using ROA) of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The study recommended that tax managers and finance officers should reduce thin capitalization and capital intensity to balance the source of income of manufacturing firms. However, their study focused on the manufacturing firms which is distinctive to the direction of this study – with focus on the financial sector which has stricter regulatory monitoring and large stakeholder’s followership due to the financial intermediary roles they play in the economy.
Yahaya and Yusuf (2020) examined the impact of firm characteristics on tax aggressiveness in Nigerian listed Insurance firms. The focused on firm size, firm age, profitability and leverage as independent variables and measures of firm characteristics. Their sample consists of twenty (20) insurance firms quoted on the Nigerian Stock Exchange from 2010 to 2018. They analysed using the two-step system GMM panel regression model and found that firm size and leverage affect tax aggressiveness positively while firm age and profitability assert negative significant impacts on tax aggressiveness. The study recommended that firm size should be formulated in line with the regulatory provisions. However, their study focused on only the Insurance companies which are just a sub-set of the entire financial sector which is the focus of this study. Hence, it is expected that the outcome of this study will be more generalizable than theirs.
Onatuyeh and Odu (2019) examined the impact of corporate characteristics on tax aggressiveness in Nigeria using secondary data of 49 listed manufacturing companies from 2011-2016. They used panel data regression technique and found that board size and board independence exert negative and significant impacts on tax aggressiveness, while board gender exerts no significant effects on the level of tax aggressiveness. They recommend that listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria should ensure more women are included in their boards of directors. One key con of their study is that their recommendation is at variance with their result. For example, they found that gender diversity has no significant effect on tax aggressiveness and went ahead and recommended for greater women inclusion in the board.
Ifurueze et al. (2018) investigated the effect of corporate tax aggressiveness on firm growth in Nigeria using the ex post facto research design. They made use of secondary data comprising of seven (7) quoted manufacturing companies (2007-2016). They analysed using the pooled OLS method and found that the influence of ETR on firm growth is not statistically significant, and so, should be ignored as a key determinant of firm growth. They also found that leverage (LEV) impact positively on firm growth, but this impact is not statistically significant. They however recommended that on the efficient use of tax rate to generate firm growth should be encouraged. The key observable anomaly of their study, just like as pointed out in Onatuyeh and Odu (2019), is the deviation of their recommendation from the major finding. As observed, aggressive tax practice was found as a non-significant driver of firm growth, and same was recommended for firm growth.
Atu et al.(2018) examined the effect of firm attributes on tax aggressiveness in Nigeria using secondary data comprising of fifteen (15) DMBs from 2013-2017. They deployed the use of the OLS regression technique. Their result showed that firm size, leverage, and liquidity have significant impacts on tax aggressiveness in Nigeria while profitability has a non-significant impact on tax aggressiveness. They recommended that the initial focus of tax authorities should be on creating a tax culture amongst the people, and less on maximizing revenue or enforcing stringent tax compliance measures. The observable defect of this study is the wrong quotation of population as there were only thirteen (13) commercial banks listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange during the period of their study.
Ugbogbo et al.(2018) evaluated the corporate determinants of aggressive tax avoidance in Nigeria from the dimension of the firm-specific attributes. The used secondary data extracted from the annual reports of 40 Nigerian listed companies from year 2013 to 2017. With the aid of the OLS multiple regression technique, they found empirical evidence that firm size has positive relationship with corporate tax aggressive avoidance while profitability and leverage have negative significant relationships with corporate tax aggressive avoidance. They recommend that profitability, firm size and leverage should be given more attention in the course of considering the determinants that affects tax aggressive by various stakeholders, especially in Nigeria. A major defect of their study is that they were not explicit on the number of sectors considered as ‘manufacturing companies’ leading to their reliance on a sample of only 40 companies excluding other sectors that are still into manufacturing such as the oil and gas sector.
Inua (2018) studied the determinants of corporate effective tax rates in Nigeria using a sample of 30 manufacturing companies. Secondary data was used as obtained from the annual accounts of the sampled companies from 2011-2016. Using the panel data regression technique, the result showed that firm leverage, board independence and board size are negatively and significantly related to ETR, while firm size is negatively and non-insignificantly related to ETR. The study recommends that external board members with experience in accounting, finance and management issues should be highly encouraged as this will reduce the tax rate and bring about efficient tax practices. Despite studying the same sector, Inua’ result on firm size contradicts that of Ugbogbo et al. (2018), showing negative and positive relationships respectively. This may be as a result of the miniature sample employed by the former – which applied unscientific method in sampling only 30 companies out of a population of 170.
Salaudeen and Eze (2018) studied the effect of firm-specific attributes on corporate effective tax rate in Nigeria. They sampled a total of 59 non-financial firms from 10 different sectors quoted in the NSE from 2010-2014. They employed the panel data regression technique and found that the level of ETR differs based on sector/industry type. The result also showed that larger and more profitable firms have high tax burden while firms with high leverage, capital intensity, and tax expert (auditor type) are faced with lower ETR. Their result however showed no significant relationship between ETR and labour intensity. They concluded that tax incentives provided by the Nigerian tax authorities are substantially significant even though they vary from sector to sector. They queried the dispersion in the ETR found amongst the different sectors which challenges the equity of the corporate tax system in Nigeria. However, Salaudeen and Eze (2018) did not proffer any recommendation which can be considered a defect to the study.
Salaudeen (2017) also examined the corporate effective tax rates in the Nigerian financial sector and their determinants using a sample of 24 financial companies from listed on the NSE from 2010-2014. Salaudeen used two different proxies of tax aggressive measures, the GAAP ETR and Cash ETR. Using the panel regression analyses, Salaudeen found that profitability, firm leverage and capital intensiveness as the determinants of the both GAAP ETR and CASH ETR, meaning they negatively affect tax aggressiveness. The study recommends the need to increase tax incentives in activities auxiliary to banking services and insurance activities sub sector of the financial services sector where the mortgage firms belong. It is worthy of note that his recommendation was not based on the findings.
Ogbeide (2017) examined the impact of firm characteristics on tax aggressiveness in Nigeria. He sampled a total of 85 non-financial companies listed on the NSE for the period 2012 to 2016. He used the panel data method of regression and found that firm size exerts positive and significant effects on tax aggressiveness, while leverage is significant and exerts negative effect on tax aggressiveness. Also, external audit quality (audit fees) and tax aggressiveness are significantly positively related. The study recommends that listed firms in Nigeria should make it a practice to adequately compensate managers and board of directors strategically as this will assist to reduce their tendency to engage in rent seeking/managerial opportunism and lead to lower effective tax rate. Just like the observation in Salaudeen (2017), Ogbeide (2017) failed to tailor his recommendation to flow from his findings.
Balakrishnan et al. (2017) examined the impact of tax aggressiveness on corporate transparency in United Kingdom. They used secondary data comprising of 40,193 firm-year observations that run from 1990 to 2013 extracted from the Compustat database. They used GAAP-ETR tax aggressive measure in a multiple regression analysis technique and found that aggressive tax planning is significantly associated with lower corporate transparency. The concluded that managers at tax aggressive firms attempt to mitigate these transparency problems by increasing various tax-related disclosures. As a result, firms face a trade-off between tax benefits and financial transparency when choosing the aggressiveness of their tax planning. They, however, did not give any policy recommendation based on their result.
Nwaobia and Jayeoba (2017) examined the effect of tax planning strategies on firms’ liquidity. Various tax planning strategies were discussed but the strategies of Capital Intensity (CAPINT), Thin Capitalization (TINCAP), Lease Option (LOPT) and Industry sector incentives (IND) were selected as the independent variable. The Criterion variable used was firms’ liquidity measured in this study by the Current Ratio (CR) while firm size (SIZE) was adopted as the control variable. Data obtained from 154 firm-year observations were described and regression analysis was used to test the hypothesis developed. The results reveal that tax planning strategies exert negative effects on firms’ liquidity. Their study recommend appropriate measures and skill should be applied in determining appropriate mix of strategies toadopt for tax planning purpose as some strategies if not properly designed and applied mayreduce tax liability at the expense of firm’s liquidity. This researcher considers the sampling of only 11 companies is rather too small for the sample size which makes the outcome of the study non-generalizable.
Irianto et al.(2017) examined the factors that affect the company’s tax avoidance. There are several factors used include size, leverage, profitability, and capital intensity. The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of firm size, leverage, profitability and capital intensity ratio on tax avoidance in manufacture companies listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange 2013-2015. Population taken as the object of observation amounted to 156 manufacturing companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange in the period 2013-2015. Determination of the sample was made by applying purposive sampling method and obtains a sample of 36 manufacturing companies based on certain criteria. Their results showed that the size positive influence on the effective tax rate, while leverage, profitability and capital intensity ratio does not significantly influence tax avoidance practices. Their study did not provide a single recommendation, save for conclusion and summary of findings.
Rania et al.(2017) analysed the effects of the corporate’s characteristics on tax avoidance and to analyse the effects of moderation of earnings management on the relationship between the corporate’s characteristics and tax avoidance. The corporate’s characteristics in their study were proxied using profitability, leverage, and company size. They selected 49 manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange of the period of 2012-2016 as samples using the cluster random sampling technique. The result of their panel data regression with random effect model shows that the characteristics of a company, namely the profitability and the size have a significant negative effect on tax avoidance, whereas the leverage has a significant positive effect on tax avoidance. Their study did not give any recommendation which is considered a major limitation.
Kim and Im (2017) conducted a study on the effect and determinants of small-and medium-sized entities conducting tax avoidance using companies listed on the Korean Stock Exchange. Their sample consists 18,954 audited firms including those external audited from 2011 to 2013. They argue that the financial determinants of tax aggressiveness vary between small (SMES) and big (non-SMEs) companies. They used the BTD measure and found that firm size negatively affected tax avoidance, while profitability, the leverage, the operating cash flow, the capital intensity, the R&D intensity, and the growth rate had a positive effect on tax avoidance. They conclude that there is significant difference between the drivers of tax avoidance of small and large firms. They recommend that large firms should be properly monitored an observed during in order to curtail aggressive tax practices. Their study differs from this current study owing to their focus on unlisted firms.
Yangyang et al. (2017) investigated the effect of liquidity on corporate tax avoidance. They document that firms with higher liquidity engage less in extreme (i.e., either overly aggressive or overly conservative) tax avoidance. The effect of liquidity on tax avoidance is economically meaningful, is robust across alternative measures of tax avoidance and stock liquidity, and holds after controlling for potential endogenous effects. They further document that the effect of liquidity on tax avoidance is amplified for firms with a high proportion of activist shareholders, and is attenuated for firms with high levels of stock price in formativeness. The entirety of the findings was consistent with the view that stock liquidity mitigates extreme tax avoidance by enhancing shareholders’ control over firm management. However, no recommendation, in line the outcome of the study, was found in their work which tends to make the work incomplete in form.
Anouar and Houria (2017) examined the significant relationship that exists between tax avoidance and firm size. The study made use of 45 listed Moroccan corporate groups, over 2011–2015 periods. The study made use of the multiple regression models. The study indicates that highly indebted firms are likely to take advantage of the main characteristics of debt-capital in order to avoid a significant corporate tax burden. They added that tax considerations have made debt financing, the preferential form of financing in areas with high taxation. Their study did not make any policy recommendation, save for suggestions that future studies should look at the determinants of tax avoidance from the areas of the relationship of the directors’ board with the shareholders, the role of the tax authority, the personnel’s skills and the tax havens.

To continue read click on the link below

PART 2: FIRM ATTRIBUTES AND TAX AGGRESSIVENESS IN NIGERIAN QUOTED FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES BY YAKUBU KARIM

GYB Receives Award of Excellence as Best Performing Governor in North-Central Geopolitical Zone

The Executive Governor of Kogi State, Governor Yahaya Adoza Bello, CON was honored with the prestigious Award of Excellence by Social Plus Africa Communications Ltd.

This recognition is in honor of the Governor as the best performing Governor in the North-Central Geopolitical Zone.

The Chief Executive Officer of Social Plus Africa Communications Ltd, Ambassador James Momoh, presented the award to the Governor, commending him for his remarkable leadership and unwavering dedication to the betterment of Kogi State.

The organization recognized Governor Bello’s transformative leadership style, which has brought about significant positive changes in various sectors of the state.

During the event, Social Plus Africa Communications Ltd also unveiled the magazine, which highlights the extraordinary achievements and milestones accomplished under Governor Bello’s administration.

The magazine showcases the governor’s innovative policies, infrastructural development projects, socioeconomic reforms, and his relentless efforts to improve the lives of the people of Kogi State.

Governor Yahaya Bello, expressed his appreciation to the team that visited.

While expressing his gratitude for the recognition, he emphasized that this award is a testament to the collective efforts of his administration and the people of Kogi State.

Under Governor Bello’s leadership, Kogi State has experienced significant infrastructural development, particularly in the areas of road construction, healthcare facilities, education, and agriculture.

The administration’s innovative policies and socioeconomic reforms have attracted both local and international investments, fostering economic growth and job creation in the state.

The event was attended by members and staff of Social Plus Africa Communication Ltd.