Journals / Sayıştay Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 113

TAX PLANNING ANALYSIS IN TURKISH BANKING SECTOR

TÜRK BANKACILIK SEKTÖRÜNDE VERGİ PLANLAMASI ANALİZİ

Pages
9–43
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the second model, on the other hand, the leverage ratio and asset profitability decrease the probability of banks’ tax planning by 5.6% and increase by 10.9% respectively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the aim is to analyse tax planning in the Turkish banking sector.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the first model, tax planning of banks is determined on the basis of the cash effective tax rates, while in the second, generally accepted accounting principles are determined on the basis of effective tax rate.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the second model, on the other hand, the leverage ratio and asset profitability decrease the probability of banks’ tax planning by 5.6% and increase by 10.9% respectively.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, the aim is to analyse tax planning in the Turkish banking sector. In this context, binary logistic regression analysis was performed by means of two different models by using financial data related to the banks. In the first model, tax planning of banks is determined on the basis of the cash effective tax rates, while in the second, generally accepted accounting principles are determined on the basis of effective tax rate. The findings show that sector shares and asset profitability increase the probability of banks’ tax planning by 36.1% and decrease by 3.73% respectively in the first model. In the second model, on the other hand, the leverage ratio and asset profitability decrease the probability of banks’ tax planning by 5.6% and increase by 10.9% respectively.

Özet

Çalışmada, Türk bankacılık sektöründe vergi planlamasının analiz edilmesiamaçlanmıştır. Bu çerçevede bankalara ilişkin finansal veriler kullanılarak iki farklı modelaracılığıyla ikili lojistik regresyon analizi yapılmıştır. Modellerden ilkinde, bankaların vergiplanlaması nakit efektif vergi oranlarına göre belirlenirken ikincisinde, genel kabul görmüşmuhasebe ilkeleri efektif vergi oranına göre belirlenmiştir. Bulgular; ilk modelde, sektörpayları ile aktif kârlılığın bankaların vergi planlaması yapma olasılığını sırasıyla %36,1artırdığı ve %3,73 azalttığı yönündedir. İkinci modelde ise kaldıraç oranı ve aktif kârlılığınbankaların vergi planlaması yapma olasılığını sırasıyla %5,6 azalttığı ve %10,9 artırdığıyönündedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATABEY, S. E., ÜNSAL, H., BIYIK, G. (2022). TAX PLANNING ANALYSIS IN TURKISH BANKING SECTOR. Sayıştay Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 113, 9–43. https://ajindex.com/articles/591250

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Adrian, T. ve Shin H. S. (2010),
  2. Liquidity and Leverage, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, 328, 1-37.
  3. Akdoğan, A. (2007), Kamu Maliyesi, (12. Baskı), Ankara:
  4. Gazi Kitabevi.
  5. Amadasun, A. B. ve Igbinosa, S. O. (2011), “Strategies for Effective Tax Planning”, Franklin Business & Law Journal, 2, 51-64.
  6. Armstrong, C. S., Blouin, J. L. ve Larcker, D. F. (2012), “The Incentives for Tax Planning”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53, 391-411.
  7. Berkson, J. (1951),
  8. Why I Prefer Logits to Probits, Biometrics, 7(4), 327-339.
  9. Binici, M. ve Köksal, B. (2012),
  10. Kaldıraç ve Döngüsellik, TCMB Ekonomi Notları, 11, 1-9.
  11. Blouin, J. (2014), “Defining and Measuring Tax Planning Aggressiveness”, National Tax Journal, 67(4), 875-900.
  12. Cardoso, L. G. M. ve Laruccia, M. M. (2006), “The Quest for Brand Value”, http:// ssrn.com/abstract=1337325 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.12.2016).
  13. Cramer, J. S. (2002),
  14. The Origins of Logistic Regression, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, 119(4), 1-15.
  15. Dayton, C. M. (1992),
  16. Logistic Regression Analysis, Stat, 474-574.
  17. Dyreng, S. D., Hanlon, M. ve Maydew, E. L. (2008), Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance. The Accounting Review, 83(1), 61-82.
  18. Eriotis, N. P., Frangouli, Z. ve Ventoura-Neokosmides, Z. (2002), Profit Margin and Capital Structure: An Empirical Relationship, Journal of Applied Business Research, 18(2), 85-88.
  19. European Commission (2012), “Clamping Down on Tax Evasion and Avoidance: Commission Presents the Way Forward”, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_ IP-12-1325_en.htm#PR_metaPressRelease_bottom (Erişim Tarihi: 16.11.2016).
  20. Gallemore, J., Gipper, B. ve Maydew, E. L. (2016), “Banks as Tax Planning Intermediaries”, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2796132 (Erişim Tarihi: 16.03.2018).
  21. Gerçek, A. ve Uygun E. (2018), “OECD Ülkelerinde Agresif Vergi Planlamasını Önlemeye Yönelik Tedbirlerin Değerlendirilmesi”, Vergi Sorunları Dergisi, 360, 34-49.
  22. Guenther, D. A., Matsunaga, S. R. ve Williams, B. M. (2013), “Tax Avoidance, Tax Aggressiveness, Tax Risk and Firm Risk”, https://business.illinois. edu/accountancy/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/10/Tax-2013- Guenther.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2017).
  23. Gujarati, D. N. (2006), Temel Ekonometri, (4. Baskı), Ümit Şenesen & Gülay Günlük Şenesen (Çev.), İstanbul:
  24. Literatür. Hong, Q. (2010), “International Taxation and Income-Shifting Behaviour of Multinational Corporations (Doctoral Dissertation)”, http://hdl.handle. net/1807/26189 (Erişim Tarihi: 27.02.2018).
  25. Hong, Q. ve Smart, M. (2010), In Praise of Tax