OP is jealous. keeps posting the same thing now and then as s/he remembers her rejection from the JAR
It's "they remember their," or alternatively "theyx remember theirx", no s/he please.
Actual Fraud at JAR
-
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/hrm-strategy-for-publishing-in-rfs
This is a way bigger deal.I see rip off guy Hans doing as expected - curing his rip off paper and not papers he ripped off https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016541011930062X
Anyone working in the area should see this paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426619303036 which shows Hans et al’s work is wrong and the origins jfe paper is right
Best to never cite Hans et al
-
OP have you ever read through the lines on an 1120? There's information on any ownership greater than 20%, and subs don't file separate federal return.
Have you ever taken a tax course? It only requires tax 2 to know this.
1) Not all firms are corporations
2) It is illegal for partnerships - subs or otherwise - to file consolidated
3) It is illegal for corporations owned by partnerships (i.e., subs) or owning partnerships to file consolidated
4) it is illegal for corps to file consolidated if ownership < 80%. Even at 80% it is elective. GAAP requires consolidation at 50%, which is where economic control is and the relevant definition of a sub
5) it is actually true that the 1120 does have information on ownership. It is also true that the authors of the paper in question completely ignore this info -
OP is jealous. keeps posting the same thing now and then as s/he remembers her rejection from the JAR
Not sure what OP would be jealous of... if these are the papers that get published, based on who your daddy is or if you're in the club, what exactly does publication signal?
Is OP jealous that s/he didn't fabricate data? Or that a "top" journal lacking the knowledge to stop an obviously fr$/udlent paper might have any opinion on other papers?
-
Yeah, it's really disturbing. If you actually look in the SOI data, this study uses MORE partnership tax returns (assets > 10 million) than are listed as existing. Clear they make no adjustment for subs.
Says a lot about the review process in accounting...
OP have you ever read through the lines on an 1120? There's information on any ownership greater than 20%, and subs don't file separate federal return.
Have you ever taken a tax course? It only requires tax 2 to know this.
1) Not all firms are corporations
2) It is illegal for partnerships - subs or otherwise - to file consolidated
3) It is illegal for corporations owned by partnerships (i.e., subs) or owning partnerships to file consolidated
4) it is illegal for corps to file consolidated if ownership < 80%. Even at 80% it is elective. GAAP requires consolidation at 50%, which is where economic control is and the relevant definition of a sub
5) it is actually true that the 1120 does have information on ownership. It is also true that the authors of the paper in question completely ignore this info -
Look, I have no idea what paper is even being talked about. I'm not wasting my time to look at JAR issues over a year to find it, and I'm definitely not looking into their sample.
But when OP says stuff like filing a consolidated return is illegal, that's just dumb and no one is going to take the allegation seriously.
-
Still misleading if not downright false. Vast majority of parents file a consolidated return, now just because some flowthrow entities or less than 80% owned aren't consolidated (wow, there's book-tax differences with regards to consolidation, duh), doesn't mean its "illegal" for a parent to file a consolidated return.
-
On what data is your comment "vast majority of parents" based. It is literally illegal (i.e., prohibited by law) for any and all partnerships to file consolidated returns. Flow throughs are more common than C-Corps.
Recent TAR paper shows that about 40% of C-Corps have an average of 17 partnership subs. Thus, neither these corps nor their subs can file consolidated. Further, the "consolidated parents" the JAR/Fraaad paper claims to study will actually include all of these subs.
By definition, subs outnumber parents.
Still misleading if not downright false. Vast majority of parents file a consolidated return, now just because some flowthrow entities or less than 80% owned aren't consolidated (wow, there's book-tax differences with regards to consolidation, duh), doesn't mean its "illegal" for a parent to file a consolidated return.
-
The silent majority
But wait - so the argument here is that if the fr/aud is large/obvious enough, it can't be fr/aud? Or that it's not fr/aud because people are to lazy to verify whether the data actually exists?
Based on this, maybe it's just true that the dog ate their laptop...
Look, I have no idea what paper is even being talked about. I'm not wasting my time to look at JAR issues over a year to find it, and I'm definitely not looking into their sample.
But when OP says stuff like filing a consolidated return is illegal, that's just dumb and no one is going to take the allegation seriously. -
What's funny about this thread is there's no counterargument to OPs claims.
The only "counterarguments" are unsubstantiated - really, known false - claims that all subs have assets below some magical threshold (known false) or that C-Corps don't have partnership subs (known false) or that partnerships don't exist in tiered structures (known false) or that everyone files a consolidated return (known false). Unfortunately, this is exactly how referees seem to operating in accounting
-
I am not in accounting, but if any of these allegations are true, why not write a thoughtful response paper demonstrating the institutional details you claim are incorrect? Show how the results are wrong. It would be a much greater service to the profession than arguing (or slandering) here.