Do Tax Professionals Act Like Auditors when Evaluating Tax-Related Audit Evidence?

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE Behavioral Research in Accounting Pub Date : 2021-06-09 DOI:10.2308/BRIA-2020-013
Donna D. Bobek, Laura N. Feustel, Scott D. Vandervelde
{"title":"Do Tax Professionals Act Like Auditors when Evaluating Tax-Related Audit Evidence?","authors":"Donna D. Bobek, Laura N. Feustel, Scott D. Vandervelde","doi":"10.2308/BRIA-2020-013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The audit of the financial statement income tax accounts is ultimately the responsibility of the audit engagement team; however, tax professionals are often involved because of their knowledge of the tax functional area. Auditors are expected to exercise professional skepticism and independence when performing audits, while tax professionals are expected to be advocates for their tax clients. This study investigates whether the auditor and/or tax professionals’ typical role influences how they evaluate evidence on an audit engagement, especially when provided evidence by individuals with whom they are closely affiliated. The results of an experiment with experienced auditors and tax professionals, suggest that despite differing in their trait skepticism and client advocacy attitudes, tax professionals and auditors make similar judgments when in the role of an audit engagement team member. We also find evidence both auditors and tax professionals are more persuaded by individuals with whom they have a closer affiliation.","PeriodicalId":46356,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Research in Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-2020-013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The audit of the financial statement income tax accounts is ultimately the responsibility of the audit engagement team; however, tax professionals are often involved because of their knowledge of the tax functional area. Auditors are expected to exercise professional skepticism and independence when performing audits, while tax professionals are expected to be advocates for their tax clients. This study investigates whether the auditor and/or tax professionals’ typical role influences how they evaluate evidence on an audit engagement, especially when provided evidence by individuals with whom they are closely affiliated. The results of an experiment with experienced auditors and tax professionals, suggest that despite differing in their trait skepticism and client advocacy attitudes, tax professionals and auditors make similar judgments when in the role of an audit engagement team member. We also find evidence both auditors and tax professionals are more persuaded by individuals with whom they have a closer affiliation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
税务专业人员在评估税务审计证据时是否表现得像审计师?
财务报表所得税账户的审计最终是审计项目组的责任;然而,由于税务专业人员对税务职能领域的了解,他们经常参与其中。审计人员在进行审计时应保持专业的怀疑态度和独立性,而税务专业人员则应成为其税务客户的倡导者。本研究调查了审计师和/或税务专业人员的典型角色是否会影响他们如何评估审计业务中的证据,特别是当证据是由与他们关系密切的个人提供时。一项针对经验丰富的审计师和税务专业人员的实验结果表明,尽管他们的怀疑态度和为客户辩护的态度不同,但在担任审计项目组成员时,税务专业人员和审计师做出了相似的判断。我们还发现证据表明,审计师和税务专业人员更容易被与他们关系更密切的个人说服。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Relative Performance Information and Rule-Breaking: The Moderating Effect of Group Identity In All Fairness: A Meta-Analysis of the Tax Fairness–Tax Compliance Literature I’m Working Hard, but It’s Hardly Working: The Consequences of Motivating Employee Effort That Fails to Achieve Performance Targets Auditor Materiality Disclosures and Investor Trust: How to Address Conditional Risks of Disclosure Mandates The Conservatism Principle and Asymmetric Preferences over Reporting Errors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1