Affiliation:
1. Louisiana Tech University
Abstract
ABSTRACT
This study examines the effect of the reviewer role on tax professionals' advocacy bias. Prior research establishes the prevalence of advocacy bias and focuses on whether reviewers can detect preparers' advocacy bias; however, this study examines whether the reviewer role influences tax professionals' judgment and decision-making processes. In an experiment randomly assigning 75 tax professionals to the reviewer and preparer roles, I find professionals who occupy the reviewer role report similar advocacy attitudes to preparers but are significantly less likely to exhibit advocacy bias than preparers. Reviewers also employ a more consistent decision process than those in a preparer role. Results highlight the reviewer role as a moderator of advocacy bias, demonstrating the importance of the reviewer role for firms and clients. Understanding the effects of review responsibilities on professionals at all levels is increasingly important as firms leverage emerging technology to complete tasks traditionally assigned to less experienced professionals.
Publisher
American Accounting Association
Reference35 articles.
1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).
2010.
Statements on Standards for Tax Services, 1-7.
New York, NY:
AICPA.
2. Ammeter,
A. P.,
Douglas
C.,
Ferris
G. R.,
and
GokaH.
2004.
A social relationship conceptualization of trust and accountability in organizations.
Human Resource Management Review14 (
1):
47–
65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.02.003
3. Ater,
B.,
Gimbar
C.,
Jenkins
J. G.,
Saucedo
G.,
and
WrightN. S.
2019.
Audit roles and the review process: Workpaper preparers' and reviewers' differing perspectives.
Managerial Auditing Journal34 (
4):
438–
457.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2018-1896
4. Barrick,
J. A.,
Cloyd
C. B.,
and
SpilkerB. C.
2004.
The influence of biased tax research memoranda on supervisors' initial judgments in the review process.
The Journal of the American Taxation Association26 (
1):
1–
19.
https://doi.org/10.2308/jata.2004.26.1.1
5. Bazerman,
M. H.,
Loewenstein
G.,
and
MooreD. A.
2002.
Why good accountants do bad audits.
Harvard Business Review80 (
11):
96–
103.