IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v97y2022ics0361368221000726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiating with the tax auditor: Determinants of tax auditors' negotiation strategy choice and the effect on firms’ tax adjustments

Author

Listed:
  • Blaufus, Kay
  • Lorenz, Daniela
  • Milde, Michael
  • Peuthert, Benjamin
  • Schwäbe, Alexander N.

Abstract

Using a survey of tax auditors, we investigate which factors determine tax auditors' choice of negotiation strategies during tax audits and analyze the effect of their chosen strategy on audit outcomes. The results show that, compared to a cooperative auditor negotiation strategy, a competitive auditor negotiation strategy is associated with significantly higher additional assessed taxes. However, the competitive strategy is associated with a lower probability that the negotiation partners will reach an agreement. These findings indicate an advantage of combining competitive and cooperative tactics (i.e., using a “mixed strategy”). We find that although this mixed strategy does not lead to significantly fewer additional taxes, it results in a higher agreement probability. Moreover, we show that the probability of using a mixed strategy increases with audit expertise and time pressure, whereas the use of a competitive (cooperative) strategy increases with the availability of higher authority (the quality of the taxpayer's financial accounting system) and a perceived competitive (cooperative or mixed) negotiation strategy of the tax advisor. In sum, our study provides new insights into how firms' tax burden is affected by negotiations between tax auditors and firms' tax advisors. The way these negotiations affect firms' tax burden is relevant for both tax policy and firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Blaufus, Kay & Lorenz, Daniela & Milde, Michael & Peuthert, Benjamin & Schwäbe, Alexander N., 2022. "Negotiating with the tax auditor: Determinants of tax auditors' negotiation strategy choice and the effect on firms’ tax adjustments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:97:y:2022:i:c:s0361368221000726
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2021.101294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368221000726
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2021.101294?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan S. Feinstein, 1991. "An Econometric Analysis of Income Tax Evasion and its Detection," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(1), pages 14-35, Spring.
    2. Carnevale, Peter J. D. & Isen, Alice M., 1986. "The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Richard C. Hatfield & Christopher P. Agoglia & Maria H. Sanchez, 2008. "Client Characteristics and the Negotiation Tactics of Auditors: Implications for Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1183-1207, December.
    4. Gregory E. Kersten, 2001. "Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 493-514, November.
    5. Mills, LF, 1998. "Book-tax differences and internal revenue service adjustments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 343-356.
    6. Partha Deb & Pravin K. Trivedi, 2006. "Maximum simulated likelihood estimation of a negative binomial regression model with multinomial endogenous treatment," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 246-255, June.
    7. Libby, Robert & Luft, Joan, 1993. "Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 425-450, July.
    8. Stephen Perreault & Thomas Kida & M. David Piercey, 2017. "The Relative Effectiveness of Simultaneous versus Sequential Negotiation Strategies in Auditor†Client Negotiations," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 1048-1070, June.
    9. Raymond Hicks & Dustin Tingley, 2011. "Causal mediation analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(4), pages 605-619, December.
    10. Kennedy, Peter E, 1981. "Estimation with Correctly Interpreted Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations [The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations]," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(4), pages 801-801, September.
    11. Kay Blaufus & Jonathan Bob & Daniela Lorenz & Matthias Trinks, 2016. "How Will the Court Decide? – Tax Experts’ versus Laymen's Predictions," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 771-792, October.
    12. G. Bradley Bennett & Richard C. Hatfield & Chad Stefaniak, 2015. "The Effect of Deadline Pressure on Pre†Negotiation Positions: A Comparison of Auditors and Client Management," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 1507-1528, December.
    13. Martha Jeong & Julia Minson & Michael Yeomans & Francesca Gino, 2019. "Communicating with Warmth in Distributive Negotiations Is Surprisingly Counterproductive," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5813-5837, December.
    14. Hanlon, Michelle & Heitzman, Shane, 2010. "A review of tax research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 127-178, December.
    15. Partha Deb & Pravin K. Trivedi, 2006. "Specification and simulated likelihood estimation of a non-normal treatment-outcome model with selection: Application to health care utilization," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 9(2), pages 307-331, July.
    16. Michael Gibbins & Steven Salterio & Alan Webb, 2001. "Evidence About Auditor–Client Management Negotiation Concerning Client’s Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 535-563, December.
    17. Lillian F. Mills & Richard C. Sansing, 2000. "Strategic Tax and Financial Reporting Decisions: Theory and Evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 85-106, March.
    18. Perreault, Stephen & Kida, Thomas, 2011. "The relative effectiveness of persuasion tactics in auditor–client negotiations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 534-547.
    19. Wang, Fang & Chen, Kaihua, 2020. "Do product imitation and innovation require different patterns of organizational innovation? Evidence from Chinese firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 60-74.
    20. Steven E. Salterio, 2012. "Fifteen years in the trenches: Auditor–client negotiations exposed and explored," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 52, pages 233-286, October.
    21. Alissa, Walid & Capkun, Vedran & Jeanjean, Thomas & Suca, Nadja, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 495-510.
    22. McCracken, Susan & Salterio, Steven E. & Gibbins, Michael, 2008. "Auditor-client management relationships and roles in negotiating financial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(4-5), pages 362-383.
    23. Timothy Park & Krishna Paudel & Seydina Sene, 2018. "Sales impacts of direct marketing choices: treatment effects with multinomial selectivity," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(3), pages 433-453.
    24. Antle, R & Nalebuff, B, 1991. "Conservatism And Auditor-Client Negotiations," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29, pages 31-54.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alfred James Kimea & Msizi Mkhize & Haruna Maama, 2023. "Firm-specific Determinants of Aggressive Tax Management among East African Firms," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 13(3), pages 100-108, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dodgson, Mary Kate & Agoglia, Christopher P. & Bennett, G. Bradley, 2021. "The influence of relationship partners on client managers’ negotiation positions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Obermire, Kara M. & Cohen, Jeffrey R. & Zehms, Karla M., 2021. "Audit committee members’ professional identities: Evidence from the field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    3. Bryan K. Church & Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Xuejiao Liu, 2020. "The Role of Auditor Narcissism in Auditor–Client Negotiations: Evidence from China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1756-1787, September.
    4. Yan Luo & Steven E. Salterio, 2021. "Toward an Archival Measure of the Likelihood of Auditor‐Client Management Negotiation: An Exploration of the Audit Lag Measures Conjecture†," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 109-143, March.
    5. Svanberg, Jan & Öhman, Peter & Neidermeyer, Presha E., 2019. "Auditor objectivity as a function of auditor negotiation self-efficacy beliefs," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 121-131.
    6. Laurence Daoust & Bertrand Malsch, 2020. "When the Client Is A Former Auditor: Auditees' Expert Knowledge and Social Capital as Threats to Staff Auditors' Operational Independence†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1333-1369, September.
    7. Preeti Choudhary & Kenneth Merkley & Katherine Schipper, 2022. "The Costs of Waiving Audit Adjustments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1813-1857, December.
    8. Perreault, Stephen & Kida, Thomas, 2011. "The relative effectiveness of persuasion tactics in auditor–client negotiations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 534-547.
    9. Hamrick, Jennifer & Schafer, Jennifer & DeZoort, Todd, 2023. "The effect of client gender and negotiation style on auditors' proposed audit adjustments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    10. Jones, Joanne & MacTavish, Carolyn & Schultz, Wendy, 2019. "The effect of gender and firm identification on auditor pre-negotiation judgments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 49-57.
    11. Douthit, Jeremy D. & Kachelmeier, Steven J. & Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2024. "Does auditor assurance of client prosocial activities affect subsequent reporter-auditor negotiations?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    12. Bills, Kenneth L. & Cobabe, Matthew & Pittman, Jeffrey & Stein, Sarah E., 2020. "To share or not to share: The importance of peer firm similarity to auditor choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    13. Wei Cen & Naqiong Tong & Yushi Sun, 2017. "Tax avoidance and cost of debt: evidence from a natural experiment in China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 57(5), pages 1517-1556, December.
    14. Alissa, Walid & Capkun, Vedran & Jeanjean, Thomas & Suca, Nadja, 2014. "An empirical investigation of the impact of audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 495-510.
    15. Aihounton, Ghislain & Christiaensen, Luc, 2024. "Does agricultural intensification pay in the context of structural transformation?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    16. Yonghong Jia & Xinghua Gao, 2021. "Is managerial rent extraction associated with tax aggressiveness? Evidence from informed insider trading," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 423-452, February.
    17. Blaufus, Kay & Schöndube, Jens Robert & Wielenberg, Stefan, 2020. "Strategic interactions between tax and statutory auditors and different information regimes: Implications for tax audit efficiency," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 249, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    18. Melinda Timea FULOP & Nicolae MAGDAS & George Silviu CORDOS, 2019. "Theoretical Background Of Internal And External Environment Of Negotiation," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(21), pages 1-3.
    19. Hasan, Iftekhar & Hoi, Chun Keung (Stan) & Wu, Qiang & Zhang, Hao, 2014. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The effect of corporate tax avoidance on the cost of bank loans," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 109-130.
    20. Eichfelder, Sebastian & Lau, Mona, 2014. "Capital gains taxes and asset prices: The impact of tax awareness and procrastination," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 170, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tax avoidance; Tax compliance; Tax audit; Negotiation strategies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
    • H26 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Tax Evasion and Avoidance
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:97:y:2022:i:c:s0361368221000726. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.