Search results

1 – 4 of 4
Article
Publication date: 6 November 2017

Lisa Marriott and Dalice Sim

Individuals with fewer resources often receive more punitive treatment in the justice system than those who are more privileged. This situation is frequently justified…

1355

Abstract

Purpose

Individuals with fewer resources often receive more punitive treatment in the justice system than those who are more privileged. This situation is frequently justified with reference to societal preferences. To test the accuracy of this justification, the purpose of this study is to report on the extent to which the different treatments of tax evaders and welfare fraudsters in the Australian and New Zealand justice systems reflect the views of these societies.

Design/methodology/approach

Attitudes are captured in a survey with 3,000 respondents in Australia and New Zealand.

Findings

When asked directly, the majority of respondents (58 per cent) perceive no difference in people committing welfare fraud or tax evasion. However, responses to presented scenarios on tax evasion and welfare fraud show different tolerances for each crime. When provided with scenarios including crimes and criminals, results show that survey respondents see tax evasion as a less serious crime. However, when asked about their own propensity to commit the same offence, respondents indicate that they are more likely to engage in welfare fraud than tax evasion. The authors also report on factors that have an impact on individual’s attitudes towards tax evasion and welfare fraud.

Social implications

The survey results do not clearly show more punitive attitudes towards tax evasion or welfare fraud. Thus, the authors do not find support for the suggestion that the harsher treatment of welfare fraud can be justified with reference to society’s views.

Originality/value

The study reports on original survey research.

Details

Pacific Accounting Review, vol. 29 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0114-0582

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 2 September 2019

Carolyn Cordery and Dalice Sim

The purpose of this paper is to analyse nonprofit regulation through comparing and contrasting mutual-benefit and public-benefit entities. It ascertains how these entities…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyse nonprofit regulation through comparing and contrasting mutual-benefit and public-benefit entities. It ascertains how these entities differ in size, publicness, tax benefits and whether these differences might suggest regulatory costs should be differentiated.

Design/methodology/approach

This mixed-methods study utilises financial data, submissions and interviews.

Findings

There are stark differences in these two types of regulated nonprofit entities. Members should be the primary monitoring agency/ies for mutual-benefit entities, but financial reports should be understandable to these members. Nevertheless, the availability of tax concessions, combined with the benefits of limited liability, suggest mutual-benefit entities should be regulated and monitored by government in a way sympathetic to their size.

Research limitations/implications

As with most research, a limitation is this study’s focus on a single jurisdiction.

Practical implications

The differences in these entities’ characteristics are important for designing regulation.

Social implications

Better regulation is likely to require a standard set of financial reporting standards. Government has the right to demand disclosures due to benefits mutual-benefit entities enjoy.

Originality/value

In comparison to studies utilising only public-benefit data, this study uses unique data sets to compare public-benefit and mutual-benefit entities and presents nonprofit sector participant’s perceptions of these differences in context. This enables analysis of how better regulation could be achieved.

Details

Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, vol. 31 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1096-3367

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 2 October 2019

Lisa Marriott and Dalice Sim

The purpose of this paper is to highlight, challenge and explain the inequitable treatment of tax and welfare fraudsters in the criminal justice systems of Australia and…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to highlight, challenge and explain the inequitable treatment of tax and welfare fraudsters in the criminal justice systems of Australia and New Zealand. The authors offer prejudice by way of explanation and suggest that it is also prejudice that restricts the implementation of more equitable processes. A second objective of the study is to highlight the importance of critical tax research as an instrument to agitate for social change.

Design/methodology/approach

A survey captures 3,000 respondents’ perceptions of the likelihood that different “types” of people will commit welfare or tax fraud. Using social dominance theory, the authors investigate the extent to which prejudice impacts on attitudes towards those engaged in these fraudulent activities.

Findings

The authors find the presence of traditional stereotypes, such as the perception that businessmen are more likely to commit tax fraud and people receiving welfare assistance are more likely to commit fraud. The authors also find strong preferences towards respondents’ own in-group, whereby businessmen, Maori and people receiving welfare assistance believed that their own group was less likely to commit either crime.

Social implications

Where in-group preference exists among those who construct and enforce the rules relating to investigations, prosecutions and sentencing of tax and welfare fraud, it is perhaps unsurprising that welfare recipients attract less societal support than other groups who have support from their own in-groups that have greater power, resources and influence.

Originality/value

The study highlights the difficulty of social change in the presence of strong in-group preference and prejudice. Cognisance of in-group preference is relevant to the accounting profession where elements of self-regulation remain. In-group preferences may impact on services provided, as well as professional development and education.

Details

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 32 no. 7
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0951-3574

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 2 November 2015

Farzana Aman Tanima and Ken Bates

Two prior survey papers on the use and perceived merit of customer accounting (CA) practices, one in Australia and one in New Zealand (NZ), disclosed contrasting results…

Abstract

Purpose

Two prior survey papers on the use and perceived merit of customer accounting (CA) practices, one in Australia and one in New Zealand (NZ), disclosed contrasting results with confusing elements. The purpose of this paper is to replicate and extend previous survey research in order to update and clarify our understanding of CA practices in NZ.

Design/methodology/approach

Within a contingency theory framework, a mail questionnaire survey is used to measure the use and perceived merit of CA practices in NZ and investigate their relationship with six contingent factors: competitive strategy, market orientation, environmental uncertainty, costing methodology, company size and industrial sector.

Findings

Mean CA usage and perceived merit scores in NZ in 2009 are much higher than was found in NZ in 2007 and similar to those found in Australia in 2002. A significant gulf between usage rates of historical and forward-looking CA measures is now found in NZ. There is strong evidence for a positive contingent relationship between the marketing concept of marketing management and both the use and perceived merit of historical CA measures. Also found is a significant positive relationship between the customer concept of marketing management and the use and perceived merit of customer profitability analysis at the individual customer level.

Research limitations/implications

The survey method used prevents follow-up questions and clarification of ambiguities, but the survey results do provide new insights and potential avenues for further research.

Originality/value

This survey provides researchers, teachers and firms using or considering using CA practices, with an improved understanding of current usage and perceived merit of CA practices in NZ companies.

Details

Pacific Accounting Review, vol. 27 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0114-0582

Keywords

1 – 4 of 4