Search results

This research explores the expectation gap between tax clients’ motivations to hire tax preparers versus tax preparers’ perceptions of those client motivations. The study builds on limited previous research by examining preparers primarily from local firms rather than focusing solely on large international firms. The Gaps Model of Service Quality provides the theoretical lens for the paper. We employ the recently developed Taxpayer Motivation Scale (TMS) to measure four client motivations to hire a preparer: (1) saving money, (2) saving time, (3) legal compliance, and (4) protection from the IRS. We measure expectation gaps for those four motivations using matched tax preparer–tax client dyads.

We employ statistical sub-group analyses to investigate the effects of both clients’ and preparers’ demographic characteristics that influence tax-expectation gaps. Results suggest client gender plays a noteworthy role in predicting many of the gaps. In addition, complexity of tax returns, children in the home, and client perceptions of tax-preparer advocacy help explain gaps. Finally, female preparers appear to be relatively more sensitive to client needs. We conclude that tax preparers need to (1) better understand their clients’ motivations for hiring them and (2) reexamine marketing efforts to educate clients about preparer credentials and potential strategy options for tax preparation.

The impact of paid tax return preparers on the horizontal equity (HE) of the federal tax system has significance for regulatory and tax policy reasons. Using multiple analytical techniques to consider data from the Statistics of Income Division's 2000 Individual Model File (IMF), this study shows that the HE measure is generally greater (implying less HE) for the paid-preparer returns than for the self-prepared returns, even after controlling for complexity and other variables that may differ systematically by tax preparation mode.

The purpose of this study is to identify the norms that underlie and condition the decisions made by preparers of financial reports.

This interview-based study illustrates how financial report preparers engage in behaviors linked to the perception of recognition and measurement of internally generated intangible assets by important stakeholders. All of the companies included in the study adhere to International Financial Reporting Standards when creating their consolidated financial statements. The participants selected for the study are involved in accounting decisions related to research and development in accordance with International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38.

The authors identify the normative assumptions underlying the recognition and measurement of internally generated intangibles, which are based on concerns of consistency, credibility and reasonableness. The authors find that the normative basis for legitimacy in financial accounting is primarily related to cognitive legitimacy and is not of a moral or pragmatic nature.

The study reveals that recognition and measurement of internally generated intangibles in financial accounting relate to legitimacy. The authors identify specific norms that form the basis of this legitimacy, namely, consistency, credibility and reasonableness. These identified norms serve as constraints, mitigating the risk of judgment misuse within the IAS 38 framework for earnings management.

This paper aims to provide empirical evidence on formal stakeholder participation (or “lobbying”) in the early phase of the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB’s) standard-setting.

Drawing on a rational-choice framework, this paper conducts a content analysis of comment letters (CLs) submitted to the ISSB in response to its first two exposure drafts (published in 2022) to investigate stakeholder participation across different groups and jurisdictional origins. The analyses examine participation in terms of frequency (measured using the number of participating stakeholders) and intensity (measured using the length of CLs).

Preparers and users of sustainability reports emerge as the largest participating stakeholder groups, while the accounting/sustainability profession participates with high average intensity. Surprisingly, preparers do not outweigh users in terms of participation frequency and intensity; and large preparers outweigh smaller ones in terms of participation intensity but not participation frequency. Internationally, stakeholders from countries with a private financial accounting standard-setting system participate more frequently and intensively than others. In addition, country-level economic wealth and sustainability performance are positively associated with more participating stakeholders.

This study is of interest for organizations and stakeholders involved in or affected by standard-setting in the field of sustainability reporting. The finding of limited participation by investors and from developing countries suggests the ISSB take actions to enhance the voice of those stakeholders.

The imbalances in stakeholder participation that were found pose potential threats to an important aspect of the input legitimacy of the ISSB’s standard-setting process.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to explore stakeholder participation by means of CLs with the ISSB in terms of frequency and intensity.

This paper aims to examine the perceptions of auditor roles on the workpaper review process in current audit practice. Specifically, the paper investigates how an auditor’s defined role leads to perceived differences in what initiates the workpaper review process, the preferred methods for performing reviews and the stylization or framing of communicated review comments.

A survey was administered in which practicing auditors were asked about workpaper review process prompts, methods and preferences. The survey was completed by 215 auditors from each of the Big 4 accounting firms and one additional international firm. The final data set consists of quantitative and qualitative responses from 25 audit partners, 33 senior managers, 30 managers, 75 in-charge auditors/seniors and 52 staff auditors.

Findings indicate reviewers and preparers differ in their perceptions of the review process based on their defined roles. First, reviewers and preparers differ in their perspectives on which factors initiate the review process. Second, the majority of reviewers and preparers prefer face-to-face communication when discussing review notes. Reviewers, however, are more likely to believe the face-to-face method is an effective way to discuss review notes and to facilitate learning, whereas preparers prefer the method primarily because it reduces back-and-forth communication. Finally, reviewers believe they predominantly provide conclusion-based review notes, whereas preparers perceive review notes as having both conclusion- and documentation-based messages.

This paper advances the academic literature by providing a unique perspective on the review process. Instead of investigating a single staff level, it examines the workpaper review process on a broader scale. By obtaining views from professionals across all levels, this work intends to inspire future research directed at reconciling differences and filling gaps in the review process literature. The finding that reviewers and preparers engage in role conformity that leads to incongruent perceptions of the review process should encourage the consideration of mechanisms, with the potential to be tested experimentally, by which to reconcile the incongruities.

Results support recent regulator concerns that there are breakdowns in the workpaper review process, and the findings provide some insight into why these breakdowns are occurring. Incongruent perceptions of review process characteristics may be the drivers of these identified regulatory concerns.

This is the first study to examine current workpaper review processes at the largest accounting firms from the perspective of both preparers and reviewers. From this unique data set, one key interpretation of the findings is that workpaper preparers do not appear to recognize a primary goal of the review process: to ensure that subordinates receive appropriate coaching, learning and development. However, workpaper reviewers do, in fact, attempt to support preparers and work to create a supportive team environment.

The International Integrated Reporting Council claims that integrated reporting (IR) can enhance corporate accountability, yet critical and interpretative studies have contested this outcome. Insufficient empirical research details how preparers experience accountability while constructing IR; to fill this gap, the purpose of this paper is to analyse how the preparers’ mode of cognition influences the patterns of accountability associated with IR.

A functionalist approach to narratives helps elucidate the role that the IR preparers’ narrative mode of cognition plays on accountability towards stakeholders. The empirical analysis particularly benefits from in-depth interviews with the IR preparers of a global insurer that has used IR since 2013.

The preparers’ narrative mode of cognition facilitates dialogue with IR users. It addresses accountability tensions by revealing the company’s value creation process. Preparers’ efforts to establish a meaningful dialogue with a growing variety of stakeholders through broader and plainer messages reveals the potential of IR as a narrative source of a socializing form of accountability. However, financial stakeholders remain the primary addressees of the reports.

This paper focusses on preparers’ views; further research should integrate users’ accountability expectations.

This paper offers new insights for dealing with corporate reporting and accountability in a novel IR setting.

Using tax abatements to spur economic development can be controversial. The potential benefits are stressed when abatements are granted, but subsequent reporting may be insufficient for citizens to hold governments accountable for actual results. We solicited perspectives on tax abatements from three user groups (citizens representing advocacy groups, county board members, and financial analysts) and county officials involved in financial reporting, budgeting, or property tax administration. Users and preparers expressed generally similar views about the need for reporting; however, some differences were evident in the degree of support for reporting specific information items and the format for making information available. We also found that much information desired by users is not available to them currently, and governments may need to create mechanisms to collect information.

This study aims to examine the setting of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) 701 on disclosing key audit matters (KAMs) to explore the role of standard setting in maintaining or reconstituting the relationship of the auditing profession with preparers and users of financial reports.

This study draws on concepts from the sociology of the professions literature and the regulatory space metaphor. Data comprises comment letters and other documents pertaining to the setting of ISA 701.

The study shows that the KAM reporting requirement is part of the ongoing re-calibration of the regulatory arrangements governing auditing, which started in the early 2000s. This study interprets standard setting as a site for negotiating the relationships between linked ecologies in the audit regulatory space, namely, the auditing profession, preparers of financial statements and users of audited reports. This study identifies three processes involved in setting ISA 701, namely, reconstitution of the rules governing auditors’ reports as a link between the three ecologies, preserving boundaries between the auditing profession and preparers and negotiation aimed at balancing competing interests of the interrelated ecologies.

The study offers insights into the role of regulatory rule setting as a central medium through which the adaptive relationship of the profession with its environment is negotiated.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a multidimensional model for assessing the quality of corporate environmental reporting (CER) incorporating both preparer- and user-based views.

As opposed to frequently used researcher-chosen proxies, the authors used an online questionnaire asking preparers and users how they assess the quality of a company’s environmental report.

The analysis of the responses of 177 users and 86 preparers shows that quantity was not perceived as the most significant element in determining quality. Besides quantity, the respondents also perceived information types, measures used, themes disclosed, adopting reporting guidelines, inclusion of assurance statement and the use of visual tools as significant dimensions/features of reporting quality.

The online questionnaire has some limitations, especially in terms of researcher being absent to clarify meanings and, hence, possibilities that respondents may misinterpret the questionnaire elements.

Considering that robust, reliable measurement of reporting quality is difficult, preparers, standard setters and policy makers need multidimensional quality models that incorporate both users’ perceptions of quality and preparers’ pragmatic understanding of the quality delivery process. These will make the preparers informed of whether their disclosure may be falling short of users’ expectations.

Amid, increasing complexity of CER, the research contributes to the growing body of literature on assessing the quality of CER by developing a less subjective, multidimensional, preparer–user-based quality model. This innovative quality model goes beyond the traditional quality models, subjective author-based quality measures. Focussing on the three dimensions of reporting quality – content, credibility and communication – it also offers a high-level resolution of meaning of CER quality.

This paper aims to investigate preparers' and users' perceptions on the usefulness of intellectual capital (IC) information disclosed in annual reports of listed companies. In addition, it aims to examine the significant differences in the perceptions of usefulness of IC information and IC categories of the preparers and users.

The paper used a questionnaire survey method to collect the data (i.e. primary data). The questionnaires were distributed to companies (i.e. chief financial officers and accountants) as preparers, and brokers (i.e. analysts) and banks (i.e. credit officers) as users. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, t‐test and ANOVA.

The paper found that both preparers and users perceive the IC information disclosed in the annual reports of listed companies to be useful for their decision making purposes. Furthermore, the paper found that there are significant differences in the perception of usefulness between preparers and users.

The paper only focused on certain preparers' and users' perceptions. Nevertheless, it provides evidence that IC information is useful for decision‐making purposes. Future research on this issue may include more users.

The findings provide evidence that IC information disclosed by listed companies is perceived to be useful by preparers and users. In addition, it provides evidence that there is significant difference between the perceptions of the usefulness of IC information by preparers, users and amongst the different user groups. Thus, these findings could be useful for regulatory authorities in Malaysia (e.g. Malaysian Accounting Standards Board and Bursa Malaysia) for the improvement of the disclosure practices (e.g. voluntary basis) by the Malaysian listed companies and enhance transparency in the capital market.

The paper can be considered as the first empirical study to examine the usefulness of the IC information from both views; preparers and users in Malaysia. In addition it contributes to the limited literature on IC in Malaysia.