IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/advacc/v41y2018icp1-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of tax position and personal norms: An analysis of taxpayer compliance decisions using paper and software

Author

Listed:
  • Hunt, Nicholas C.
  • Iyer, Govind S.

Abstract

Tax Software has become the predominant format used to prepare and file taxes in the U.S. Compared to filing paper returns, tax software significantly changes the reporting environment. For example, tax software uses tax position indicators that update a taxpayer's tax position (i.e. whether they will receive a refund or owe additional tax) in real time as they enter their tax information. This study uses an experiment to investigate how tax compliance decisions made when using tax software with a tax position indicator differ from those made when using paper forms. In addition, we investigate the extent to which taxpayer attitudes (personal norms) impact taxpayer compliance decisions in these two environments (paper v. software). We find that taxpayers using software with a tax position indicator report more (less) cash revenue depending on their “tax due” (“refund”) position, which has both beneficial and negative effects on tax compliance. In addition, we find that taxpayers are strongly influenced by their personal norms in their reporting decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hunt, Nicholas C. & Iyer, Govind S., 2018. "The effect of tax position and personal norms: An analysis of taxpayer compliance decisions using paper and software," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-6.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:advacc:v:41:y:2018:i:c:p:1-6
    DOI: 10.1016/j.adiac.2018.02.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088261101830021X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.adiac.2018.02.003?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. Donna Bobek & Amy Hageman & Charles Kelliher, 2013. "Analyzing the Role of Social Norms in Tax Compliance Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 451-468, July.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Scott B. Jackson & Richard C. Hatfield, 2005. "A Note on the Relation between Frames, Perceptions, and Taxpayer Behavior," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 145-164, March.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Austin, Chelsea Rae & Bobek, Donna D. & Jackson, Scott, 2021. "Does prospect theory explain ethical decision making? Evidence from tax compliance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Jeffrey Cohen & Gil Manzon & Valentina Zamora, 2015. "Contextual and Individual Dimensions of Taxpayer Decision Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(4), pages 631-647, February.
    3. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    4. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    6. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim, 2007. "Preferences and decision errors in the winner’s curse," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 241-257, June.
    7. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    8. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    9. Prieto, Marc & Caemmerer, Barbara & Baltas, George, 2015. "Using a hedonic price model to test prospect theory assertions: The asymmetrical and nonlinear effect of reliability on used car prices," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 206-212.
    10. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Schilirò, Daniele & Graziano, Mario, 2011. "Scelte e razionalità nei modelli economici: un'analisi multidisciplinare [Choices and rationality in economic models: a multidisciplinary analysis]," MPRA Paper 31910, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Shi, Yuwei & Herniman, John, 2023. "The role of expectation in innovation evolution: Exploring hype cycles," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    13. Ashton, John K. & Hudson, Robert S., 2008. "Interest rate clustering in UK financial services markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1393-1403, July.
    14. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    15. Faralla, Valeria & Novarese, Marco & Ardizzone, Antonella, 2017. "Framing Effects in Intertemporal Choice: A Nudge Experiment," MPRA Paper 82086, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
    17. Lucchesi, Eduardo Pozzi & Yoshinaga, Claudia Emiko & Castro, Francisco Henrique Figueiredo de, 2015. "Efeito disposição entre gestores brasileiros de fundos de ações," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 55(1), January.
    18. Rania HENTATI & Jean-Luc PRIGENT, 2010. "Structured Portfolio Analysis under SharpeOmega Ratio," EcoMod2010 259600073, EcoMod.
    19. Bougherara, Douadia & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Masclet, David, 2011. "Cooperation and framing effects in provision point mechanisms: Experimental evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1200-1210, April.
    20. Dan K. Hsu & Johan Wiklund & Richard D. Cotton, 2017. "Success, Failure, and Entrepreneurial Reentry: An Experimental Assessment of the Veracity of Self–Efficacy and Prospect Theory," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(1), pages 19-47, January.

    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:advacc:v:41:y:2018:i:c:p:1-6. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/advances-in-accounting/ .

    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.