The Meaning of Procedural Fairness: A Comparison of Taxpayers' and Representatives' Views of Their Tax Audits

This study compares how taxpayers and their representatives judge the procedural fairness of tax audits. Taxpayers (N = 70) and their representatives (N = 70) participated in interviews after the completion of their tax audits and were asked to describe their impressions of the audit and auditor and to rate how satisfied they were with the treatment and how hard the auditor tried to be fair. The study compares representatives oriented toward balancing truth and advocating for their client with representatives oriented toward primarily obtaining the best outcome for their client. Results showed that representatives and taxpayers were equally likely to mention the dignity and responsiveness of the audit. Representatives, however, were more likely to mention the quality of the decision, and taxpayers were more likely to infer prejudging than were representatives. Taxpayers and representatives oriented toward truth viewed the process as less fair than did representatives oriented toward obtaining the best outcome. Taxpayers and representatives oriented toward truth also viewed the auditor as less cooperative and less objective than did representatives oriented toward obtaining the best outcome. Representatives and taxpayers, however, generally use the same concerns to evaluate the fairness of the audit, although they disagreed about where the audit fell on these dimensions. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed. © 1997 Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Duke Scholars

Author E. Allan Lind Fuqua School of Business