Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 126, Issue 4, pp 631–647 | Cite as

Contextual and Individual Dimensions of Taxpayer Decision Making

  • Jeffrey Cohen
  • Gil B. ManzonJr.
  • Valentina L. Zamora


We examine whether a taxpayer’s decision to choose a taxpayer-favorable (vs. a taxpayer-unfavorable) characterization of income is associated with contextual and individual dimensions of that decision. Using a 2 × 2 factorial experimental design, we manipulate the prevailing social norm on whether there is a general belief that a specific form of income should be characterized as a capital gain (taxed at a lower tax rate and hence taxpayer favorable) or as ordinary income (taxed at a higher tax rate and hence taxpayer unfavorable), and the group affiliation on whether the individual is making a tax characterization decision as a sole proprietor or as a member of a group practice. Moreover, we measure participants’ fairness perception of characterizing the income as capital gains versus ordinary. We study the decisions of 180 graduate business and accounting students from two US business schools to explore these dimensions using a tax-ambiguous income situation. Results indicate that both contextual and individual dimensions impact taxpayer decisions. Specifically, the social norm and fairness perception of characterizing income as capital gains affects the likelihood of choosing such a characterization. Being a sole proprietor or a member of a group practice does not have any significant main effect. However, relative to all other conditions, taxpayers are most likely to characterize income as capital gains when both the social norms are for capital gains characterization and when the taxpayer is a member of a group practice. Results remain largely robust to a variety of alternative explanations. We conclude the paper with a discussion of our findings and their implications for tax policy, enforcement, and research.


Taxpayer decisions Social norm Group affiliation Fairness perception Income characterization 


  1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New york: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, R. M. (2003). The effect of source credibility on tax professional judgment in consulting engagements. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 25(Supplement), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allingham, M., & Sandmo, A. (1972). Income tax evasion: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 1, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alm, J., McClelland, G., & Schulze, W. (1999). Changing the social norm of tax compliance by voting. Kyklos, 52(2), 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alm, J., & Sanchez, I. (1995). Economic and noneconomic factors in tax compliance. Kyklos, 48(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alm, J., & Torgler, B. (2011). Do ethics matter: Tax compliance and morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 635–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment—An economic approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bedard, J. C., & Biggs, S. F. (1991). The effect of domain-specific experience on evaluation of management representation in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 10(Suppl), 77–95.Google Scholar
  10. Bierstaker, J., Cohen, J., DeZoort, T., & Hermanson, D. (2012). Audit committee compensation, fairness and the resolution of accounting disagreements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 31, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blanthorne, C., & Kaplan, S. (2008). An egocentric model of the relations among the opportunity to underreport, social norms, ethical beliefs, and underreporting behavior. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 684–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bobek, D. D., Hageman, A. M., & Kelliher, C. F. (2013). Analyzing the role of social norms in tax compliance behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bobek, D. D., & Hatfield, R. C. (2003). An investigation of the theory of planned behavior and the role of moral obligation in tax compliance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 15, 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bobek, D. D., Hatfield, R. C., & Wentzel, K. (2007a). An investigation of why taxpayers prefer refunds: A theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 29(1), 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bobek, D. D., Roberts, R., & Sweeney, J. (2007b). The social norms of tax compliance: Evidence from Australia, Singapore, and the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bosco, L., & Mittone, L. (1997). Tax evasion and moral constraints: Some experimental evidence. Kyklos, 50, 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buckless, F. A., & Ravenscroft, S. P. (1990). Contrast coding: A refinement of ANOVA in behavioral analysis. The Accounting Review, 65(4), 933–945.Google Scholar
  18. Carnes, G. A., Harwood, G. B., & Sawyers, R. B. (1996). A comparison of tax professionals’ individual and group decisions when resolving ambiguous tax questions. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 18(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  19. Chang, O. H., Nichols, D. R., & Schultz, J. J. (1987). Taxpayer attitudes toward tax audit risk. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christensen, A. L., & Hite, P. A. (1997). A study of the effect of taxpayer risk perceptions on ambiguous compliance decisions. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 19(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  21. Christensen, A. L., Weihrich, S. G., & Gerbing Newman, M. D. (1994). The impact of education on perceptions of tax fairness. Advances in Taxation, 6, 63–94.Google Scholar
  22. Cialdini, R., & Trost, M. (1998). Social Influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, J., & Bennie, N. M. (2006). The applicability of a contingent factors model to accounting ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, J., Holder-Webb, L., Sharp, D., & Pant, L. (2007). The effects of perceived fairness on opportunistic behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24(4), 1119–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cohen, J., Pant, L., & Sharp, D. (1998). The effect of gender and academic discipline diversity on the ethical awareness of potential public accounting recruits. Accounting Horizons, 12, 250–270.Google Scholar
  26. Cowell, F. (1990). Cheating the government. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Cuccia, A. D., Hackenbrack, K., & Nelson, M. W. (1995). The ability of professional standards to mitigate aggressive reporting. The Accounting Review, 70(2), 227–248.Google Scholar
  28. Davis, J., Hecht, G., & Perkins, J. (2003). Social behaviors, enforcement, and tax compliance dynamics. The Accounting Review, 78(1), 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Falsetta, D. (2007). A discussion of “An investigation of why taxpayers prefer refunds: A theory of planned behavior approach”. Journal of the American Tax Association, 29(1), 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Falsetta, D., & White, R. A. (2005). The impact of income tax withholding position and stock position on the sale of stock. Journal of the American Tax Association, 27(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  32. Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money. An economic theory of personal motivation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  33. Ghosh, D., & Crain, T. L. (1995). Ethical standards, attitudes toward risk, and intentional noncompliance: An experimental investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J, Jr. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henderson, B. C., & Kaplan, S. E. (2005). An examination of the role of ethics in tax compliance decisions. Journal of the American Tax Association, 27(10), 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Highhouse, S., & Yuce, P. (1996). Perspectives, perceptions, and risk-taking behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(2), 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Internal Revenue Service. (2012). Tax gap for tax year 2006: Overview. U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved, January 6, 2012, from
  38. Jackson, S. B., & Hatfield, R. C. (2005). A note on the relation between frames, perceptions, and taxpayer behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jackson, B. R., & Milliron, V. C. (1986). Tax compliance research: Findings, problems, and prospects. Journal of Accounting Literature, 5, 125–166.Google Scholar
  40. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.Google Scholar
  41. Jones, C. R. (2010). Understanding use-tax compliance: A theory of planned behavior approach. Working paper, Western Illinois University.Google Scholar
  42. Jones, J., Massey, D., & Thorne, L. (2003). Auditors’ ethical reasoning: Insights from past research and implications for the future. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, 45–103.Google Scholar
  43. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision’s under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaplan, S., Samuels, J., & Cohen, J. (2013). An examination of the effect of CEO social ties and CEO reputation on non-professional investors’ say on pay judgments. Forthcoming: Journal of Business Ethics.Google Scholar
  45. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  47. Kornhauser, M. E. (2007). A tax morale approach to compliance: Recommendations for the IRS. Florida Tax Review, 599, 601–640.Google Scholar
  48. Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Libby, T. (2001). Referent cognitions and budgetary fairness: A research note. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 13, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maroney, J., Rupert, T., & Wartick, M. (2002). The perceived fairness of taxing social security benefits: The effects of explanations based on different dimensions of tax equity. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 24(2), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mason, J. D. (2010). The use of certainty threshold criteria for tax compliance enforcement in ambiguous tax scenarios. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 14(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
  52. McGee, R. W. (2006). Three views on the ethics of tax evasion. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moser, D. V., Evans, J. H, I. I. I., & Kim, C. K. (1995). The effects of horizontal and exchange inequity on tax reporting decisions. The Accounting Review, 70, 619–634.Google Scholar
  54. National Taxpayer Advocate. (2007). 2007 Annual report to congress (Vol. 2). Retrieved, from
  55. Peecher, M., Solomon, I., &Trotman, K. (2013). An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions. Accounting Organizations and Society (Forthcoming)Google Scholar
  56. Porcano, T. M. (1988). Correlates of tax evasion. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reckers, P. M. J., Sanders, D. L., & Roark, S. J. (1994). The influence of ethical attitudes on taxpayer compliance. National Tax Journal, 47, 825–836.Google Scholar
  58. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  59. Roberts, M. L. (1994). An experimental approach to changing taxpayers’ attitudes towards fairness and compliance via television. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 16(Spring), 67–86.Google Scholar
  60. Schepanski, A., & Shearer, T. (1995). A prospect theory account of the income tax withholding phenomenon. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schisler, D. L. (1995). Equity, aggressiveness, consensus: A comparison of taxpayers and tax preparers. Accounting Horizons, 9(4), 76–87.Google Scholar
  62. Scholes, M. S., Wolfson, M. A., Erickson, M., Maydew, E. L., & Shevlin, T. (2009). Taxes and business strategy: A planning approach (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  63. Schwarz, S. (1977). Normative influence on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  64. Sheffrin, S., & Triest, R. (1992). Can brute deterrence backfire? Perceptions and attitudes in taxpayer compliance. In J. Slemrod (Ed.), Who pays taxes and why? Tax compliance and enforcement (pp. 193–218). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  65. Spilker, B. C., Worsham, R. G., & Prawitt, D. F. (1999). Tax professionals’ interpretations of ambiguity in compliance and planning decision contexts. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 21(2), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thompson, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 176–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trivedi, V. U., Shehata, M., & Lynn, B. (2003). Impact of personal and situational factors on taxpayer compliance: An experimental analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van der Heijden, E., Nelissen, J., & Potters, J. (2007). Opinions on the tax deductibility of mortgages and the consensus effect. De Economist, 155, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wartick, M. L. (1994). Legislative justification and the perceived fairness of tax law changes: A referent cognitions theory approach. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 16(Spring), 106–123.Google Scholar
  70. Webley, P., Cole, M., & Eidjar, O. P. (2001). The prediction of self-reported and hypothetical tax-evasion: Evidence from England, France and Norway. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wenzel, M. (2002). The impact of outcome orientation and justice concerns on tax compliance: The role of taxpayers’ identity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wenzel, M. (2003). Tax compliance and the psychology of justice: mapping the field. In V. Braithwaite (Ed.), Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasion (pp. 41–70). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  73. Wenzel, M. (2004). An analysis of norm processes in tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wenzel, M. (2005a). Motivation or rationalization? Causal relations between ethics, norms, and tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wenzel, M. (2005b). Misperceptions of social norms about tax compliance: From theory to intervention. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 862–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. White, R. A., Curatola, A. P., & Samson, W. D. (1990). A behavioral study investigating the effect of knowledge of income tax laws and tax policy on individual perceptions of federal income tax fairness. Advances in Taxation, 3, 165–185.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey Cohen
    • 1
  • Gil B. ManzonJr.
    • 1
  • Valentina L. Zamora
    • 2
  1. 1.Accounting DepartmentCarroll School of Management Boston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Accounting, Albers School of Business and EconomicsSeattle UniversitySeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations