Professionalizing the Tax Accounting Profession: Fulfilling Public-Interest Reporting Responsibilities

  • Martin StuebsEmail author
  • Brett Wilkinson
Part of the Advances in Business Ethics Research book series (ABER, volume 4)


Recent events in the tax accounting profession such as the marketing and use of aggressive tax shelters illustrate that the tax accounting profession has lost its focus on public interest responsibilities which anchors the profession. This chapter first establishes the importance of a professional public interest foundation by outlining how such a professional foundation ideally provides a necessary anchor for the tax accounting profession. We next move from the ideal to the actual and use the fraud triangle to examine how the current tax accounting profession has strayed from a professional foundation focused on public interest responsibilities. We use the Barley and Tolbert (Org Stud 18:93–117, 1997) sociology model to understand structural change and propose suggestions for facilitating professional, public-interest focused changes in the tax accounting profession.


Public Interest Accounting Firm Legal Compliance Sociology Literature Moral Incentive 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control: From cognition to behavior, ed. J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Almer, E.D., J.L. Higgs, and K.L. Hooks. 2005. A theoretical framework of the relationship between public accounting firms and their auditors. Behavioral Research in Accounting 17: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Institute of Certified Practicing Accountants (AICPA). 2009. Statement on standards for Tax services No. 1, Tax return positions. New York: AICPA.Google Scholar
  4. Asch, S. 1958. Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgment. In Readings in social psychology, ed. E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, and E.L. Hartley, 566–575. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Barley, S.R., and P.S. Tolbert. 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies 18: 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bratton, W.W. 2003. Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley and accounting: Rules versus principles versus rents. Villanova Law Review 48: 1023–1055.Google Scholar
  7. Bray, C. 2012. Lawyer pleads guilty after winning new trial in tax-shelter fraud case. Wall Street Journal of Accountancy, September 13.Google Scholar
  8. Burns, T. 1961. Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administrative Science Quarterly 6: 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J.R., and L. Holder-Webb. 2006. Rethinking the influence of agency theory in the accounting academy. Issues in Accounting Education 21: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cressey, D. 1953. Other people’s money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dillard, J. 2008. An ethic of accountability. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting 13: 1–18.Google Scholar
  12. Drucker, J. 2010. The tax haven that’s saving Google billions. Bloomberg Business Week, October 25.Google Scholar
  13. Fogarty, T. 2014. The bloom is off the rose: Deprofessionalization in public accounting. In Accounting for the public interest: Perspectives on accountability, professionalism and role in society, ed. S. Mintz. 51–72. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Fogarty, T.J., V.S. Radcliffe, and D.R. Campbell. 2006. Accountancy before the fall: The AICPA vision project and related professional enterprises. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, M., and A. Mason. 1988. Professional judgment in financial reporting no. CICA research study. Toronto: CICA.Google Scholar
  17. Giddens, A. 1976. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretive sociologies. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  18. Goshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. The Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(1): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, R.H. 1967. Some organizational considerations in the professional-organizational relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly 12(3): 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, R.H. 1968. Professionalization and bureaucratization. Administrative Sociological Review 33: 92–104.Google Scholar
  21. Hanlon, G. 1994. The commercialization of accountancy: Flexible accumulation and the transformation of the service class. London: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  22. Henchman, J. 2008. Transit agencies in bind due to SILO deals and AIG collapse. Washington, DC: The Tax Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Hosmer, L.T. 1984. Managerial ethics and microeconomic theory. Journal of Business Ethics 3(4): 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hosmer, L.T. 2008. The ethics of management, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In Handbook of socialization theory, ed. D.A. Goslin, 347–480. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  26. Levitt, S.D., and S.J. Dubner. 2005. Freakonomics: A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  27. May, W.F. 2001. Beleaguered rulers: The public obligation of the professional. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
  28. McKie, J. 1974. Social responsibility and the business predicament. In Changing views, ed. J. McKie. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Milgram, Stanley. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Minority Staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. 2003. U.S. tax shelter industry: The role of accountants, lawyers, and financial professionals. Four KPMG case studies: FLIP, OPIS, BLIPS, and SC2. Available at
  31. Mintz, S.M. 2010. Linking virtue to representational faithfulness in making judgments in a principles-based environment. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting 14: 113–136.Google Scholar
  32. OECD. 2010. Tax co-operation 2010: Towards a level playing field. Paris: OECD.
  33. Ostrander, T.W. 2003. The offshore credit card and financial arrangement probe: Fraught with danger for taxpayers. Journal of Taxation 99: 113–119.Google Scholar
  34. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. 2005. The role of professional firms in the U.S. tax shelter industry, S. Rept. 109–54. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  35. Pickard, G. 2005. With integrity and fairness: An interview with Mark W. Everson, Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Journal of Accountancy April, 27–32.Google Scholar
  36. Puxty, A., P. Sikka, and H. Willmott. 1994. (Re)forming the circle: Education, ethics and accountancy practices. Accounting Education 3(1): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ranson, S., R. Hinings, and R. Greenwood. 1980. The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 314–337.Google Scholar
  38. Reiter, S.A., and P.F. Williams. 2002. The structure and progressivity of accounting research: The crisis in the academy revisited. Accounting Organizations and Society 27: 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosanas, J.M., and M. Velilla. 2005. The ethics of management control systems: Developing technical and moral values. Journal of Business Ethics 57: 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott, W.R. 1965. Reactions to supervision in a heteronomous professional organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 10: 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sellers, R.D., T.J. Fogarty, and L.M. Parker. 2012. Unleashing the technical core: Institutional theory and the aftermath of Arthur Anderson. Behavioral Research in Accounting 24: 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sewell, W.H. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology 98: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapiro, L.S. 1986. Professional responsibility in the eyes of the IRS. The Tax Adviser 17(3): 136.Google Scholar
  44. Sikka, P. 2008. Enterprise culture and accountancy firms: New masters of the universe. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21: 268–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sikka, P., and M.P. Hampton. 2005. The role of accountancy firms in tax avoidance: Some evidence and issues. Accounting Forum 29(3): 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, H. 2004. Tax me if you can. Frontline, Public Broadcasting Service,
  47. Stuebs, M.T. 2010. Moral confrontation: An essential companion to moral imagination. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting 14: 57–78.Google Scholar
  48. Stuebs, M.T., and C.W. Thomas. 2011. Principles-based accounting: The case for principled judgment. In Research on professional responsibility and ethics in accounting, vol. 15, ed. C. Jeffrey, 47–73. Bingley: Emerald Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Toren, N. 1975. Deprofessionalization and its sources. Sociology of Work and Occupation 2(4): 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tuttle, B., and J. Dillard. 2007. Beyond competition: Institutional isomorphism in U.S. accounting research. Accounting Horizons 21(4): 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang, B. 2003. Supplying the tax shelter industry: Contingent fee compensation for accountants spurs production. Southern California Law Review 76: 1237–1274.Google Scholar
  52. Watts, R.L., and J.L. Zimmerman. 1986. Positive accounting theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  53. Wilkerson Jr., J.E. 2010. Accounting educators as the accounting profession’s trustees: Lessons from a study of peer professions. Issues in Accounting Education 25(1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams, P.F., J.G. Jenkins, and L. Ingraham. 2006. The winnowing away of behavioral accounting research in the U.S.: The process for anointing academic elites. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31(8): 783–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zeff, S.A. 2003a. How the U.S. Accounting profession got where it is today: Part I. Accounting Horizons 17(3): 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zeff, S.A. 2003b. How the U.S. Accounting profession got where it is today: Part II. Accounting Horizons 17(4): 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hankamer School of BusinessBaylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations