An Exploratory Study of Malaysian Tax Auditors’ Enforcement Regulatory Styles

Abstract

Since the implementation of the self-assessment system in 2001, tax audit has become a major compliance program used by the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia (IRBM). From 2002 to 2010, the IRBM finalised 4,486,946 audit cases and collected RM11,050.3 million of additional taxes and penalties (IRBM, 2002–2010). However, the public often conveys frustrations when dealing with the IRBM auditors. Tax agents perceive that IRBM auditors have the intention or aim of finding fault in order to impose penalties for incorrect returns or understated income, were not happy with taxpayers’ explanations, abused their power by issuing additional tax assessments, and closed cases without being able to explain their reasons to taxpayers (Choong and Lai, 2009; Choong et al., 2012). However, there is no published study on IRBM auditors in conducting audit programs and communicating with the public. This study explores the IRBM auditors’ enforcement regulatory styles. It adopts grounded theory methodology, which analyses tax auditors’ actual beliefs and experiences in resolving audit settlement disputes. Consistent with enforcement regulatory theory, the analysis of data shows that tax auditors apply different enforcement regulatory styles–firm, explain and educate, bargaining and threatening. This study also has identified ‘avoiding’ as tax auditors’ enforcement regulatory style when dealing with the public. The results of this study further the call for more studies on tax auditors’ behaviour because their behaviour is so intimately intertwined with taxpayers’ compliance and tax administration efficiency.