[This study investigates the separate and joint effects of prior knowledge and accountability on performance in the information search phase of a tax research task. An experiment is reported in which 63 tax professionals performed a computer-based tax research task. The results indicate that increases in effort duration, which are partly attributable to the accountability manipulation, improved search effectiveness regardless of the level of prior knowledge. In addition, after controlling for the effect of effort duration, accountability had an incremental positive effect on performance among the more knowledgeable professionals. These results suggest that effort can substitute for knowledge in performing information search tasks, but this substitution does not appear to be complete. The results also support the hypothesis that the effect of accountability on performance depends upon the level of knowledge, which suggests that certain aspects of effort and knowledge act as complements in improving performance.]

Abstract This study investigates the separate and joint effects of prior knowledge and accountability on performance in the information search phase of a tax research task. An experiment is reported in which 63 tax professionals performed a computer-based tax research task. The results indicate that increases in effort duration, which are partly attributable to the accountability manipulation, improved search effectiveness regardless of the level of prior knowledge. In addition, after controlling for the effect of effort duration, accountability had an incremental positive effect on performance among the more knowledgeable professionals. These results suggest that effort can substitute for knowledge in performing information search tasks, but this substitution does not appear to be complete. The results also support the hypothesis that the effect of accountability on performance depends upon the level of knowledge, which suggests that certain aspects of effort and knowledge act as complements in improving performance.

C. Bryan Cloyd, Jamie Pratt, Toby Stock, The Use of Financial Accounting Choice to Support Aggressive Tax Positions: Public and Private Firms, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1996), pp. 23-43

Tax professionals provide valuable services to clients by reducing uncertainty about how clients should report transactions on their tax returns. To reduce uncertainty, tax professionals research applicable authorities (e.g., judicial precedents) and provide assessments to clients of the level of authoritative support for client-favorable positions. Tax professionals have strong incentives to make accurate assessments of the strength of client-preferred positions so that clients will understand the level of risk associated with the reporting position. Further, tax professionals must make accurate assessments of authoritative support in order to maintain compliance with tax professional standards and Federal income tax regulations. Incentives notwithstanding, psychological research on confirmation bias suggests that tax professionals' client advocacy role may inhibit professionals' ability to search objectively for relevant tax authority which, in turn, might inhibit their ability to accurately assess authoritative support. We report the results of two studies that examine causes and effects of confirmation bias in tax information search. In study 1, we find that subjects' information searches emphasized cases with conclusions consistent with the client's desired outcome (i.e., positive cases) over cases inconsistent with the client's desired outcome (i.e., negative cases), despite the fact that positive cases were no more similar to the client's facts. Additional analyses indicate that the extent of this confirmation bias was positively related to their assessments of the likelihood that a neutral court would resolve the issue in the client's favor and this in turn increased the strength with which they recommended the client's preferred tax position. Results of study 2 indicate that confirmation bias induced by client preferences can be strong enough to not only result in inaccurate assessments of authoritative support for the client-favored position, which is problematic in and of itself, but also to lead tax professionals to make overly aggressive recommendations.

We investigate the effect of an increase in the individual (shareholder-level) income tax rate on share values. We regress cumulative daily abnormal stock returns surrounding the passage of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 on firm dividend yield, tax status of the investor as represented by level of institutional ownership, the interaction of these two variables, and control variables. Consistent with our expectations, we find that (1) the higher the firm's dividend yield, the more negative the firm's stock price reaction to the increase in the individual income tax rate (i.e., the dividend tax rate) enacted in the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993, and (2) institutional holdings mitigate this negative reaction. Our results suggest that both the dividend policy of the firm and the tax status of the marginal investor influence the extent to which dividend taxes are reflected in share values. Our evidence is consistent with the traditional view that firm dividend policy influences the extent to which tax rate changes affect share values.