[This paper considers how time pressure and knowledge separately and jointly affect tax researchers' ability to locate relevant authority. Tax professionals and graduate tax students participated in a computer interactive experiment in which subjects selected relevant key words relating to a partnership tax issue. The results indicate that declarative and procedural knowledge enhance tax researchers' ability to select relevant key words in a time-restricted task. The most significant finding is that subjects with procedural knowledge responded more positively to time pressure than did subjects without such knowledge, thereby demonstrating an interaction between time pressure and knowledge.]

Focuses on the impact of time pressure and knowledge on tax researchers' ability to locate relevant authority. Declarative and procedural knowledge's enhancement of tax researchers' ability to select relevant key words; Interaction between time pressure and knowledge.

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.

Prior research indicates that audit and tax professionals' judgments are influenced by their client's preferences, both directly and indirectly (via information search). In an experiment with tax professionals as participants, we examine whether high practice risk (i.e., exposure to monetary and nonmonetary costs of making inappropriate recommendations) mitigates these effects. We find that, when facing a client with low practice risk, professionals' search is biased in a manner that leads judgments to be consistent with client preference; however, search is less biased when facing a client with high practice risk, and resulting judgments are less consistent with client preference. We also find that, after controlling for the impact of information search, professionals tend to adjust their recommendations away from the client-preferred position, regardless of practice risk. This study sheds light on the direct and indirect paths by which client preference and practice risk affect professionals' judgments.