| Summary: | This study aims to identify the game-playing arguments or issues that are frequently raised by tax representatives acting on behalf of their clients in an effort to lower down the additional tax adjustments and penalties deriving from the audit estimates. Moreover this study also examines the preferences of cash business taxpayers in choosing their tax representatives. Hence, through the analysis of two real cases, the findings show that the tax representatives argued that the audit estimates were way too high, conditionally agreed on certain issues, claiming baselessly that certain over declared purchases and expenses had really incurred, arguing on the request for supporting documents, arguing on the validity of third party confirmation and appealing on the claiming basis of taxpayers' limited knowledge. Besides that the results also show that taxpayers favour to hire tax representatives who can deal with any problems arising from the tax dealings and those who would provide advice prior to meeting with the tax auditor. © 2014 Taylor & Francis Group.
|
|---|