Deciding on Tax Evasion

Front Line Discretion and Constraints

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse everyday reasoning in public administration. This is done by focusing on front line tax inspectors’ decisions about tax evasion.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents ethnography of bureaucracy and field audits. The material stems from fieldwork conducted in the Central Customs and Tax Administration.
Findings – The paper shows that the tax inspectors reason about tax evasion in a casuistic manner. They pay attention to similar cases and to particular circumstances of the individual cases. In deciding on tax evasion, the inspectors do not just administer the laws; they also enact a policy of fair-mindedness. Doing this they are constrained by time and man-powers, but also enabled by various organizational devices.
Research limitations/implications – The tax inspectors that the author followed were carefully chosen and acted in accordance with procedures. The ethnography should be understood in relation to this set-up.
Originality/value – The originality of the paper is that it shows that ethnography can open the territory of everyday reasoning in public administration. Also, it shows the discretionary room that any front line tax inspector navigates in. This is significant as revenue collection often is described as formal and dominated by a legal steering in which rules are univocal.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Organizational Ethnography
Volume4
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)193-207
Number of pages15
ISSN2046-6749
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this

@article{f0fe0cc39e28425b94e3dcdff70a87db,
title = "Deciding on Tax Evasion: Front Line Discretion and Constraints",
abstract = "Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse everyday reasoning in public administration. This is done by focusing on front line tax inspectors’ decisions about tax evasion.Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents ethnography of bureaucracy and field audits. The material stems from fieldwork conducted in the Central Customs and Tax Administration.Findings – The paper shows that the tax inspectors reason about tax evasion in a casuistic manner. They pay attention to similar cases and to particular circumstances of the individual cases. In deciding on tax evasion, the inspectors do not just administer the laws; they also enact a policy of fair-mindedness. Doing this they are constrained by time and man-powers, but also enabled by various organizational devices.Research limitations/implications – The tax inspectors that the author followed were carefully chosen and acted in accordance with procedures. The ethnography should be understood in relation to this set-up.Originality/value – The originality of the paper is that it shows that ethnography can open the territory of everyday reasoning in public administration. Also, it shows the discretionary room that any front line tax inspector navigates in. This is significant as revenue collection often is described as formal and dominated by a legal steering in which rules are univocal.",
keywords = "Public administration, Discretion, Ethnography, Everyday reasoning, Professional ethics, Tax evasion",
author = "Karen Boll",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1108/JOE-07-2014-0018",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "193--207",
journal = "Journal of Organizational Ethnography",
issn = "2046-6749",
publisher = "JAI Press",
number = "2",

}

Deciding on Tax Evasion : Front Line Discretion and Constraints. / Boll, Karen.

In: Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2015, p. 193-207.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deciding on Tax Evasion

T2 - Front Line Discretion and Constraints

AU - Boll, Karen

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse everyday reasoning in public administration. This is done by focusing on front line tax inspectors’ decisions about tax evasion.Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents ethnography of bureaucracy and field audits. The material stems from fieldwork conducted in the Central Customs and Tax Administration.Findings – The paper shows that the tax inspectors reason about tax evasion in a casuistic manner. They pay attention to similar cases and to particular circumstances of the individual cases. In deciding on tax evasion, the inspectors do not just administer the laws; they also enact a policy of fair-mindedness. Doing this they are constrained by time and man-powers, but also enabled by various organizational devices.Research limitations/implications – The tax inspectors that the author followed were carefully chosen and acted in accordance with procedures. The ethnography should be understood in relation to this set-up.Originality/value – The originality of the paper is that it shows that ethnography can open the territory of everyday reasoning in public administration. Also, it shows the discretionary room that any front line tax inspector navigates in. This is significant as revenue collection often is described as formal and dominated by a legal steering in which rules are univocal.

AB - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse everyday reasoning in public administration. This is done by focusing on front line tax inspectors’ decisions about tax evasion.Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents ethnography of bureaucracy and field audits. The material stems from fieldwork conducted in the Central Customs and Tax Administration.Findings – The paper shows that the tax inspectors reason about tax evasion in a casuistic manner. They pay attention to similar cases and to particular circumstances of the individual cases. In deciding on tax evasion, the inspectors do not just administer the laws; they also enact a policy of fair-mindedness. Doing this they are constrained by time and man-powers, but also enabled by various organizational devices.Research limitations/implications – The tax inspectors that the author followed were carefully chosen and acted in accordance with procedures. The ethnography should be understood in relation to this set-up.Originality/value – The originality of the paper is that it shows that ethnography can open the territory of everyday reasoning in public administration. Also, it shows the discretionary room that any front line tax inspector navigates in. This is significant as revenue collection often is described as formal and dominated by a legal steering in which rules are univocal.

KW - Public administration

KW - Discretion

KW - Ethnography

KW - Everyday reasoning

KW - Professional ethics

KW - Tax evasion

UR - http://sfx-45cbs.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/45cbs?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=3280000000000364&rft.object_portfolio_id=&svc.holdings=yes&svc.fulltext=yes

U2 - 10.1108/JOE-07-2014-0018

DO - 10.1108/JOE-07-2014-0018

M3 - Journal article

VL - 4

SP - 193

EP - 207

JO - Journal of Organizational Ethnography

JF - Journal of Organizational Ethnography

SN - 2046-6749

IS - 2

ER -