Abstract
This study examines whether professional skepticism is associated with tax ethical judgement among Malaysian tax practitioners and whether the association differs across audit-firm settings. The paper uses archived data and preserved statistical outputs from a broader postgraduate research project completed in 2016, comprising 140 usable responses from practitioners in Big Four and non-Big Four audit firms. Professional skepticism was measured using an adapted 30-item Hurtt scale, while two scenario-specific case scores were retained as separate outcomes. Archived hierarchical regression results show a positive association between professional skepticism and the case outcomes in both scenarios (Case 1: B = 0.133, p = 0.012; Case 2: B = 0.069, p = 0.038). Audit firm type also moderates the relationship (Case 1: B = -0.220, p = 0.034; Case 2: B = -0.305, p = 0.007), with archived firm-specific regressions showing stronger positive slopes among Big Four practitioners. Social Cognitive Theory is used to interpret professional skepticism as a personal/cognitive factor operating within an organizational environment. Because the underlying observations are historical and the respondent-level raw data are no longer available, the findings should not be interpreted as estimates of current Malaysian practice or as newly revalidated measurement evidence. Instead, they provide historical empirical evidence on the relationship among professional skepticism, organizational context and scenario-based tax ethical judgement, considered alongside more recent tax-practice and professional-skepticism research.
Keywords
- Professional Skepticism Search this journal for Professional Skepticism (opens in a new tab)
- Tax Ethical Judgement Search this journal for Tax Ethical Judgement (opens in a new tab)
- Audit Firm Type Search this journal for Audit Firm Type (opens in a new tab)
- Tax Practitioners Search this journal for Tax Practitioners (opens in a new tab)
- Malaysia Search this journal for Malaysia (opens in a new tab)
References
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
- Brazel, J. F., Leiby, J., & Schaefer, T. J. (2025). Who rewards appropriate levels of professional skepticism? Journal of Business Ethics, 196(2), 439-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05732-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05732-w
- Hurtt, R. K. (2010). Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.149 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.149
- International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants. (2025, July 1). IESBA tax planning standards now effective. https://www.ethicsboard.org/news-events/2025-07/iesba-tax-planning-standards-now-effective
- Johnes Abit, M. C. A., Ibrahim, Z., & Baharum, Z. (2023). The influence of personal and professional ethics of tax agents on their perception of tax evasion. Asian Journal of Accounting Perspectives, 16(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.22452/AJAP.vol16.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22452/ajap.vol16no1.1
- Khalid, N. H., Sanusi, Z. M., Rafidi, M. M., Shafie, N. A., & Roni, S. M. (2023). Tax officers' skepticism and professional judgment: The mediation of client fraud indicators intensity. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 131, 739-754. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2023.11.62 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2023.11.62
- Lynch, R., & McCullagh, O. (2024). Risk attitudes of tax practitioners and firm influence. Meditari Accountancy Research, 32(7), 86-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2023-2050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2023-2050
- Malaysian Institute of Accountants. (2025). By-Laws (on professional ethics, conduct and practice) [Updated February 2025, effective 1 July 2025]. https://mia.org.my/storage/2025/07/By-Laws-updated-Feb-2025-Effective-1-July-2025.pdf
- Nelson, M. W. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(2), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.1
- Nolder, C. J., & Kadous, K. (2018). Grounding the professional skepticism construct in mindset and attitude theory: A way forward. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 67, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.010
- Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.
- Shafer, W. E., & Simmons, R. S. (2011). Effects of organizational ethical culture on the ethical decisions of tax practitioners in mainland China. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(5), 647-668. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571111139139 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571111139139
- Shirowzhan, H., & Fakhari, H. (2024). Clarifying the decision-making mystery: Drivers of professional skepticism, ego depletion and overconfidence in independent auditors' quality of judgment. Managerial Auditing Journal, 39(7), 821-842. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-04-2024-4317 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-04-2024-4317
- Xu, G., & Yang, C. (2025). 'It doesn't make sense': Professional skepticism as sensemaking. Current Issues in Auditing, 19(1), P10-P15. https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-2024-001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-2024-001
- Yulianto, E., & Sari, R. (2025). Ethics on the line: How obedience pressure shapes auditors' decisions. Jurnal Tata Kelola dan Akuntabilitas Keuangan Negara, 11(1), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.28986/jtaken.v11i1.1851 DOI: https://doi.org/10.28986/jtaken.v11i1.1851
Downloads
Full-text downloads recorded for this article, by month.
No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.
How to Cite
Share this article
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Asreawaney binti Mod Ishak (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.
This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.
Keywords
- Professional Skepticism Search this journal for Professional Skepticism (opens in a new tab)
- Tax Ethical Judgement Search this journal for Tax Ethical Judgement (opens in a new tab)
- Audit Firm Type Search this journal for Audit Firm Type (opens in a new tab)
- Tax Practitioners Search this journal for Tax Practitioners (opens in a new tab)
- Malaysia Search this journal for Malaysia (opens in a new tab)
Section
Published
Submissions
Have research to publish? Information Management and Business Review welcomes submissions.
Make a Submission