26 4.8 Potencial Futuro De La Quinua
CUADRO COMPARATIVO DE LOS COMPONENTES DE LA QUINUA CON OTROS PRODUCTOS (KGS)
The PJT concept refers to people‟s perception or evaluation of whether the procedures and the enactment of procedures by authorities when making decisions are fair (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler, 1988; and Tyler, 2010).
Although PJT was developed in the 1970s, it was not used in the tax compliance domain until the late 1980s. McGraw (1989) was the first researcher to apply PJT to examine tax compliance behaviour. The survey examined taxpayers‟ perceptions of procedural justice, with regard to the treatment and services received from the IRS. The study found significant correlation between perceptions of procedural justice and evaluation of the performance of the IRS. Although McGraw‟s (1989) study did not examine any direct effects of procedural justice on tax compliance behaviour, the study demonstrated that procedural justice concerns are also important in tax compliance research.
Another study predicted that taxpayers would respond to positive treatments by becoming more compliant (Smith, 1992). Although no direct relationship was found between procedural fairness and tax compliance behaviour, the findings support the prediction that reciprocity is related to taxpayers‟ perceptions of procedural justice, which in turn is found to be significantly related to taxpayers‟ acceptance of noncompliance. That is, an increase (or decline) in perceived procedural fairness of the IRS results in noncompliance becoming more unacceptable (acceptable), which supports the premises of the PJT.
Wenzel (2002a) used survey data to examine the influence of justice perceptions (based on PJT) and self-interest (based on Distributive Justice Theory) on self-reported tax compliance.
49
The Self-Categorisation Theory (SCT)43 (which complements the group-value approach44 to PJT), contends that taxpayers are more concerned about justice and less about personal outcomes when they identify strongly with the nation within which the procedures and distributions apply. Consistent with the PJT (and SCT), the survey results demonstrate that respondents who identify themselves as Australians and experience fair and respectful treatment from the Australian Tax Office (ATO) tend to be more concerned about procedural justice and less about their own personal outcomes. However, this effect was displayed for only two out of the four forms of tax compliance used for this study.
A further study by Wenzel (2002b) explored the effectiveness of procedural fairness on taxpayers‟ filing obligations. All subjects in the study had failed to file their tax returns within the required timeframe, and therefore, for the purposes of the study were deemed to be non- compliers. Three different types of reminder letters were issued on subsequent lodgement compliance. The first letter was the tax authority‟s standard letter, whereas the other two incorporated aspects of procedural fairness, which included: consideration and respect; and information about respondents‟ obligations and justification for the tax authority to pursue them to file their returns. The results indicate an increase in filing compliance from taxpayers who received reminder letters based on procedural fairness, as compared to those who received the standard reminder letter.
A number of studies found that sanctions or punishments applied without ensuring the process is procedurally fair can undermine the regulator‟s (or tax authority‟s) legitimacy, resulting in resistance towards the regulator leading to noncompliance. In Murphy‟s (2003a) study, data was collected from the general taxpayers and tax scheme investors. Results found that the wide-spread resistance by scheme investors was attributed to how the ATO dealt with the schemes issue. Those who invested were: more disillusioned with the tax system; more hostile and resistant towards the ATO; and more likely to resent paying tax as a result. This could be attributed to the investors‟ perception that the procedures used to handle the situation were unfair, which in turn may have resulted in the negative attitude towards the tax authority. The results of the study suggest that procedural justice is an important factor in the perceived legitimacy of the tax authority, which in turn will positively influence taxpayers‟ attitudes towards the tax authority and tax compliance, and ultimately influence their tax reporting behaviour.
43
Self-Categorisation approach assumes that distributive justice involves categorisation processes on various levels of abstraction. Central to this is the inclusive category of all those considered potential recipients of the distribution (Wenzel, 2002a, p. 631).
44
Group-Value Model contends that the degree of identification with a group shapes the degree to which individuals develop supportive attitudes, values, and consequently behaviour (Hartner et al., 2008, p.140).
50
In a further study, using data from in-depth interviews with 29 investors of the mass- marketed schemes, Murphy (2003b) explored the investors‟ perceptions of the way the ATO handled the mass-marketed tax effective schemes, and the reasons why the majority of investors resisted the ATO‟s demands that the investors pay back taxes. The findings reveal that the reason many of the investors defied the ATO‟s demands was because of the perceived unfair procedures adopted by the tax authority in addressing the tax situation. This study clearly demonstrates that the use of enforcement strategies (such as sanctions and punishments) to achieve compliance can weaken the tax authority‟s legitimacy if it is perceived to be procedurally unfair.
Using longitudinal survey data, Murphy (2005) examined the ATO‟s approach in regulating and punishing taxpayers involved in aggressive tax planning, and its effects on the long term voluntary compliance behaviour of the tax offenders. The aim was to empirically explore whether procedural justice and legitimacy influence future cooperation and compliance. Subjects were participants of Australian mass-marketed tax schemes, who had been accused by the ATO of aggressive tax planning.45 Overall, the results indicate that taxpayers‟ perceptions about their treatment by the ATO appear to influence their views about the legitimacy of the tax authority, followed by their judgments about gain or loss. The findings provide general support for the PJT (Tyler, 1997) in that perceptions of procedural justice influence views about legitimacy more than judgments about gain and loss. The results also indicate that legitimacy views can affect attitudes towards compliance, as well as compliance behaviour, more than judgments about gain and loss.
Perceptions of procedural injustice can also create disputes and resistance between authorities and regulatees. Murphy (2004) found that during disputes with the tax authority, taxpayers who perceived that the tax authority had handled their cases in a procedurally unfair manner were more likely to increase their resistance, compared to other taxpayers. Murphy (2004) also found that these perceptions seem to overshadow the influence of the economic self-interest factors. The findings demonstrated that the use of threats and legal coercions as regulatory tools are ineffective in encouraging compliance. Murphy (2004) suggests that if regulators are seen to be acting fairly, regulatees will defer to the regulators‟ decisions voluntarily.
45
Many taxpayers not involved in the scheme felt that the situation was handled in a procedurally unfair manner by the ATO (Murphy, 2005).
51
Van Dijke and Verboon (2010) examined the effect of procedural fairness of the tax office on voluntary tax compliance.46 Their study also explored the moderating effect of trust in authorities on procedural fairness. Whilst the results did not reveal any direct relationship between procedural fairness of the tax office and tax compliance behaviour, the results, nonetheless, demonstrated that general trust in the tax authority has to be present, and it is this trust which then determines the effectiveness of the fair enactment of procedures of the tax office.
One of the few studies that failed to find an increase in tax noncompliant behaviour, when taxpayers were subjected to procedural injustice in relation to the tax authority, was that of Worsham (1996). This study, based on an experimental design, examined the effect of the accuracy and consistency rules on tax compliance, and found that the procedural injustice experienced personally did not lead to increased noncompliance. In contrast, knowledge of procedural injustice of the treatment experienced by others resulted in increased self-reported noncompliant behaviour.
Porcano‟s (1988) research also did not find any significant relationship between procedural justice and intentions to comply. The study operationalised procedural justice as having some involvement in formulating tax law and in enforcement procedures applied by the tax authorities. While procedural fairness was not significantly related to future intentions (to comply or not to comply), procedural fairness was found to be significant for past behaviour. This may perhaps suggest that past noncompliant taxpayers may use procedural injustice to rationalise their noncompliant behaviour, or as suggested by Kirchler (2007), the outcome could be attributed to the possible effect of the additional variables examined by Porcano (1988) on the self-reported tax evasion.
The study by Braithwaite et al. (1994) examined the effects of poor treatment of nursing home managers by authorities. Inspectors visited the nursing homes over a 20-month period to determine whether or not the managers complied with certain nursing home standards. The study found that the compliance level of the managers who were treated with trust and respect appeared to improve in the two years following the initial inspection. Although this study does not relate to tax compliance behaviour, it nonetheless demonstrates the role of procedural justice in regulating general compliance behaviour.
In other studies, aspects of procedural justice were also found to influence compliance intentions (for example, Kirchler et al., 2006). In this study procedural justice refers to
46
The study was conducted in the Netherlands and therefore the study was based on the perceived procedural fairness of the Dutch tax office.
52
perceived supportiveness of advice by tax officers which they found correlated with self- reported compliance, which in turn influenced compliance behaviour. Some studies illustrated the indirect effect of procedural fairness on tax compliance behaviour. For example, Murphy (2003c) found procedural injustice to indirectly influence tax noncompliance, through the mediating effects of shame displacement and disengagement. Although Murphy (2003c) does not advocate abandoning the use of sanctions and penalties, recommendations were made for the use of a regulatory strategy based on mutual respect and cooperation together with the threat of punishment.
In summary, tax compliance research based on aspects of procedural justice is still relatively in its infancy (Franzoni, 2000).47 The few tax studies based on PJT have identified procedural justice or fairness as important factors in the tax authority‟s relationship with the taxpayers. The literature also seems to suggest that taxpayers are more concerned about being treated fairly by the authority, rather than what they do or do not receive from the authority. It is therefore clear that the fair procedures and processes will secure legitimacy for the tax authority, which will lead to taxpayers being willing to accept the tax authority‟s rules and decisions (Tyler, 2010). Overall, the literature review on studies applying PJT overwhelmingly demonstrate that procedural fairness is an important element in an individual‟s attitude towards tax compliance and also plays an important role in an individual‟s tax compliance behaviour.