Outsourcing income tax returns : convenient and/or controversial

This paper investigates the outsourcing of income tax return preparation by Australian accounting firms. It identifies the extent to which firms are currently outsourcing accounting services or considering outsourcing accounting services, with a focus on personal and business income tax return preparation. The motivations and barriers for outsourcing by Australian accounting firms are also considered in this paper. Privacy, security of client data, and the competence of the outsourcing provider’s staff have been identified as risks associated with outsourcing. An expectation relating to confidentiality of client data is also examined in this paper. Statistical analysis of data collected from a random sample of Australian accounting firms using a survey questionnaire provided the empirical data for the paper. The results indicate that the majority of Australian accounting firms are either currently outsourcing or considering outsourcing accounting services, and firms are outsourcing taxation preparation both onshore and offshore. The results also indicate that firms expect the volume of outsourced work to increase in the future. In contrast to the literature identifying labour arbitrage as the primary driver for organisations choosing to outsource, this study found that the main factors considered by accounting firms in the decision to outsource were to expedite delivery of services to clients and to enable the firm to focus on core competencies. Data from this study also supports the literature which indicates that not all tax practitioners are adhering to codes of conduct in relation to client confidentiality. Research identifying the extent to which accounting services are outsourced is limited, therefore significant contributions to the academic literature and the accounting profession are provided by this study

Accounting education and the prerequisite skills of accounting graduates: Are accounting firms’ moving the boundaries?

The current requisite skills of accounting graduates guide the graduate attributes delivered by university learning outcomes. A recent trend by Australian accounting firms to outsource accounting services may impact on accounting graduates if entry‐level tasks normally completed by graduates are sent to offshore processing centres. This study examines the impact of the outsourcing of accounting services by Australian accounting firms and classifies the current requisite skills for accounting graduates identified by accounting firms. Following a review of the current academic literature, a positivist approach using empirical data is taken in this paper. The responses elicited from a survey questionnaire mailed to a random sample of Australian accounting firms provide information for the data analysis. One of the most widely outsourced services identified is the preparation of income tax returns, which has been identified as a key area where graduate accountants normally learn the basic skills required to phase them into the profession. Accounting firms that considered the outsourcing of accounting services would change the 12 ranked prerequisite skills for graduates presented in this paper in order of importance

Institutional entrepreneurship and management control systems

The public higher education sector (HES) alongside health, is one of the biggest portfolios in most national governments, and is one that potentially provides the greatest returns to a country in productivity gains through skills acquisition, and research and development (Chatterton and Goddard, 2000; Kogan and Bauer, 2006; Middlehurst, 2001). Given the central role university research plays in a nation’s competitive capacity in the international market, and the prominent position it occupies in a nation’s overall research efforts, governments have centralised their control over universities’ outcomes predominantly through making government funding contingent on their achievement of research targets (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003; Tooley and Guthrie, 2007). Consequently efforts to measure research performance have multiplied in the last decade (Bazeley, 2010). As universities struggle with changes in funding mechanisms and compete for contracting public funds with other well-established universities, they have adopted strategic management activities, and are engaged in institutional entrepreneurship (Liu and Dubinsky, 1999). Thus, universities (and therefore Vice Chancellors) have become entrepreneurs, risk takers, innovators and change makers (Marginson and Considine, 2000; Mautner, 2005; Wong et al., 2007). The impact of managerialism on univeristies and more directly on the management responsibilities and practices of VCs has dominated the public agenda for a while (McClenaghan, 1998). University management, changes to the Australian higher education environment and the impact this has on the role of the most senior executive officer, the VC, occupy the theme of this paper. In comparison to studies in the US and the UK, there is very little research devoted to the role of VCs in Australia. Although institutional studies emphasise the understanding of how entrepreneurs can impact and change institutions and their related fields (e.g. Greenwood et al., 2008; Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), much less work examines how institutional entrepreneurs contribute to the creation of change and emergence of new institutions, and what they actually do to bring about change. This paper seeks to address these gaps

Institutional entrepreneurship and management control systems

The public higher education sector (HES) alongside health, is one of the biggest portfolios in most national governments, and is one that potentially provides the greatest returns to a country in productivity gains through skills acquisition, and research and development (Chatterton and Goddard, 2000; Kogan and Bauer, 2006; Middlehurst, 2001). Given the central role university research plays in a nation’s competitive capacity in the international market, and the prominent position it occupies in a nation’s overall research efforts, governments have centralised their control over universities’ outcomes predominantly through making government funding contingent on their achievement of research targets (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003; Tooley and Guthrie, 2007). Consequently efforts to measure research performance have multiplied in the last decade (Bazeley, 2010). As universities struggle with changes in funding mechanisms and compete for contracting public funds with other well-established universities, they have adopted strategic management activities, and are engaged in institutional entrepreneurship (Liu and Dubinsky, 1999). Thus, universities (and therefore Vice Chancellors) have become entrepreneurs, risk takers, innovators and change makers (Marginson and Considine, 2000; Mautner, 2005; Wong et al., 2007). The impact of managerialism on univeristies and more directly on the management responsibilities and practices of VCs has dominated the public agenda for a while (McClenaghan, 1998). University management, changes to the Australian higher education environment and the impact this has on the role of the most senior executive officer, the VC, occupy the theme of this paper. In comparison to studies in the US and the UK, there is very little research devoted to the role of VCs in Australia. Although institutional studies emphasise the understanding of how entrepreneurs can impact and change institutions and their related fields (e.g. Greenwood et al., 2008; Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006), much less work examines how institutional entrepreneurs contribute to the creation of change and emergence of new institutions, and what they actually do to bring about change. This paper seeks to address these gaps

Accounting for quality in Australia’s research assessment exercise

This paper explores the evolution and the role accounting for quality plays in the academic journal articles submitted to Australia’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) assessment exercise. It tracks the progress from quantitative to qualitative assessment within the Australian higher education sector from 1970 leading up to the implementation of a formal research assessment exercise in 2010, and its subsequent iterations in 2012, 2015, and 2018. Although only a part of the ERA submissions, the listing of published research outputs provides the primary evidence for research quality to most ERA panels, and is a significant driver of the final rating awarded. The developing role of journal publications as a vehicle for academic research output is examined via a chronology of the ERA, before assessing the current situation in which published journal output formed almost 70% of all output assessed by the ERA panels in the 2015 exercise