Fiscal Reality Reconstruction in Artificial Intelligence Dominated Tax Audit Ecosystems and Its Consequences for Human Ethical Compliance Consciousness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59890/ijmbi.v4i5.43Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Tax Audit, Procedural Fairness, Taxpayer Trust, Ethical ComplianceAbstract
The growing dominance of artificial intelligence in tax audits has transformed the construction of fiscal reality, raising concerns regarding transparency, fairness, and taxpayers’ ethical consciousness. This study examines the effects of AI dominance on perceived procedural fairness, trust in tax authorities, and ethical tax compliance consciousness. A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design was conducted in Sukolilo and Gubeng Districts, Surabaya, involving semi-structured interviews with 15 informants and a survey of 200 respondents. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically, while quantitative data were examined using PLS-SEM. The findings indicate that algorithmic transparency and human oversight enhance perceived fairness and trust, thereby strengthening ethical compliance. This study highlights the importance of transparent, accountable, and human-centered AI governance in tax audit ecosystems.
References
Alon-Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2023). Human–artificial intelligence interactions in public sector decision making: “Automation bias” and “selective adherence” to algorithmic advice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac007
Aoki, N., Tatsumi, T., Naruse, G., & Maeda, K. (2024). Explainable artificial intelligence for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected? Government Information Quarterly, 41(4), Article 101965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101965
Aslett, J., González, G., Hamilton, S., & Pecho, M. (2024a). Tax administration: Essential analytics for compliance risk management. International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400260063.005
Aslett, J., Hamilton, S., Gonzalez, I., Hadwick, D., & Hardy, M. A. (2024b). Understanding artificial intelligence in tax and customs administration. International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400290435.005
Aysolmaz, B., Müller, R. E., & Meacham, D. (2023). The public perceptions of algorithmic decision-making systems: Results from a large-scale survey. Telematics and Informatics, 79, Article 101954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.101954
Bellon, M., Dabla-Norris, E., Khalid, S., & Lima, F. (2022). Digitalization to improve tax compliance: Evidence from value-added tax e-invoicing in Peru. Journal of Public Economics, 210, Article 104661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2022.104661
Black, E., Elzayn, H., Chouldechova, A., Goldin, J., & Ho, D. E. (2022). Algorithmic fairness and vertical equity: Income fairness with Internal Revenue Service tax audit models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 1479–1503). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533204
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
Bullock, J. B., Young, M. M., & Wang, Y.-F. (2020). Artificial intelligence, bureaucratic form, and discretion in public service. Information Polity, 25(4), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200223
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Capasso, S., Cicatiello, L., De Simone, E., Gaeta, G. L., & Mourão, P. R. (2021). Fiscal transparency and tax ethics: Does better information lead to greater compliance? Journal of Policy Modeling, 43(5), 1031–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2020.06.003
Castañeda, N. (2024). Fairness and tax morale in developing countries. Studies in Comparative International Development, 59, 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-023-09394-z
Cobbe, J., Lee, M. S. A., & Singh, J. (2021). Reviewable automated decision-making: A framework for accountable algorithmic systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 598–609). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445921
Directorate General of Taxes. (2024). Annual report of the Directorate General of Taxes 2023. Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia.
Fajriana, N., Irianto, G., & Andayani, W. (2023). The role of tax fairness and taxpayer trust in building voluntary compliance in micro, small, and medium enterprise taxpayers. International Journal of Business and Society, 24(1), 478–487. https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.5629.2023
Gogo, S., & Musonda, I. (2022). The use of the exploratory sequential approach in mixed-method research: A case of contextual top leadership interventions in construction health and safety. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), Article 7276. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127276
Green, B. (2022). The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms. Computer Law & Security Review, 45, Article 105681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105681
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023). Explaining why the computer says no: Algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13483
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2020). Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), Article 101497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101497
Hair, J. F., Jr., & Alamer, A. (2022). Partial least squares structural equation modeling in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3), Article 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100027
Hair, J. F., Jr., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in partial least squares structural equation modeling using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
Hesami, S., Jenkins, H., & Jenkins, G. P. (2024). Digital transformation of tax administration and compliance: A systematic literature review on e-invoicing and prefilled returns. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 5(3), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643687
König, P. D., & Wenzelburger, G. (2021). The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it. Technology in Society, 67, Article 101688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101688
Kurtaliqi, F., Lancelot Miltgen, C., Viglia, G., & Pantin-Sohier, G. (2024). Using advanced mixed methods approaches: Combining partial least squares structural equation modeling and qualitative studies. Journal of Business Research, 172, Article 114464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114464
Laux, J. (2024). Institutionalised distrust and human oversight of artificial intelligence: Towards a democratic design of artificial intelligence governance under the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. AI & Society, 39, 2853–2866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01777-z
Marshall, M. E., Farrar, J. M., Massey, D. W., Thorne, L., Wu, A., & Bui, T. (2024). In all fairness: A meta-analysis of the tax fairness–tax compliance literature. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 36(2), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-2022-040
Martin, K., & Waldman, A. (2023). Are algorithmic decisions legitimate? The effect of process and outcomes on perceptions of legitimacy of artificial intelligence decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 183, 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-05032-7
Mazzolini, G., Pagani, L., & Santoro, A. (2022). The deterrence effect of real-world operational tax audits on self-employed taxpayers: Evidence from Italy. International Tax and Public Finance, 29, 1014–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-021-09707-9
Memon, M. A., Ting, H., Cheah, J.-H., Thurasamy, R., Chuah, F., & Cham, T.-H. (2020). Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 4(2), i–xx. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.4(2)01
Neuman, E. L., & Sheu, R. J. (2022). Big data analytics in Internal Revenue Service audit procedures and its effects on tax compliance: A moderated mediation analysis. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 44(2), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.2308/JATA-2020-038
Okunogbe, O., & Santoro, F. (2023). The promise and limitations of information technology for tax mobilization. The World Bank Research Observer, 38(2), 295–324. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkac008
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Tax administration 3.0: The digital transformation of tax administration. https://doi.org/10.1787/ca274cc5-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Tax administration 2024: Comparative information on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other advanced and emerging economies. https://doi.org/10.1787/2d5fba9c-en
Parycek, P., Schmid, V., & Novak, A.-S. (2024). Artificial intelligence and automation in administrative procedures: Potentials, limitations, and framework conditions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15, 8390–8415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01433-3
Ranganathan, P., Caduff, C., & Frampton, C. M. A. (2024). Designing and validating a research questionnaire—Part 2. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 15(1), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_318_23
Starke, C., Baleis, J., Keller, B., & Marcinkowski, F. (2022). Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Big Data & Society, 9(2), Article 20539517221115189. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221115189
Supriyati, Hapsari, I., & Nahumury, J. (2024). The influence of trust in the government, perceived fairness, and tax morale on taxpayer compliance: Implications for budget formation. Public and Municipal Finance, 13(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.21511/pmf.13(2).2024.11
Timothy, J., & Abbas, Y. (2021). Tax morale, perception of justice, trust in public authorities, tax knowledge, and tax compliance: A study of Indonesian small and medium-sized enterprises. eJournal of Tax Research, 19(1), 168–184. https://www.unsw.edu.au/business/sites/default/files/documents/168-Tax-morale-perception-of-justice-trust-in-public-authorities.pdf
Yusoff, M. S. B., Arifin, W. N., & Hadie, S. N. H. (2021). ABC of questionnaire development and validation for survey research. Education in Medicine Journal, 13(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2021.13.1.10
Zerilli, J., Bhatt, U., & Weller, A. (2022). How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence. Patterns, 3(4), Article 100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455
Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y.-C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), Article 101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577
