Professional Scepticism and Tax Ethical Judgement among Malaysian Tax Practitioners: The Moderating Role of Audit Firm Type

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.