Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:47:29.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Which “Haves” Come Out Ahead and Why? Cultural Capital and Legal Mobilization in Frontline Law Enforcement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Karyl A. Kinsey  and
Loretta J. Stalans
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Sociolegal theories of why “haves” might come out ahead in the legal system have emphasized legal mobilization and the use of legal representation. Small group research points to the influence of cultural capital on social expectations and interpersonal processes of social influence and deference as another potential explanation for status advantage. This study tests these explanations in the context of state income tax audits. The results indicate that taxpayers owning larger businesses are more likely to mobilize legally, but that legal mobilization does not affect audit outcomes. Instead, taxpayers with high occupational prestige and the owners of family businesses are more likely to come out ahead in tax audits, pointing to a cultural capital explanation of why the “haves” come out ahead. Prestige effects, however, are concentrated among taxpayers who represent themselves; when tax practitioners are involved in audits, status advantages disappear. Further analyses indicate that tax practitioners level the playing field by disrupting social influence and deference processes.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? , 1999 , pp. 993 - 1023
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This research was funded by the American Bar Foundation and the Ford Fund for Dispute Resolution. We are grateful to Bob Mason, Kent Smith, and the Oregon Department of Revenue for making this study possible and especially thank Bryant Garth for his encouragement and support.

References

Ainsworth, Janet E. (1993) “In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation,” 103 Yale Law J. 259–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardach, Eugene, & Kagan, Robert (1982) Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Berger, Joseph, Cohen, Bernard P., & Zelditch, Morris Jr. (1966) “Status Characteristics and Expectation States,” in Berger, J., Zelditch, M. Jr., & Anderson, B., eds., Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. 1. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Berger, Joseph, Cohen, Bernard P., & Zelditch, Morris Jr. (1972) “Status Characteristics and Social Interaction,” 37 American Sociological Rev. 241–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael (1976) Social Psychology and Intergroup Relations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Black, Donald J. (1976) The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, John (1985) To Punish or Persuade? The Enforcement of Coal Mine Safety Laws. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul (1990) “Cultural Aspects of Economic Action and Organization,” in Friedland, R. & Robertson, A. F., eds., Beyond the Marketplace: Rethinking Economy and Society. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Elffers, Henk, Robben, Henry S.J., & Hessing, Dick J. (1989) “Reliability and Validity of Tax Audits: Can We Have Confidence in the Opinion of the Dutch IRS on Noncompliance?” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Madison, WI (8–11 June).Google Scholar
Freese, Lee, & Cohen, Bernard P. (1973) “Eliminating Status Generalization,” 36 Sociometry 177–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, John, Zatz, Marjorie, Arnold, Bruce, & Key, Fiona (1991) “Cultural Capital, Gender, and the Structural Transformation of Legal Practice,” 25 Law & Society Rev. 239–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (1985) Internal Revenue Service Annual Report, 1985. Washington, DC: Internal Revenue Service.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (1994) Statistics of Income, 1991: Individual Income Tax Returns. Washington, DC: Internal Revenue Service Publication 1304.Google Scholar
Jackson, Betty R., Milliron, Valerie C., & Toy, Daniel R. (1988) “Tax Practitioners and the Government,” Tax Notes, 17 Oct., pp. 333–41.Google Scholar
Jones, Russell A. (1977) Self-fulfilling Prophecies: Social, Psychological, and Physiological Effects of Expectancies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kinsey, Karyl A. (1987) “Advocacy and Perception: The Structure of Tax Practice.” Unpublished manuscript, American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
Kinsey, Karyl A. (1992) “Deterrence and Alienation Effects of IRS Enforcement: An Analysis of Survey Data,” in Slemrod, J., ed., Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Tax Enforcement. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kinsey, Karyl A. (forthcoming) “Status Matters: Class, Race, and Perceptions of Bias in Bureaucratic Law Enforcement,” in Garth, B. D., Nelson, R. M., and Woest, V. S., eds., Law's Disciplinary Encounters.Google Scholar
Kinsey, Karyl A., & Grasmick, Harold (1993) “Did the Tax Reform Act of 1986 Improve Compliance: Three Studies of Pre- and Post-Reform Compliance Attitudes,” 15 Law & Policy 293–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klepper, Steven, & Nagin, Daniel (1989) “The Role of Tax Practitioners in Tax Compliance,” 22 Policy Sciences 167–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, Melvin A. (1977) Class and Conformity: A Study of Values, with a Reassessment. 2d Ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon (1989) “Attitude Importance and Attitude Accessibility,” 15 Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Susan B., & Swingen, Judyth (1988) “Complexity, Opportunity, and Compliance.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Vail, CO (10 June).Google Scholar
Long, Susan B., & Swingen, Judyth (1989) “The Role of Legal Complexity in Shaping Taxpayer Compliance,” in Koppen, P. & Hessing, D.J., eds., Lawyers on Psychology and Psychologists on Law. Amsterdam: Swets & Seitlinger.Google Scholar
Long, Susan B., & Swingen, Judyth (1991) “Taxpayer Compliance: Setting New Agendas for Research,” 25. Law & Society Rev. 637–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBarnet, Doreen (1992a) “It's Not What You Do but the Way That You Do It: Tax Evasion, Tax Avoidance, and the Boundaries of Deviance” in Downes, D., ed., Unravelling Criminal Justice: Eleven British Studies. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
McBarnet, Doreen (1992b) “The Construction of Compliance and the Challenge for Control: the Limits of Noncompliance Research,” in Slemrod, J., ed., Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure. rev. ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
National Opinion Research Center (1991) General Social Surveys, 1972-1991: Cumulative Codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.Google Scholar
Nock, Steven L., & Rossi, Peter H. (1978) “Ascription versus Achievement in the Attribution of Family Social Status,” 84 American J. of Sociology 565–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Barr, William, & O'Barr, Jean (1995) Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Orne, Martin T. (1962) “On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment: With Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and Their Implications,” 17 American Psychologist 776–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Michael J. (1993) “Professional Innovation: Corporate Lawyers and Private Lawmaking,” 18 Law & Social Inquiry 423–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Robert (1966) Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Robert, & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Jeffrey A., Scholz, John T., & Witte, Anne D., eds. (1989) Taxpayer Compliance, Volume 1: An Agenda for Research. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Slemrod, Joel, & Sorum, Nikki (1984) “The Compliance Cost of the U.S. Individual Income Tax System” 37 National Tax J. 461–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Kent W. (1995) “The Cultural Grounding of Tax Issues: Insights from Tax Audits,” 29 Law & Society Rev. 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Kent W., & Kinsey, Karyl A. (1985) “Cooperation and Control: Strategies and Tactics for Tax Examination,” 2 Tax Administration Rev. 13–30.Google Scholar
Songer, David R., & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1992) “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals,” 36 American J. of Political Science 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strodtbeck, Fred L., M.James, R., & Hawkins, C. (1958) “Social Status in Jury Deliberations,” in Maccoby, E. E., Newcomb, T. M., & Hartley, E. L., eds., Readings in Social Psychology, 3d Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sutherland, Edwin H. (1983) White Collar Crime: The Uncut Version. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Webster, Murray Jr., & Driskill, James E. Jr. (1978) “Status Generalization: A Review and Some New Data,” 43 American Sociological Rev. 220–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, David, Waring, Elin, & Wheeler, Stanton (1990) “Class, Status, and the Punishment of White-Collar Criminals,” 15 Law & Social Inquiry 223–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Stanton, Cartwright, Bliss, Kagan, Robert A., & Friedman, Lawrence M. (1987) “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870–1970,” 21 Law & Society Rev. 403–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yngvesson, Barbara (1993) Virtuous Citizens, Disruptive Subjects: Order and Complaint in a New England Court. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar