The Impact of Using Analytical Procedures on Reducing the Cost of Tax Audit "The Jordanian Income and Sales Tax Department"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to exam the impact of using the analytical procedures on reducing the cost of a tax audit in the Jordanian Income and Sales Tax Department. To achieve the aim of the study, the analytical descriptive approach has been used and a questionnaire has been designed and given out to the study sample, which represented from the auditors of Directorate of senior taxpayers and directorates of medial taxpayers in the income tax department and sales who work in these directorates. The appropriate statistical methods have been used to find results. The findings showed that using the analytical procedures led to reducing the cost of a tax audit in all auditing stages. The stage, which has the most impact of using the analytical procedures on reducing the cost, is the final auditing stage followed by the planning stage and the implementation (fieldwork) stage. The study recommended the necessity of compulsion of the auditors in tax department to use the analytical procedures because it reduces the cost of tax auditing and the necessity of holding workshops and training programs to define the importance of analytical procedures in tax auditing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".