Purpose This paper aims to examine the role of Big Four accounting partnerships as professional enablers of corporate tax avoidance within the global tax governance system. It investigates how multifunctional service models, policy advisory roles and limited liability partnership structures facilitate conflicts of interest and structurally constrain accountability. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative approach is adopted to analyse two Australian case studies: the PwC Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law (MAAL) scandal and long-term tax minimisation within the fossil fuel sector. Data triangulation is achieved by integrating parliamentary inquiry transcripts, regulatory reports, corporate disclosures and investigative journalism. Findings The research identifies two distinct but complementary pathways of professional enablement: acute, scandal-driven ruptures characterised by unethical and potentially illegal breaches (PwC-MAAL) and the routine normalisation of structural avoidance embedded within accepted accounting practices (fossil fuels). Both pathways systematically erode the corporate tax base while facing limited consequences. Crucially, the partnership governance structure fundamentally weakens professional accountability by diffusing responsibility and insulating the overarching firms from meaningful regulatory sanctions. Originality/value By contrasting a highly visible ethical scandal with the global normalised, long-term practice of tax minimisation, this paper develops an accounting-centred explanation of how large professional service firms institutionalise and profit from global tax avoidance at the expense of national governments. The paper highlights that effective reform requires extending regulatory scrutiny beyond multinational enterprises to include the professional infrastructures through which tax avoidance strategies are designed, legitimised and operationalised.
Nikidehaghani et al. (Fri,) studied this question.