Inspector shopping

Inspector shopping is a colloquial term referring to the deliberate manipulation of the inspector selection processes to secure more favorable outcomes or avoid unfavorable consequences during assessments, audits, and inspections.^{[not verified in body]} Inspector shopping involves strategically selecting inspectors based on their perceived inexperience, leniency, or susceptibility to bribery or other corruption.^{[not verified in body]} Individuals or entities may delay inspections until a preferred inspector is available, request a specific inspector for a job, or manipulate the selection process to ensure a desired inspector is assigned to their case. The term "inspector shopping" has a negative connotation and its corrupt gamesmanship and manipulation undermine the legitimacy of the regulatory process in order to obtain an unfair advantage.^{[not verified in body]}

This practice occurs in various industries, including construction, food safety, environmental regulation, healthcare, and manufacturing.^{[not verified in body]} Inspector shopping negatively impacts public safety, consumer protection, and environmental standards, as it leads to substandard work, dangerous products, or hazardous conditions going unnoticed or unreported.^{[not verified in body]}

To mitigate the risks posed by inspector shopping and preserve the integrity of the inspection processes, regulatory agencies and industries have implemented countermeasures including random inspector assignment, regular rotation of inspection personnel, and rigorous monitoring of inspector selection protocols.^{[not verified in body]}

Aviation

In Australia, a 2014 aviation regulatory review found that inspector shopping was prevalent.^[1]

In the United States, Boeing manufacturing and design issues have been attributed in part to inspector shopping.^[2]

Taxation

In international taxation, it was common practice to shop for a favorable tax inspector, though frowned upon.^[3][4][5]

See also

• Judge shopping

References

1. "Aviation Safety Regulation Review" (PDF). Australian Government. May 2014. Retrieved 17 May 2024.
2. Chokshi, Niraj; Ember, Sydney (March 28, 2024). "4 Takeaways About Boeing's Quality Problems". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 April 2024.
3. Harris, Peter; Cogan, Dominic de (19 September 2019). Studies in the History of Tax Law, Volume 9. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 400. ISBN 978-1-5099-2494-3. Retrieved 16 May 2024. tax ruling inspectors, working solitarily, make different decisions in specific cases. Fully aware of this difference, stakeholders try to make use of this by submitting the same request to various inspections. Thephenonmen has been given the name 'inspector shipping,' which, in the opinion of the Court of Auditors, is undesirable.
4. Lederman, Leandra (April 26, 2024). "The Untold Tale of a Tax Rulings Haven". Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance. 29 (1). Retrieved 17 May 2024.
5. Wágner, Tamás Zoltán (30 April 2020). "Detrimental effects of tax havens and the case of the Dutch tax system". Pro Futuro. 9 (3). doi:10.26521/Profuturo/2019/3/5766. hdl:2437/319702.