IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mof/journl/ppr22_01_03.html

Evaluating Tax Return Data as a Source of Income Statistics

Author

Listed:
  • Unayama Takashi

    (Professor at Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University)

  • Sano Shinpei

    (Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University)

  • Yugami Kazufumi

    (Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University)

  • Inaba Kazuhiro

    (National Tax College)

Abstract

This study evaluates the usefulness of income tax return data, which is newly available in Japan, as a source of income statistics, focusing on its characteristics, advantages, and limitations. The large scale of the data and its accuracy constitute major advantages, but they exclude individuals who are not required to file tax returns as well as income exempt from taxation, which limit their ability to capture the whole distribution of income. Approximately 23 million individuals file tax returns each year, with about 5 million additional individuals reported as dependents. Together, these groups account for only about 30 percent of the total population aged 15 and over. In particular, most wage earners and pensioners do not file returns, necessitating the use of supplementary information. Among wage earners and pensioners who do file returns, many do so to claim deductions such as the medical expense deduction or the tax credits for mortgage loan interest.Given the nature of these institutions, filers are supposed to be in distinct economic conditions—such as facing illness or having recently purchased a home—which indicates a potential selection bias within this group. By contrast, for self-employed individuals, the tax return data provide comprehensive information. The number of business income filers closely aligns with the self-employed population reported in statistical surveys, and the total reported income is broadly consistent with the national accounts data. Since more than half of self-employed filers submit returns almost every year, the tax return data are highly valuable as a panel dataset for studying the self-employed. This study also evaluates the tax return data as a source about information on top-income individuals. For the super-rich—those in the top 0.1 percent of the population—coverage is almost exhaustive. However, when extending the focus to the top 1 percent, the presence of individuals who do not file returns becomes non-negligible. Moreover, due to the Separate Withholding Taxation system on interest and dividend income, the coverage would be less complete, which likely results in an underestimation of top-income individuals. Future challenges include the integration of tax return data with other datasets on wage earners and pensioners to construct a more comprehensive database of incomes. To understand the entire distribution of income, comparison between tax return data and existing statistical surveys is necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Unayama Takashi & Sano Shinpei & Yugami Kazufumi & Inaba Kazuhiro, 2026. "Evaluating Tax Return Data as a Source of Income Statistics," Public Policy Review, Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance Japan, vol. 22(1), pages 1-37, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:mof:journl:ppr22_01_03
    DOI: 10.57520/prippr.22-1-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.57520/prippr.22-1-3
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.57520/prippr.22-1-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony B. Atkinson & Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2011. "Top Incomes in the Long Run of History," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 3-71, March.
    2. Garbinti, Bertrand & Goupille-Lebret, Jonathan & Piketty, Thomas, 2018. "Income inequality in France, 1900–2014: Evidence from Distributional National Accounts (DINA)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 63-77.
    3. Gerald Auten & David Splinter, 2024. "Income Inequality in the United States: Using Tax Data to Measure Long-Term Trends," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(7), pages 2179-2227.
    4. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2003. "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 1-41.
    5. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez & Gabriel Zucman, 2018. "Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(2), pages 553-609.
    6. Joel Slemrod, 2016. "Caveats to the Research Use of Tax-Return Administrative Data," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 69(4), pages 1003-1020, December.
    7. Thomas Piketty, 2003. "Income Inequality in France, 1901-1998," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(5), pages 1004-1042, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Advani, Arun & Summers, Andy & Tarrant, Hannah, 2020. "Measuring UK top incomes," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 490, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    2. Rafael Carranza & Marc Morgan & Brian Nolan, 2023. "Top Income Adjustments and Inequality: An Investigation of the EU‐SILC," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 69(3), pages 725-754, September.
    3. Paweł Bukowski & Filip Novokmet, 2021. "Between communism and capitalism: long-term inequality in Poland, 1892–2015," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 187-239, June.
    4. Aaberge, Rolf & Francesconi, Marco & Modalsli, Jorgen & Vestad, Ola, 2024. "How Business Income Measures Affect Income Inequality and the Tax Burden," CEPR Discussion Papers 19725, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    5. Boschini, Anne & Gunnarsson, Kristin & Roine, Jesper, 2020. "Women in top incomes – Evidence from Sweden 1971–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    6. Roman Bobilev & Anne Boschini & Jesper Roine, 2020. "Women in the Top of the Income Distribution: What Can We Learn From LIS-Data?," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 6(1), pages 63-107, March.
    7. Johannes König & Christian Schluter & Carsten Schröder, 2025. "Routes to the Top," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 71(2), May.
    8. Frank Cowell & Emmanuel Flachaire, 2021. "Inequality Measurement: Methods and Data," Post-Print hal-03589066, HAL.
    9. Boschini, Anne & Gunnarsson, Kristin & Roine, Jesper, 2017. "Women in Top Incomes: Evidence from Sweden 1974–2013," IZA Discussion Papers 10979, IZA Network @ LISER.
    10. Antoine Bozio & Bertrand Garbinti & Jonathan Goupille-Lebret & Malka Guillot & Thomas Piketty, 2018. "Inequality and Redistribution in France, 1990-2018: Evidence from Post-Tax Distributional National Accounts (DINA)," Working Papers hal-02878151, HAL.
    11. Arun Advani, 2022. "Who does and doesn't pay taxes?," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 5-22, March.
    12. Diego Winkelried & Bruno Escobar, 2022. "Declining inequality in Latin America? Robustness checks for Peru," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(1), pages 223-243, March.
    13. Thomas Blanchet & Bertrand Garbinti & Jonathan Goupille-Lebret & Clara Martínez-Toledano, 2018. "Applying Generalized Pareto Curves to Inequality Analysis," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 108, pages 114-118, May.
    14. Garbinti, Bertrand & Goupille-Lebret, Jonathan & Piketty, Thomas, 2018. "Income inequality in France, 1900–2014: Evidence from Distributional National Accounts (DINA)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 63-77.
    15. Nitin Kumar Bharti & Lucas Chancel & Thomas Piketty & Anmol Somanchi, 2024. "Income and Wealth Inequality in India, 1922-2023: The Rise of the Billionaire Raj," Working Papers halshs-04563836, HAL.
    16. Lieberknecht, Philipp & Vermeulen, Philip, 2018. "Inequality and relative saving rates at the top," Working Paper Series 2204, European Central Bank.
    17. Bartels, Charlotte & Waldenström, Daniel, 2021. "Inequality and top incomes," GLO Discussion Paper Series 959, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    18. Antoine Bozio & Bertrand Garbinti & Jonathan Goupille-Lebret & Malka Guillot & Thomas Piketty, 2020. "Predistribution vs. Redistribution: Evidence from France and the U.S," Institut des Politiques Publiques halshs-03022092, HAL.
    19. Bertrand Garbinti & Jonathan Goupille-Lebret & Thomas Piketty, 2017. "Income Inequality in France, 1900-2014: Evidence from Distributional National Accounts," Working Papers 201704, World Inequality Lab.
    20. Schäfer, Andreas & Prettner, Klaus, 2016. "The fall and rise of inequality," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145806, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • E01 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General - - - Measurement and Data on National Income and Product Accounts and Wealth; Environmental Accounts
    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mof:journl:ppr22_01_03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Policy Research Institute (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/prigvjp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.