IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kch/wpaper/sdes-2015-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who is audited? Experimental study on rule-based tax auditing schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Yoshio Kamijo

    (School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology)

  • Takehito Masuda

    () (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science)

  • Hiroshi Uemura

    (School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology)

Abstract

In this study, we employ a game theoretic framework to formulate and analyze tax audit schemes. We test the theoretical predictions in a laboratory experiment. We compare audit schemes based on three audit rules: random audit rule, cut-off audit rule, and lowest income reporter audited rule (LIRA). While the cut-off audit rule is known to be optimal in theory, it has not been examined in a controlled laboratory experimental setting. The primary experimental finding is that LIRA rule yields the highest degree of truthful reporting among the rules, contrary to the theory. Moreover, the regression analysis shows that individual social norms regarding tax payment as well as the cut-off rule and the LIRA significantly increase the degree of truthful reporting. Our experimental finding that the LIRA yields the highest degree of truthful reporting is practically important because the tax authority in most countries assigns higher priority for enhancing tax compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoshio Kamijo & Takehito Masuda & Hiroshi Uemura, 2015. "Who is audited? Experimental study on rule-based tax auditing schemes," Working Papers SDES-2015-21, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2015.
  • Handle: RePEc:kch:wpaper:sdes-2015-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.souken.kochi-tech.ac.jp/seido/wp/SDES-2015-21.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allingham, Michael G. & Sandmo, Agnar, 1972. "Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 323-338, November.
    2. James Alm & Mark B. Cronshaw & Michael Mckee, 1993. "Tax Compliance with Endogenous Audit Selection Rules," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 27-45, February.
    3. Alm, James, 1988. "Uncertain Tax Policies, Individual Behavior, and Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(1), pages 237-245, March.
    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. Ronald G. Cummings & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Michael McKee, 2001. "Cross Cultural Comparisions of Tax Compliance Behavior," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0103, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    2. Meinarni Asnawi, 2016. "Tax Compliance Decision Analysis: Audit Strategy, Audit Rate, Perceived Probability of Audit, and Taxpayer Ethics," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 8(3), pages 11-21.
    3. Torgler, Benno & Schneider, Friedrich & Schaltegger, Christoph A., 2007. "With or Against the People? The Impact of a Bottom-Up Approach on Tax Morale and the Shadow Economy," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt6331x6vz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    4. Mattos, Enlinson & Rocha, Fabiana & Toporcov, Patricia, 2013. "Programas de incentivos fiscais são eficazes? Evidência a partir da avaliação do impacto do programa nota fiscal paulista sobre a arrecadação de ICMS," Revista Brasileira de Economia - RBE, EPGE Brazilian School of Economics and Finance - FGV EPGE (Brazil), vol. 67(1), April.
    5. Christian A. Vossler & Scott M. Gilpatric, 2017. "Endogenous Tax Audits and Taxpayer Assistance Services: Theory and Experiments," Working Papers 2017-01, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    6. Christian A. Vossler & Michael McKee, 2017. "Efficient Tax Reporting: The Effects Of Taxpayer Liability Information Services," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 920-940, April.
    7. Casal, Sandro & Mittone, Luigi, 2016. "Social esteem versus social stigma: The role of anonymity in an income reporting game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 55-66.
    8. repec:fgv:epgrbe:v:67:n:1:a:5 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Alm, James & Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge & McClellan, Chandler, 2016. "Corruption and firm tax evasion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 146-163.
    10. C. Cadsby & Elizabeth Maynes & Viswanath Trivedi, 2006. "Tax compliance and obedience to authority at home and in the lab: A new experimental approach," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(4), pages 343-359, December.
    11. Eide, Erling, 1998. "Optimal Provision of Public Goods with Rank Dependent Expected Utility," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 53(3-4), pages 296-311.
    12. Phillips, Mark D., 2014. "Deterrence vs. gamesmanship: Taxpayer response to targeted audits and endogenous penalties," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 81-98.
    13. Pickhardt, Michael & Seibold, Goetz, 2014. "Income tax evasion dynamics: Evidence from an agent-based econophysics model," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 147-160.
    14. Bayer, Ralph & Cowell, Frank, 2009. "Tax compliance and firms' strategic interdependence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(11-12), pages 1131-1143, December.
    15. Levaggi, Rosella & Menoncin, Francesco, 2016. "Optimal dynamic tax evasion: A portfolio approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 115-129.
    16. Erling Eide, 2001. "Rank dependent expected utility models of tax evasion," ICER Working Papers 27-2001, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    17. Cummings, Ronald G. & Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge & McKee, Michael & Torgler, Benno, 2009. "Tax morale affects tax compliance: Evidence from surveys and an artefactual field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 447-457, June.
    18. Ma, Yong & Jiang, Hao & Xiao, Weilin, 2021. "Tax evasion, audits with memory, and portfolio choice," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 896-909.
    19. James, Simon & Alley, Clinton, 2002. "Tax compliance, self-assessment and tax administration," MPRA Paper 26906, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. James Alm, 2014. "Does an uncertain tax system encourage üaggressive tax planningý?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 30-38.
    21. Giorgio Coricelli & Mateus Joffily & Claude Montmarquette & Marie Villeval, 2010. "Cheating, emotions, and rationality: an experiment on tax evasion," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(2), pages 226-247, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    audit schemes; tax evasion; laboratory experiment; cut-off rule; lowest income reporter audited rule;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • H26 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Tax Evasion and Avoidance

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:kch:wpaper:sdes-2015-21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sachiko Minami). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/smkocjp.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.