IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jpbect/v3y2001i2p225-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revenge, Tax Informing, and the Optimal Bounty

Author

Listed:
  • Gideon Yaniv

Abstract

A common belief is that the IRS pays tax informants 10% of whatever their tips produce in revenue. Actually, the bounty rate is even lower, averaging, in recent years, less than 2% of the amount of taxes and fines recovered. Why is it that the IRS is so tightfisted in rewarding informants who help recover taxes that otherwise would not have been recovered? The present paper approaches this question from an economic perspective, introducing a simple model of the informing decision, the implications of which are incorporated into the tax administration's problem of selecting a bounty rate, as well as a probability of convicting informed‐upon evaders, that maximize its expected net revenues from tax informing. The paper shows that a revenue‐maximizing tax administration would set its bounty rate lower and its prosecution efforts higher, the stronger, at the margin, informants' desire to get revenge on former parties with whom they have quarreled. While the IRS may be guided by ethical and moral considerations in designing its bounty scheme, it nevertheless behaves as if it were cynically exploiting informants' emotional drives, cutting down on their fair share in the recovered amounts to help finance its efforts in prosecuting informed‐upon evaders.

Suggested Citation

  • Gideon Yaniv, 2001. "Revenge, Tax Informing, and the Optimal Bounty," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 3(2), pages 225-233, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jpbect:v:3:y:2001:i:2:p:225-233
    DOI: 10.1111/1097-3923.00064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1097-3923.00064
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1097-3923.00064?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cécile Bazart & Mickael Beaud & Dimitri Dubois, 2020. "Whistleblowing vs. Random Audit: An Experimental Test of Relative Efficiency," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 47-67, February.
    2. Antinyan, Armenak & Corazzini, Luca & Pavesi, Filippo, 2020. "Does trust in the government matter for whistleblowing on tax evaders? Survey and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 77-95.
    3. Nir Dagan & Yossi Tobol, 2005. "Tax evasion, informants, and optimal auditing policy," Economic theory and game theory 021, Nir Dagan.
    4. Masclet, David & Montmarquette, Claude & Viennot-Briot, Nathalie, 2019. "Can whistleblower programs reduce tax evasion? Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    5. Farrar, Jonathan & Hausserman, Cass & Rennie, Morina, 2019. "The influence of revenge and financial rewards on tax fraud reporting intentions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 102-116.
    6. Rustam Romaniuc & Dimitri Dubois & Eugen Dimant & Adrian Lupusor & Valeriu Prohnitchi, 2022. "Understanding cross-cultural differences in peer reporting practices: evidence from tax evasion games in Moldova and France," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 127-147, January.
    7. Matthew Gould & Matthew D. Rablen, 2020. "Voluntary disclosure schemes for offshore tax evasion," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(4), pages 805-831, August.
    8. Francesco Flaviano Russo, 2018. "Reporting tax evasion," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(3), pages 917-933, December.
    9. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:8:y:2003:i:9:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. VafaI, Kouroche, 2005. "Abuse of authority and collusion in organizations," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 385-405, June.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jpbect:v:3:y:2001:i:2:p:225-233. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/apettea.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.