IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reecon/v63y2009i2p127-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A model of the Italian cut-off system for taxing small businesses

Author

Listed:
  • Marchese, Carla
  • Privileggi, Fabio

Abstract

The Studi di Settore are used by the Italian tax administration to calculate reference revenue levels for small businesses and provide a kind of cut-off level for tax audits. Recently new rules have been introduced in order to render the Studi di Settore more efficient in producing realistic estimates, with the aim of reducing the "legalized evasion"Â that might arise in case of a systematic downward bias. Voices of the involved categories, however, convinced the Government to partially step back. Building upon the standard firm's tax evasion model of Cowell [Cowell, F.A., 2004. Carrots and sticks in enforcement. In: Aaron, H.J., Slemrod, J. (Eds.), The Crisis in Tax Administration. The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, pp. 230-275] and the approach of Santoro [Santoro, A.C., 2006. Evasione delle società di capitali: evidenze empiriche e proposte di policy. In: Brosio, G., Muraro, M. (Eds.), Il Finanziamento del Settore Pubblico. SIEP, Angeli, Milano, pp. 163-186] we show that, under given conditions, a stringency increase might backfire implying a larger overall tax evasion and a smaller tax revenue.

Suggested Citation

  • Marchese, Carla & Privileggi, Fabio, 2009. "A model of the Italian cut-off system for taxing small businesses," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 127-134, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reecon:v:63:y:2009:i:2:p:127-134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090-9443(09)00013-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shlomo Yitzhaki, 2007. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Presumptive Taxation," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 63(3), pages 311-326, September.
    2. Alessandro Balestrino & Umberto Galmarini, 2005. "On the Redistributive Properties of Presumptive Taxation," CESifo Working Paper Series 1381, CESifo.
    3. Reinganum, Jennifer F. & Wilde, Louis L., 1985. "Income tax compliance in a principal-agent framework," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Sugden, Robert & Zamarron, Ignacio E., 2006. "Finding the key: The riddle of focal points," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 609-621, October.
    5. Marchese, Carla & Privileggi, Fabio, 1997. "Taxpayers' Attitudes toward Risk and Amnesty Participation: Economic Analysis and Evidence for the Italian Case," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 52(3-4), pages 394-410.
    6. Glen Ueng, K. L. & Yang, C. C., 2001. "Plea bargaining with the IRS: extensions and further results," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 83-98, July.
    7. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 1987. "Audit Classes and Tax Enforcement Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 229-233, May.
    8. Carla Marchese & Fabio Privileggi, 2004. "Tax Amnesties and the Self-Selection of Risk-Averse Taxpayers," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 319-341, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Busato, Francesco & Chiarini, Bruno & Rey, Guido M., 2012. "Equilibrium implications of fiscal policy with tax evasion: A long run perspective," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 197-214.
    2. Bruno Chiarini & Simona Monteleone, 2016. "Discretionary policy, strategic complementarity and tax evasion: a strategic analysis of the Italian audit mechanism," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(1), pages 99-117, April.
    3. Tan, Fangfang & Yim, Andrew, 2014. "Can strategic uncertainty help deter tax evasion? An experiment on auditing rules," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 161-174.

    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. Privileggi, Fabio, 2007. "The cutoff policy of taxation when CRRA taxpayers differ in risk aversion coefficients and income: a proof," POLIS Working Papers 99, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    2. Marisa Ratto & Thibaud Verge, 2002. "Optimal Audit Policy and Heterogenous Agents," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 02/054, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    3. Laszlo Goerke, 2015. "Income tax buyouts and income tax evasion," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(1), pages 120-143, February.
    4. Mirco Tonin, 2014. "Reporting import tariffs (and other taxes)," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(1), pages 153-173, February.
    5. Jordi Caballé & Judith Panadés, 2005. "Cost Uncertainty and Taxpayer Compliance," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(3), pages 239-263, May.
    6. Bayer, Ralph-C & Sutter, Matthias, 2009. "The excess burden of tax evasion--An experimental detection-concealment contest," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 527-543, July.
    7. Jellal, Mohamed, 2009. "Bureaucracy and Corruption Taxation Proof," MPRA Paper 17177, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Matthew Gould & Matthew Rablen, 2016. "Voluntary Disclosure Schemes for Offshore Tax Evasion: An Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 5750, CESifo.
    9. 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.
    10. Duccio Gamannossi degl’Innocenti & Matthew D. Rablen, 2017. "Tax avoidance and optimal income tax enforcement," IFS Working Papers W17/08, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Jellal, Mohamed & Bouzahzah, Mohamed, 2012. "Corruption and tax evasion an optimal policy," MPRA Paper 38813, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Carla Marchese & Fabio Privileggi, 2004. "Tax Amnesties and the Self-Selection of Risk-Averse Taxpayers," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 319-341, December.
    13. Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1994. "Optimal Law Enforcement with Self-Reporting of Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(3), pages 583-606, June.
    14. Slemrod, Joel & Yitzhaki, Shlomo, 2002. "Tax avoidance, evasion, and administration," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 22, pages 1423-1470, Elsevier.
    15. Marchese, Carla & Privileggi, Fabio, 2007. "Increasing the efficiency of the 'Studi di Settore' might backfire," POLIS Working Papers 83, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    16. Philipp Meyer-Brauns, 2014. "Optimal Auditing with Heterogeneous Audit Perceptions," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2014-06, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    17. Alexander Cuntz, 2016. "The Quest for Robust Counterfeit and Piracy Figures: Custom Agencies as Statistical Decision-makers and Recent Evidence Based on German Imports," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 873-887, June.
    18. Meng-Yu Liang & C.C. Yang, 2007. "On the Budget-Constrained IRS: Equilibrium and Equilibrium and efficiency," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 07-A002, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
    19. Tan, Fangfang & Yim, Andrew, 2014. "Can strategic uncertainty help deter tax evasion? An experiment on auditing rules," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 161-174.
    20. A. Yeliz Kaçamak, 2022. "The role of information aggregators in tax compliance," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(2), pages 237-285, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tax evasion by firms Cut-off rule;

    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:eee:reecon:v:63:y:2009:i:2:p:127-134. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622941 .

    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.