IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/itaxpf/v29y2022i4d10.1007_s10797-021-09707-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The deterrence effect of real-world operational tax audits on self-employed taxpayers: evidence from Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriele Mazzolini

    (Italian Revenue Agency)

  • Laura Pagani

    (Università di Milano-Bicocca)

  • Alessandro Santoro

    (Università di Milano-Bicocca)

Abstract

We use a large administrative tax-returns panel dataset merged with a tax audit database to estimate the effect of real-world operational tax audits on subsequent tax behavior of a large sample of Italian self-employed taxpayers. Results from operational audits do not suffer from the fact that taxpayers are aware that they have been randomly selected for research purposes and, then, such audits are viewed as more of a signal about true audit rates by the taxpayer. Our empirical approach relies on fixed-effects difference-in-difference comparisons with an ex-ante matched sample of non-audited taxpayers. To address concerns about the endogenous selection into audit, we provide evidence for the common trends assumption. We find a positive and lasting effect of audits on subsequent reported income. However, in line with theoretical predictions, taxpayers do not increase tax compliance when the tax authority does not assess a positive additional income. Our results are robust to a variety of specifications and samples.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriele Mazzolini & Laura Pagani & Alessandro Santoro, 2022. "The deterrence effect of real-world operational tax audits on self-employed taxpayers: evidence from Italy," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(4), pages 1014-1046, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:itaxpf:v:29:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10797-021-09707-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10797-021-09707-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10797-021-09707-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10797-021-09707-9?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
    ---><---

    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. Raj Chetty, 2009. "Is the Taxable Income Elasticity Sufficient to Calculate Deadweight Loss? The Implications of Evasion and Avoidance," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 31-52, August.
    2. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    3. Galbiati, Roberto & Zanella, Giulio, 2012. "The tax evasion social multiplier: Evidence from Italy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 485-494.
    4. Gemmell, Norman & Ratto, Marisa, 2012. "Behavioral Responses to Taxpayer Audits: Evidence From Random Taxpayer Inquiries," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(1), pages 33-57, March.
    5. Knut Løyland & Oddbjørn Raaum & Gaute Torsvik & Arnstein Øvrum, 2019. "Compliance effects of risk-based tax audits," CESifo Working Paper Series 7616, CESifo.
    6. Karthik Muralidharan & Nishith Prakash, 2017. "Cycling to School: Increasing Secondary School Enrollment for Girls in India," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 321-350, July.
    7. Arun Advani & William Elming & Jonathan Shaw, 2023. "The Dynamic Effects of Tax Audits," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(3), pages 545-561, May.
    8. Paul Carrillo & Dina Pomeranz & Monica Singhal, 2017. "Dodging the Taxman: Firm Misreporting and Limits to Tax Enforcement," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 144-164, April.
    9. Slemrod, Joel & Blumenthal, Marsha & Christian, Charles, 2001. "Taxpayer response to an increased probability of audit: evidence from a controlled experiment in Minnesota," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 455-483, March.
    10. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/2jbidihgpo8bia7dbd5ipjlsi9 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Henrik Jacobsen Kleven & Martin B. Knudsen & Claus Thustrup Kreiner & Søren Pedersen & Emmanuel Saez, 2011. "Unwilling or Unable to Cheat? Evidence From a Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 651-692, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Paulus, Alari, 2015. "Tax evasion and measurement error: An econometric analysis of survey data linked with tax records," ISER Working Paper Series 2015-10, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    14. Henrik Jacobsen Kleven, 2014. "How Can Scandinavians Tax So Much?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 77-98, Fall.
    15. Pissarides, Christopher A. & Weber, Guglielmo, 1989. "An expenditure-based estimate of Britain's black economy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 17-32, June.
    16. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11056 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Slemrod, Joel, 2004. "The Economics of Corporate Tax Selfishness," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 57(4), pages 877-899, December.
    18. Joel Slemrod & Christian Gillitzer, 2014. "Editor's Choice Insights from a Tax-systems Perspective," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(1), pages 1-31.
    19. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2012. "Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 1-24, January.
    20. Kleven, Henrik Jacobsen, 2014. "How can Scandinavians tax so much?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 66111, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    21. Jason DeBacker & Bradley T. Heim & Anh Tran & Alexander Yuskavage, 2015. "Legal Enforcement and Corporate Behavior: An Analysis of Tax Aggressiveness after an Audit," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 291-324.
    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. Harju, Jarkko & Kotakorpi, Kaisa & Matikka, Tuomas & Nivala, Annika, 2024. "How Do Firms Respond to Risk-based Tax Audits?," Working Papers 165, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Kasper, Matthias & Rablen, Matthew D., 2023. "Tax compliance after an audit: Higher or lower?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 157-171.

    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. Gabriele, Mazzolini & Laura, Pagani & Alessandro, Santoro, 2017. "The deterrence effect of real-world operational tax audits," Working Papers 359, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 03 Feb 2017.
    2. Knut Løyland & Oddbjørn Raaum & Gaute Torsvik & Arnstein Øvrum, 2019. "Compliance effects of risk-based tax audits," CESifo Working Paper Series 7616, CESifo.
    3. Motta Café, Renata & Yarygina, Anastasiya & Escalante, Lisseth, 2024. "Leveraging Data to Improve Tax Compliance for Micro and Small Firms: Evidence from Brazil," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 13603, Inter-American Development Bank.
    4. James Alm, 2019. "What Motivates Tax Compliance?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 353-388, April.
    5. Marie Bjørneby & Annette Alstadsæter & Kjetil Telle, 2018. "Collusive tax evasion by employers and employees. Evidence from a randomized fi eld experiment in Norway," Discussion Papers 891, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    6. Dina Pomeranz & José Vila-Belda, 2019. "Taking State-Capacity Research to the Field: Insights from Collaborations with Tax Authorities," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 755-781, August.
    7. Kristoffer Berg & Thor O. Thoresen, 2020. "Problematic response margins in the estimation of the elasticity of taxable income," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(3), pages 721-752, June.
    8. Kasper, Matthias & Rablen, Matthew D., 2023. "Tax compliance after an audit: Higher or lower?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 157-171.
    9. Lopez-Luzuriaga, Andrea & Scartascini, Carlos, 2019. "Compliance spillovers across taxes: The role of penalties and detection," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 518-534.
    10. Hebous, Shafik & Jia, Zhiyang & Løyland, Knut & Thoresen, Thor O. & Øvrum, Arnstein, 2023. "Do Audits Improve Future Tax Compliance in the Absence of Penalties? Evidence from Random Audits in Norway," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 305-326.
    11. Torsvik, Gaute & Raaum, Oddbjørn & Løyland, Knut & Øvrum, Arnstein, 2019. "Compliance effects of risk-based tax audits," OSF Preprints 6u3ns_v1, Center for Open Science.
    12. Christiansen, Tobias Gabel, 2024. "Dynamic effects of tax audits and the role of intentions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    13. Eberhartinger, Eva & Safaei, Reyhaneh & Sureth, Caren & Wu, Yuchen, 2021. "Are risk-based tax audit stretegies rewarded? An analysis of corporate tax avoidance," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 267, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    14. Ojala, Hannu & Malo, Pekka & Penttinen, Esko, 2023. "Private firms’ tax aggressiveness and lightweight pre-tax-audit interventions by the tax administration," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    15. Henrik Jacobsen Kleven & Claus Thustrup Kreiner & Emmanuel Saez, 2016. "Why Can Modern Governments Tax So Much? An Agency Model of Firms as Fiscal Intermediaries," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(330), pages 219-246, April.
    16. Annette Alstadsæter & Niels Johannesen & Gabriel Zucman, 2019. "Tax Evasion and Inequality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(6), pages 2073-2103, June.
    17. Belev, Sergei & Vekerle, Konstantin & Evdokimova, Anastasiia, 2021. "The difference in tax evasion amount among various taxpayers’ groups in Russia," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 62, pages 66-84.
    18. Sebastian Beer & Matthias Kasper & Erich Kirchler & Brian Erard, 0. "Do Audits Deter or Provoke Future Tax Noncompliance? Evidence on Self-Employed Taxpayers," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 66(3), pages 248-264.
    19. Kaisa Kotakorpiⓡ & Tuomas Nurminenⓡ & Topi Miettinen ⓡ & Satu Metsälampiⓡ & Kaisa Kotakorpi, 2022. "Bearing the Burden - Implications of Tax Reporting Institutions and Image Concerns on Evasion and Incidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9791, CESifo.
    20. Joana Naritomi, 2019. "Consumers as Tax Auditors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(9), pages 3031-3072, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tax compliance; Administrative panel data; Tax audits;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H26 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Tax Evasion and Avoidance
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C55 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Large Data Sets: Modeling and Analysis

    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:kap:itaxpf:v:29:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10797-021-09707-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.