IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pubfin/v20y1992i2p152-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Withholding Position and Income Tax Compliance: Some Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge Martinez-Vazquez

    (Georgia State University)

  • Gordon B. Harwood

    (Georgia State University)

  • Ernest R. Larkins

    (Georgia State University)

Abstract

There is a common belief that tax withholding systems have worked not only as Abstract efficient tax collection mechanisms but also as effective tax evasion controls. However, little is known about the role of withholding in tax compliance beyond the fact that withholding may reduce opportunities for evasion. This article analyzes in an experimental setting some effects that withholding may have on tax compliance. In particular, three hypotheses are examined concerning the reasons that individuals who unexpectedly find themselves underwithheld might decide to evade taxes: the reflection effect from prospect theory, which holds that risk-averse individuals may behave as risk-lovers when they perceive prospects as losses; the liquidity position of taxpayers; and fiscal illusion. The empirical results from the experiments give some support to the liquidity hypothesis but do not support the other two hypotheses.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Gordon B. Harwood & Ernest R. Larkins, 1992. "Withholding Position and Income Tax Compliance: Some Experimental Evidence," Public Finance Review, , vol. 20(2), pages 152-174, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:20:y:1992:i:2:p:152-174
    DOI: 10.1177/109114219202000202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/109114219202000202
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/109114219202000202?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. Sarah Lichtenstein & Paul Slovic, 1973. "Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in las vegas," Framed Field Experiments 00169, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    4. Yaniv, Gideon, 1988. "Withholding and non-withheld tax evasion," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 183-204, March.
    5. Hite, Peggy A., 1988. "An examination of the impact of subject selection on hypothetical and self-reported taxpayer noncompliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 445-466, December.
    6. Clotfelter, Charles T, 1983. "Tax Evasion and Tax Rates: An Analysis of Individual Returns," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 65(3), pages 363-373, August.
    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. Joulfaian, David & Rider, Mark, 1998. "Differential Taxation and TaxEvasion by Small Business," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 51(4), pages 675-687, December.
    2. Edwards, Kimberley D., 1996. "Prospect theory: A literature review," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 19-38.
    3. Copeland, Phyllis V. & Cuccia, Andrew D., 2002. "Multiple Determinants of Framing Referents in Tax Reporting and Compliance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 499-526, May.
    4. Fochmann, Martin & Wolf, Nadja, 2019. "Framing and salience effects in tax evasion decisions – An experiment on underreporting and overdeducting," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 260-277.
    5. Vossler, Christian A. & McKee, Michael & Bruner, David M., 2021. "Behavioral effects of tax withholding on tax compliance: Implications for information initiatives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 301-319.
    6. James Alm & Carolyn J. Bourdeaux, 2013. "Applying Behavioral Economics to the Public Sector," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 206(3), pages 91-134, September.
    7. Diller, Markus & Kühne, Daniela, 2020. "Framing and loss aversion in tax reporting behavior: Evidence from German income tax return data," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Betriebswirtschaftliche Reihe B-43-20, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    8. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Alm, James & Jacobson, Sarah, 2007. "Using Laboratory Experimentsin Public Economics," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 60(1), pages 129-152, March.
    11. McCubbin, Janet, 2000. "EITC Noncompliance: The Determinants of the Misreporting of Children," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(n. 4), pages 1135-64, December.
    12. James Alm & Matthias Kasper, 2020. "Laboratory Experiments," Working Papers 2008, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    13. Joulfaian, David & Rider, Mark, 1998. "Differential Taxation and TaxEvasion by Small Business," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 51(n. 4), pages 676-87, December.

    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. Vossler, Christian A. & McKee, Michael & Bruner, David M., 2021. "Behavioral effects of tax withholding on tax compliance: Implications for information initiatives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 301-319.
    2. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    3. William C. McDaniel & Francis Sistrunk, 1991. "Management Dilemmas and Decisions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 21-42, March.
    4. Wan-Yu Shih & Hsiang-Yu Yu & Cheng-Chia Lee & Chien-Chen Chou & Chien Chen & Paul W. Glimcher & Shih-Wei Wu, 2023. "Electrophysiological population dynamics reveal context dependencies during decision making in human frontal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, December.
    5. Roth, Gerrit, 2006. "Predicting the Gap between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Munich Dissertations in Economics 4901, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    6. Etchart-Vincent, Nathalie, 2007. "Expérimentation de laboratoire et économie : contre quelques idées reçues et faux problèmes," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 83(1), pages 91-116, mars.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:427-440 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Marek Kapera, 2022. "Learning own preferences through consumption," KAE Working Papers 2022-074, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    9. Michał Lewandowski, 2017. "Prospect Theory Versus Expected Utility Theory: Assumptions, Predictions, Intuition and Modelling of Risk Attitudes," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 9(4), pages 275-321, December.
    10. Enrico Rubaltelli & Stephan Dickert & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Response mode, compatibility, and dual-processes in the evaluation of simple gambles: An eye-tracking investigation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 427-440, July.
    11. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Wei-Hsiang Lin & Justin L Gardner & Shih-Wei Wu, 2020. "Context effects on probability estimation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-45, March.
    13. Smith, Richard David, 1996. "Is Regret Theory an alternative basis for estimating the value of healthcare interventions?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 105-115, August.
    14. James Alm, 2019. "What Motivates Tax Compliance?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 353-388, April.
    15. Reckers, Philip M.J. & Sanders, Debra L. & Roark, Stephen J., 1994. "The Influence of Ethical Attitudes on Taxpayer Compliance," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 47(4), pages 825-836, December.
    16. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    17. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    18. Chris Starmer, 1999. "Experiments in economics: should we trust the dismal scientists in white coats?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-30.
    19. Courgeau, Daniel, 2012. "Probability and social science : methodologial relationships between the two approaches ?," MPRA Paper 43102, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Joulfaian, David & Rider, Mark, 1996. "Tax Evasion in the Presence of Negative Income Tax Rates," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 49(4), pages 553-570, December.
    21. Semjén, András, 2017. "Az adózói magatartás különféle magyarázatai [Various explanations for tax compliance]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 140-184.

    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:sae:pubfin:v:20:y:1992:i:2:p:152-174. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.