The Effects of Prefilled Tax Returns on Taxpayer Compliance

Author(s):  
Marcus M. Doxey ◽  
James G. Lawson ◽  
Shane R. Stinson

This study uses two online experiments to examine the potential consequences of a recent U.S. Senate proposal to prefill federal income tax returns on behalf of individuals. Consistent with omission theory, we find that prefilled returns lower compliance compared to selfcompleted returns when the prefilled returns do not estimate undocumented income (e.g., cash tips). However, the results show that including estimates of undocumented income increases taxpayer compliance relative to self-completed returns. We also find evidence suggesting that prefilled returns eliminate the often-replicated differences in reporting behavior between taxpayers in refund versus tax due settlement positions, suggesting that prefilled returns change individuals' reference points. These findings suggest the implementation of a prefilled return policy could have economically important effects on taxpayer decisions.

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Anderson

To improve use tax compliance, twenty-seven states have added a line to their income tax returns where taxpayers can report taxable sales. This article reports results of a behavioral study of a postcard “nudge” sent to income tax filers in one of those states, Nebraska, to encourage self-reporting of liability. The research question is whether the informational nudge was sufficient to alter self-reporting behavior. Data indicate that the nudge more than doubled the likelihood of use tax reporting and nearly doubled the amount of revenue collected, but the rate of use tax reporting remains extremely low. Probit models reveal that use tax reporting rises with income at a decreasing rate. Selection models are also estimated because of positive selection bias in the selection of the treatment group. Taken together, the results indicate that an informational nudge is not likely to be sufficient to substantially change use tax reporting behavior.


1999 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Bryan Cloyd ◽  
Brian C. Spilker

Tax professionals provide valuable services to clients by reducing uncertainty about how clients should report transactions on their tax returns. To reduce uncertainty, tax professionals research applicable authorities (e.g., judicial precedents) and provide assessments to clients of the level of authoritative support for client-favorable positions. Tax professionals have strong incentives to make accurate assessments of the strength of client-preferred positions so that clients will understand the level of risk associated with the reporting position. Further, tax professionals must make accurate assessments of authoritative support in order to maintain compliance with tax professional standards and Federal income tax regulations. Incentives notwithstanding, psychological research on confirmation bias suggests that tax professionals' client advocacy role may inhibit professionals' ability to search objectively for relevant tax authority which, in turn, might inhibit their ability to accurately assess authoritative support. We report the results of two studies that examine causes and effects of confirmation bias in tax information search. In study 1, we find that subjects' information searches emphasized cases with conclusions consistent with the client's desired outcome (i.e., positive cases) over cases inconsistent with the client's desired outcome (i.e., negative cases), despite the fact that positive cases were no more similar to the client's facts. Additional analyses indicate that the extent of this confirmation bias was positively related to their assessments of the likelihood that a neutral court would resolve the issue in the client's favor and this in turn increased the strength with which they recommended the client's preferred tax position. Results of study 2 indicate that confirmation bias induced by client preferences can be strong enough to not only result in inaccurate assessments of authoritative support for the client-favored position, which is problematic in and of itself, but also to lead tax professionals to make overly aggressive recommendations.


2020 ◽  
pp. 089976402097769
Author(s):  
Nicolas J. Duquette

I compute the share of U.S. household giving accounted for by the American tax units donating the largest amounts over the 1960–2012 period from repeated cross-sectional samples of federal income tax returns. The share of donations accounted for by a minority of top donors rose sharply over this period. Donor concentration has risen both because the largest gifts have grown larger and because more households give little or nothing in any given year.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document