2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2013.05.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning in experiments: Dynamic interaction of policy variables designed to deter tax evasion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Subsequent research has found that classical enforcement measures do have a weakening impact on tax evasion, but it can be either considerably small (Andreoni, Erard, & Feinstein, 1998) or have a reverse effect on the willingness to pay taxes (Feld & Frey, 2002;Kirchler, Hoelzl, & Wahl, 2008). The impact of audits has been analysed under different settings: performing audits only if declared income falls below a certain threshold (known as triggered audits or audit cut-off policy) or using the bounded rule, where taxpayers are provided with knowledge on the maximum number of audits to be carried out (Alm, Cronshaw, & McKee, 1993;Tan & Yim, 2014). Moreover, the classical viewpoint, which states that fines dominate over control through monitoring (therefore setting them at the maximum levels should result in higher compliance) is, however, a wrong approach, one which fails to consider the existence of imperfections in the market, asymmetric information and intrinsic implications under which an optimal fine level exists below the maximum level (Lisi, 2015).…”
Section: Theoretical Review Of Tax Behaviour Determinantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Subsequent research has found that classical enforcement measures do have a weakening impact on tax evasion, but it can be either considerably small (Andreoni, Erard, & Feinstein, 1998) or have a reverse effect on the willingness to pay taxes (Feld & Frey, 2002;Kirchler, Hoelzl, & Wahl, 2008). The impact of audits has been analysed under different settings: performing audits only if declared income falls below a certain threshold (known as triggered audits or audit cut-off policy) or using the bounded rule, where taxpayers are provided with knowledge on the maximum number of audits to be carried out (Alm, Cronshaw, & McKee, 1993;Tan & Yim, 2014). Moreover, the classical viewpoint, which states that fines dominate over control through monitoring (therefore setting them at the maximum levels should result in higher compliance) is, however, a wrong approach, one which fails to consider the existence of imperfections in the market, asymmetric information and intrinsic implications under which an optimal fine level exists below the maximum level (Lisi, 2015).…”
Section: Theoretical Review Of Tax Behaviour Determinantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tax evasion is not a one-shot decision; therefore, the study of dynamics (such as learning) in the model is essential for understanding the emergence or failure of different tax compliance aspects. A degree of dynamic interaction between audit and penalty rates can have an impact on tax behaviour, meaning that it is not any combination of these measurements that results in a divergence of an individual compliance level towards the one predicted by the neoclassical theory, as described through an adaptive learning model based on optimisation, in which successful decisions have a higher probability of being adopted (Soliman, Jones & Cullis, 2014). The concept of learning includes acknowledgement and expectation of the frequency of audits (so called the bomb-crater effect): an agent, being audited in a single period, believes he will not be audited in the next one (see e.g.…”
Section: Theoretical Review Of Tax Behaviour Determinantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The discussion of tax evasion detection techniques began with the incorporation of behavior analysis, pioneered by Allingham and Sandmo (1972), who studied reporting income of individual taxpayers under uncertainty. Exploration of psychology followed, such as the experiences of taxpayers with audit probability and penalty on evasion (Bruttel & Friehe 2014;Soliman, Jones & Cullis 2014;Tan & Yim 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other papers study the dynamic effects of tax behavior. For instance, Soliman et al (2014) explore experimentally the dynamic interaction between audit and penalty rates as individuals learn how to comply with taxation. In our paper, we focus mostly on the effects of peers' actions and information on individual risk preference.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%