Individual Income Tax Policy
Streamlining, Simplification, and Additional Reforms Are Desirable
Gao ID: GAO-06-1028T August 3, 2006
The federal government currently relies heavily on the individual income tax and payroll taxes for about 80 percent of its total annual revenue. Long-range projections show that without some form of policy change, the gap between revenues and spending will increasingly widen. The debate about the future tax system is partly about whether the goals for the nation's tax system can be best achieved by reforming the current income tax so that it has a broader base and flatter rate schedule, or switching to some form of consumption tax. This testimony reviews the revenue contribution of the current individual income tax as well as its complexity, economic efficiency, equity, and taxpayer compliance issues; discusses some common dimensions to compare tax proposals; and draws some conclusions for tax reform. This statement is based on previously published GAO work and reviews of relevant literature.
The United States faces a large and growing structural budget deficit as current projected revenues are not sufficient to fund projected spending. The individual income tax has long been the largest source of federal revenue--amounting to $927 billion (7.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)) in 2005. (Total revenues that year amounted to 17.5 percent of GDP.) Income tax policy, including existing tax expenditures, such as the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from individual income, and enforcement approaches, need to be key elements of a multipronged approach that reexamines federal policies and approaches to address our nation's large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance. Concerns regarding the complexity, efficiency, and equity of the individual income tax have contributed to calls for a substantial restructuring of the individual income tax or its full or partial replacement with some form of consumption tax. The widely recognized complexity of the tax results in (1) significant compliance costs, frustration, and anxiety for taxpayers; (2) decreased voluntary compliance; (3) increased difficulties for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in administering the tax laws; and (4) reduced confidence in the fairness of the tax. The tax also causes taxpayers to change their work, savings, investment, and consumption behavior in ways that reduce economic efficiency and, thereby, taxpayers' well-being. Taxpayer noncompliance with the current individual income tax is another factor that could motivate reform. For tax year 2001, IRS estimated that noncompliance with the individual income tax accounted for about 70 percent of the $345 billion gross tax gap, which is the difference between the taxes that should have been paid voluntarily and on time and what was actually paid. Reducing this gap can improve the nation's fiscal stability, as each 1 percent reduction in the tax gap would likely yield about $3 billion annually. Reducing the tax gap within the current income tax structure will require exploring new and innovative administrative and legislative approaches. In moving forward on tax reform, policymakers may find it useful to compare alternative proposals along some common dimensions. These include, in part, whether proposed tax systems over time will generate enough revenue to fund expected expenditures, whether the base is as broad as possible so rates can be as low as possible, whether the system meets our future needs, and whether it has attributes that promote compliance. Our publication, Understanding the Tax Reform Debate (GAO-05-1009SP), provides background, criteria, and questions that policymakers may find useful.
GAO-06-1028T, Individual Income Tax Policy: Streamlining, Simplification, and Additional Reforms Are Desirable
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1028T
entitled 'Individual Income Tax Policy: Streamlining, Simplification,
and Additional Reforms Are Desirable' which was released on August 3,
2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, August 3, 2006:
Individual Income Tax Policy:
Streamlining, Simplification, and Additional Reforms Are Desirable:
Statement of David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States:
GAO-06-1028T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-1028T, a testimony before the Committee on
Finance, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal government currently relies heavily on the individual
income tax and payroll taxes for about 80 percent of its total annual
revenue. Long-range projections show that without some form of policy
change, the gap between revenues and spending will increasingly widen.
The debate about the future tax system is partly about whether the
goals for the nation‘s tax system can be best achieved by reforming the
current income tax so that it has a broader base and flatter rate
schedule, or switching to some form of consumption tax.
This testimony reviews the revenue contribution of the current
individual income tax as well as its complexity, economic efficiency,
equity, and taxpayer compliance issues; discusses some common
dimensions to compare tax proposals; and draws some conclusions for tax
reform.
This statement is based on previously published GAO work and reviews of
relevant literature.
What GAO Found:
The United States faces a large and growing structural budget deficit
as current projected revenues are not sufficient to fund projected
spending. The individual income tax has long been the largest source of
federal revenue”amounting to $927 billion (7.5 percent of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP)) in 2005. (Total revenues that year amounted to
17.5 percent of GDP.) Income tax policy, including existing tax
expenditures, such as the exclusion of employer-provided health
insurance from individual income, and enforcement approaches, need to
be key elements of a multipronged approach that reexamines federal
policies and approaches to address our nation‘s large and growing long-
term fiscal imbalance.
Concerns regarding the complexity, efficiency, and equity of the
individual income tax have contributed to calls for a substantial
restructuring of the individual income tax or its full or partial
replacement with some form of consumption tax. The widely recognized
complexity of the tax results in (1) significant compliance costs,
frustration, and anxiety for taxpayers; (2) decreased voluntary
compliance; (3) increased difficulties for the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) in administering the tax laws; and (4) reduced confidence in the
fairness of the tax. The tax also causes taxpayers to change their
work, savings, investment, and consumption behavior in ways that reduce
economic efficiency and, thereby, taxpayers‘ well-being.
Taxpayer noncompliance with the current individual income tax is
another factor that could motivate reform. For tax year 2001, IRS
estimated that noncompliance with the individual income tax accounted
for about 70 percent of the $345 billion gross tax gap, which is the
difference between the taxes that should have been paid voluntarily and
on time and what was actually paid. Reducing this gap can improve the
nation‘s fiscal stability, as each 1 percent reduction in the tax gap
would likely yield about $3 billion annually. Reducing the tax gap
within the current income tax structure will require exploring new and
innovative administrative and legislative approaches.
In moving forward on tax reform, policymakers may find it useful to
compare alternative proposals along some common dimensions. These
include, in part, whether proposed tax systems over time will generate
enough revenue to fund expected expenditures, whether the base is as
broad as possible so rates can be as low as possible, whether the
system meets our future needs, and whether it has attributes that
promote compliance. Our publication, Understanding the Tax Reform
Debate (GAO-05-1009SP), provides background, criteria, and questions
that policymakers may find useful.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO--06-1028T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact James White at (202) 512-
9110 or whitej@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate this opportunity to contribute to your consideration of
fundamental tax reform by discussing the individual income tax.
Although the focus of my statement is the individual income tax, it
clearly makes sense to consider a broader reform encompassing both the
individual and corporate income taxes and much of my message is
applicable to broad reforms.[Footnote 1]
As the Committee is well aware, two fundamental objectives of a tax
system are (1) to raise revenue sufficient to fund projected spending
and (2) to do so in a manner that is fair, relatively easy to
administer, and minimizes negative effects on the economy.
Unfortunately, over time, the accumulated changes to our individual tax
system have not been consistent with these objectives and, not
surprisingly, there is a growing debate about the fundamental design of
the current tax system.
The debate about the future tax system is partly about whether the
goals for the nation's tax system can be best achieved by reforming the
current income tax so that it has a broader base and a flatter rate
schedule, or switching in whole or in part to some form of a
consumption tax. The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
has taken a major step in beginning this debate.[Footnote 2] The Panel
suggested two alternative proposals for coordinated reform of the
individual and corporate income taxes and thereby advanced the public
debate over how best to simplify these taxes and their proposals
include the desirable combination of broader tax bases and lower tax
rates.
My statement reviews the revenue contribution of the current individual
income tax as well as its complexity, economic efficiency, equity, and
taxpayer compliance issues. It also draws some conclusions regarding
the need for tax reform. My statement today makes the following points:
* The debate about the fundamental design of the tax system is
occurring at a time when the nation also faces a large and growing
structural budget deficit, as under current policy, the gap between
revenues and spending will widen over the next few decades. The
individual income tax has long been the single largest source of
federal tax revenue--amounting to $927 billion in 2005. Individual
income tax policy, including existing tax expenditures and enforcement
approaches, needs to be an element of a multipronged approach that
reexamines existing federal policies and approaches to address the
nation's large long-term fiscal imbalance.
* Concerns regarding the complexity, economic efficiency, and overall
equity of the individual income tax have contributed to calls for a
substantial restructuring of the individual tax or its full or partial
replacement with some form of consumption tax. The widely recognized
complexity of the tax results in (1) significant compliance costs,
frustration and anxiety for taxpayers; (2) decreased voluntary
compliance; (3) increased difficulties for the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) in administering the tax laws; and (4) reduced confidence in the
fairness of the tax. As discussed in our publication, Understanding the
Tax Reform Debate[Footnote 3] the individual income tax also causes
taxpayers to change their work, savings, investment, and consumption
behavior in ways that reduce economic efficiency and taxpayers' well-
being.
* Taxpayer noncompliance with the current individual income tax is
another factor that could motivate reform. For tax year 2001, IRS
estimated that noncompliance with the individual income tax accounted
for about 70 percent of the $345 billion gross tax gap, which is the
difference between the taxes that should have been paid voluntarily and
on time and what was actually paid. Reducing this gap can improve the
nation's fiscal stability, as each 1 percent reduction in the tax gap
would likely yield about $3 billion annually. Given its persistence and
size, reducing the tax gap within the current income tax structure will
require exploring new and innovative administrative and legislative
approaches.
* In moving forward on tax reform, policymakers may find it useful to
compare alternative proposals along some common dimensions. Among these
are whether a proposed tax system will generate sufficient revenue over
time to fund whatever spending path is chosen, whether the base is as
broad as possible so rates can be as low as possible, and whether it
has attributes that promote compliance. Our publication, Understanding
the Tax Reform Debate, provides background, criteria, and questions
that policymakers should find useful.[Footnote 4]
My statement today is drawn from previous GAO reports and testimonies,
which were done in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards, as well as reviews of relevant literature.
Background:
The base of the individual income tax covers income paid to
individuals, such as wages, interest, dividends, realized net capital
gains, various forms of business income, and income from pensions,
annuities, trusts and estates. This tax base is reduced by personal
exemptions for taxpayers and their spouses and children, as well as by
numerous preferences--statutorily defined as tax expenditures--such as
the deduction for mortgage interest, the earned income tax credit, and
the exclusion of the value of employer-provided health insurance from
individuals' taxable income and taxable wage base. The statutory rates
of tax on net taxable income range from 10 percent to 35 percent. Lower
rates (5 percent and 15 percent, depending on taxable income) apply to
long-term capital gains and dividend income.
Individuals may also pay tax under the alternative minimum tax (AMT).
The base of this tax equals regular taxable income, plus the value of
various tax items, including personal exemptions and certain itemized
deductions that are added back into the base. This AMT income base is
then reduced by a substantial exemption and then taxed at a rate of 26
percent or 28 percent, depending on the taxpayer's income level.
Taxpayers compare their AMT tax liabilities to their regular tax
liabilities and pay the greater of the two.
Although the income tax applies to all who have taxable income, nearly
all workers pay social insurance taxes to fund retirement, disability
and retiree health programs. According to Congressional Budget Office
estimates, in 2000 over 40 percent of households paid more in just
their portion of social insurance taxes than they paid in income taxes.
Further, when both their contribution and their employers' is counted,
over 70 percent of households paid more in social insurance taxes than
they did in income taxes. The consensus among economists is that the
employees ultimately bear the entire social insurance tax burden. In
2005 workers paid a total of $794 billion in social insurance taxes to
fund federal social insurance, retirement, disability, and retiree
health programs. This amount was in addition to their income tax
liabilities. From the taxpayers' view, these taxes may not appear
significantly different than income taxes. They reduce the workers'
take-home pay each pay period and, although the taxes are set aside in
a separate account to fund specific benefits, the portion of these
taxes not immediately needed for current beneficiaries goes to fund
current government expenses just like income taxes.
Three long-standing criteria--equity; economic efficiency; and a
combination of simplicity, transparency, and administrability--are
typically used to evaluate tax policy. These criteria are often in
conflict with each other and, as a result, there are usually trade-offs
to consider and people are likely to disagree about the relative
importance of the criteria.
To the extent that a tax is not simple and efficient, it imposes costs
on taxpayers beyond the payments they make to the U.S. Treasury. As
shown in figure 1, the total cost of any tax from a taxpayer's point of
view is the sum of the tax liability, the cost of complying with the
tax system, and the economic efficiency costs that the tax imposes. In
deciding on the size of government, we balance the total cost of taxes
with the benefits provided by government programs.
Figure 1: Components of the Total Cost of a Tax to Taxpayers:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The United States Faces a Large and Growing Structural Budget Deficit:
Over the long term, the United States faces a large and growing
structural budget deficit primarily caused by known demographic trends
and rising health care costs, and this deficit is exacerbated over time
by growing interest on the ever larger federal debt. Continuing on this
imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode, if not
suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately
our national security. Addressing the nation's long-term fiscal
imbalances constitutes a major transformational challenge that may take
a generation or more to resolve. Fiscal necessity may prompt a
fundamental review of major program and policy areas. Many current
federal programs and policies--including tax policies--were designed
decades ago to respond to trends and challenges that existed then but
may no longer suit our 21st century needs. Clearly, the individual
income, social insurance, and corporate income taxes, which have been
the federal government's three largest sources of revenue, will need to
be considered in any plan for addressing the nation's long-term fiscal
imbalance.
Revenues from the Current Tax System Are Not Sufficient to Fund
Projected Spending:
Over the next few decades, as the baby boom generation retires, federal
spending on retirement and health programs, such as Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid, will grow dramatically and bind the nation's
fiscal future. Absent policy changes on the spending and/or revenue
sides of the budget, a growing imbalance between federal spending and
tax revenues will mean escalating and ultimately unsustainable federal
deficits and debt. In simple terms, the gap between projected spending
and expected revenues grows larger every year. For example, as figure 2
indicates, if discretionary spending grows at the same rate as the
economy, all expiring tax provisions are extended, and then federal
revenues are held as a constant share of the economy, revenues could be
adequate to cover little more than interest on the federal debt by
2040.
Figure 2: Composition of Federal Spending as a Share of GDP, Assuming
Discretionary Spending Grows with GDP after 2006 and That Expiring Tax
Provisions Are Extended:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO's May 2006 analysis.
Note: The revenue projection in this figure includes certain tax
provisions that expired at the end of 2005, such as the increased
alternative minimum tax exemption amount.
[End of figure]
We cannot grow our way out of this long-term fiscal challenge because
the imbalance between spending and revenue is so large. We will need to
make tough choices using a multipronged approach: (1) revise budget
processes and financial reporting requirements; (2) restructure
entitlement programs; (3) reexamine the base of discretionary spending
and other spending; and (4) review and revise tax policy, including tax
expenditures and tax enforcement programs. Individual income tax
policy, tax expenditures, and enforcement need to be key elements of
the overall tax review.
One promising--and perhaps necessary--approach to tackling both the tax
and entitlements part of our long-term fiscal challenge is a credible,
capable, and bipartisan Tax and Entitlements Reform Commission. Such an
approach would help ensure that any decisions made on taxes and
spending are well coordinated and will produce a sustainable fiscal
system that meets agreed-upon objectives.
The Individual Income Tax Is the Largest Single Source of Federal
Revenues:
The individual income tax has long been the single largest source of
federal tax revenue. In 2005, individual taxpayers paid $927 billion in
income taxes. Figure 3 shows the relative importance of federal taxes.
Since 1962, the individual income tax has ranged between a low of 7
percent (in 2004) and a high of 10.3 percent (in 2000) of gross
domestic product (GDP). Over the same period, social insurance taxes
have grown considerably in importance--from 3 percent of GDP in 1962 to
6.5 percent of GDP (or $794 billion) in 2005. Revenue from the
individual income tax has historically accounted for between 40 percent
and 50 percent of total federal tax revenue. In contrast, in the early
1960s, social insurance taxes accounted for less than 20 percent of the
total; however, they have grown to represent 37.1 percent of revenue in
2005.
Figure 3: Federal Revenues as a Percentage of GDP, 1962 to 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO representation of Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
data.
[End of figure]
Individual Income Tax Complexity, Compliance, and Efficiency Costs and
Equity Concerns Contribute to Calls for Reform:
Concerns about the complexity, efficiency, and equity of the individual
income tax have motivated calls for a substantial restructuring of the
tax or its replacement with some form of consumption tax. The widely
recognized complexity of the tax results in (1) significant compliance
costs, frustration, and anxiety for taxpayers; (2) decreased voluntary
compliance; (3) increased difficulties for IRS in administering the tax
laws; and (4) reduced confidence in the fairness of the tax. The
individual income tax also causes taxpayers to change their work,
savings, investment, and consumption behavior in ways that reduce their
well-being.[Footnote 5] These reductions in well-being, known to
economists as efficiency costs, are likely to be large--perhaps on the
order of 2 percent of GDP or more. The success of our tax system hinges
very much on the public's perception of its fairness and transparency.
There are differences of opinion about the overall fairness of the
individual income tax and concerns have been expressed about the equity
of many specific features of the tax.
Important Sources of Complexity Are Income Documentation Requirements
and Tax Expenditure Rules:
If they are to take advantage of the many tax benefits in the tax code,
virtually all taxpayers must familiarize themselves with, or pay
someone to advise them on, the sometimes complex rules for determining
whether they qualify (and, if so, to what extent). Moreover, in cases
where multiple tax expenditures have similar purposes, taxpayers may
have to devote considerable time to learn and plan in order to make
optimal use of these tax benefits. For example, the IRS publication Tax
Benefits for Education[Footnote 6] outlines 12 tax expenditures,
including 4 different tax expenditures for educational saving. The use
of one of these tax expenditures can affect whether (or how) a taxpayer
is allowed to use the other tax expenditures. Adding to the taxpayer's
challenge to select the best educational tax benefit, the use of one of
these tax expenditures may affect a student's eligibility for other
forms of federal assistance for higher education, such as Pell grants
and subsidized loans.[Footnote 7]
The tax benefits, or tax expenditures, available under the income tax
are usually justified on the grounds that they promote certain social
or economic goals. They grant special tax relief (through deductions,
credits, exemptions, etc.) that encourages certain types of behavior by
taxpayers or aids taxpayers in certain circumstances. Tax expenditures
can promote a wide range of goals, like encouraging economic
development in disadvantaged areas, financing postsecondary education,
or stimulating research and development. For example, a wide range of
tax provisions are intended to help individuals save for their
retirement. These include traditional and Roth Individual Retirement
Accounts (IRA) and various plans administered by employers or available
to self-employed individuals. Again, individuals face complex choices
to select the best options as well as complex rules to stay in
compliance once they select a retirement savings option. From a public
policy perspective, all of this complexity and the burden it imposes on
taxpayers would most likely be worthwhile if the tax incentives are
successful in achieving their intended purposes. However, in many cases
this is questionable or unknown. Although research results vary, many
studies suggest that IRAs result in little actual increase in
retirement saving. One concern is that individuals can take a lump sum
withdrawal and, depending on how the sum is used, the individual may
not have a sufficient stream of income over his/her remaining lifetime.
Tax Expenditures Have Been Growing:
The sum of the revenue loss estimates associated with tax expenditures
was more than $775 billion in 2005 and the vast majority of this loss
was for tax expenditures provided to individuals, rather than to
corporations.[Footnote 8] As the data in figure 4 indicate, revenue
losses due to tax expenditures exceeded discretionary spending for half
of the last decade.
Figure 4: Trends in Spending and Tax Expenditure Revenue Losses, 1982-
2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OMB budget reports on tax expenditures, fiscal
years 1976-2007.
Note: Summing the individual tax expenditure estimates is useful for
gauging the general magnitude of the federal revenue involved, but it
does not take into account possible interactions between individual
provisions.
[End of figure]
Much of the revenue loss due to individual income tax expenditures is
attributable to a small number of large tax expenditures. The seven tax
expenditures shown in figure 5--each with an annual revenue loss
estimated at $36 billion or more--accounted for about half of the sum
of revenue losses for all tax expenditures for fiscal year 2005. With
revenue losses estimated at $4.9 billion, the earned income tax credit
(EITC) does not appear on this list. The EITC has both revenue losses
and outlays when a taxpayer's refund exceeds their tax liability. If
$34.6 billion in associated outlays were included, this refundable
credit would rank among the largest tax expenditures.
Figure 5: Revenue Loss Estimates for the Seven Largest Reported Tax
Expenditures for Individuals, Fiscal Year 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal year 2007.
[A] If the payroll tax exclusion were also counted here, the total tax
expenditure for employer contributions for health insurance premiums
would be about 50 percent higher or $177.6 billion.
[B] This is the revenue loss and does not include associated outlays of
$14.6 billion.
[End of figure]
Although Difficult to Measure, Compliance Burden Is Likely a
Significant Cost to Taxpayers:
The costs of complying with the individual income tax are large but
unclear. IRS's most recent estimates suggest that these costs are
roughly on the order of ½ to 1 percent of GDP. These costs include the
time and money spent complying with the computational, reporting,
planning, and recordkeeping requirements of the tax system. Estimates
of compliance costs are uncertain because taxpayers generally do not
keep relevant records documenting their time and money spent complying
with the tax system and many important elements of the costs are
difficult to measure because, among other things, federal tax
requirements often overlap with recordkeeping and reporting that
taxpayers do for other purposes.
The available compliance cost estimates do not represent the potential
cost savings to be gained by replacing the current federal individual
income tax. Any replacement tax system will impose significant
compliance costs of its own. Moreover, given that many state and local
government income taxes depend upon the same compliance activities as
the federal income tax does, taxpayers would still bear the costs of
those activities unless those other governments replaced their own
taxes to conform to the new federal system. In addition, if some of the
subsidies, such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit,
which are provided by the current federal tax system, are replaced by
spending programs under a reformed system, tax compliance costs may be
reduced, but only as a result of their being shifted to those new
programs. Similarly, if a replacement tax system no longer requires
individuals to compute and document their incomes, individuals will
still need to document their incomes for borrowing and other purposes,
and government statistical agencies will incur expenses to replace the
data that they currently obtain from income tax returns.
Taxes Generally Reduce Economic Efficiency:
Taxes impose efficiency costs by altering taxpayers' behavior, inducing
them to shift resources from higher valued uses to lower valued uses in
an effort to reduce tax liability. This change in behavior can cause a
reduction in taxpayers' well-being that, for example, may include lost
production (or income) and consumption opportunities. One important
behavioral change attributable to the income tax arises from the fact
that investment in housing is given more favorable treatment than
investment in business activities. Economists generally agree that this
differential tax treatment reduces the amount of money available to
businesses for investment in productivity-enhancing technology. This in
turn results in employees receiving lower wages because increases in
wages are generally tied to increases in productivity. The tax
exclusion for the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from
individuals' taxable income, discussed in text box 1, is another
example of an income tax provision that clearly reduces economic
efficiency. The exclusion encourages more extensive insurance coverage,
but introduces a well-known problem with health insurance. Because much
of the cost of medical treatment is paid for by the insurer, patients
and doctors are generally unaware of, or disconnected from, the total
costs of health care and have little incentive to economize on health
care spending.
Efficiency costs, along with the tax liability paid to the government
and the costs of complying with tax laws, are part of the total cost of
taxes to taxpayers. However, this does not mean that taxes are not
worth paying. One reason people bear taxes is they desire the benefits
of government programs and services. (The government does deliver some
services effectively and often provides services that otherwise would
not be available.) Taxpayers implicitly or explicitly balance the costs
of taxes with the benefits of government.
Nevertheless, minimizing efficiency costs is one criterion for a good
tax. Economists agree that taxes with broad bases and low rates
generally cause lower efficiency costs than do taxes with narrow bases
and high rates. The goal of tax policy is to design a tax system that
produces revenue needed to pay current bills and deliver on future
promises while at the same time balancing economic efficiency with
other objectives, such as equity, simplicity, transparency, and
administrability. Moreover, as noted earlier, the failure to provide
sufficient tax revenues to finance the level of spending we choose as a
nation gives rise to deficits and debt. Large, sustained deficits could
ultimately have a negative impact on economic growth, productivity, and
potentially our national security. Large structural deficits also raise
serious stewardship and intergenerational equity issues.
Text Box 1: Tax Expenditure for Employer-Provided Medical Insurance
Premiums and Medical Care:
The current U.S. tax system excludes employer-provided health insurance
from individuals' taxable income even though such insurance is a form
of income (noncash compensation). The Department of the Treasury
estimates that the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance
resulted in $118.4 billion in lost revenue during 2005, not including
forgone social insurance taxes and state taxes. Including forgone
federal social insurance taxes, an estimated $177.6 billion in revenue
was forgone due to this exclusion.
The tax exclusion increases the proportion of the population covered by
health insurance. In 2004, nearly 46 million Americans were without
health insurance. The tax exclusion encourages employers to offer and
employees to participate in health insurance plans, increasing the
proportion of workers covered. Because individuals may be better able
to anticipate their health care needs than insurers, health care plans
may attract customers with higher risk of poor health, resulting in
higher premiums. By encouraging the pooling of high-and low-risk
individuals, the tax exclusion may help to reduce premiums below those
that individuals would face if they purchased insurance on their own.
However, some question whether the tax subsidy for health insurance is
the best way to increase health insurance coverage. For example, the
tax exclusion provides the most assistance to taxpayers who have high
marginal tax rates (those with high incomes)”the exclusion saves those
taxpayers more in taxes owed than it saves those with lower marginal
tax rates.
The tax exclusion for health insurance also contributes to higher
health care costs. The exclusion, by lowering premiums, encourages more
extensive insurance coverage, which compounds another well-known
problem with health insurance. Because much of the cost of medical
treatment is paid for by a third party (the insurer), patients and
doctors are generally unaware of, or disconnected from, the total costs
of health care and have little incentive to economize on health care
spending.
Unlike the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, an
ideal health care payment system would foster the delivery of care that
is both effective and efficient, resulting in better value for the
dollars spent on health care.
[End of Text Box]
Efficiency Costs Resulting from the Individual Income Tax Are Likely to
Be Large but Can Only Be Estimated with Considerable Uncertainty:
Estimating the efficiency costs of the federal tax system is an
enormous, complicated, and uncertain task, given the complexity of
existing tax rules, the breadth and diversity of the U.S. economy and
population, and the limited empirical evidence available on how
individuals and businesses change their behavior in response to tax
rules. In practice, researchers have not been able to obtain and
analyze all of the detailed data they need to produce efficiency cost
estimates that are free from a large degree of uncertainty.
The two studies that have made the most comprehensive estimates of the
efficiency costs arising from the individual income tax in the past two
decades suggest that those costs are considerable. The first study,
which examined the combined efficiency costs of the individual income
and payroll taxes, estimated those costs to have been on the order of 2
to 5 percent of GDP in 1994.[Footnote 9] Estimates from the second
study indicate that the efficiency cost of the individual income tax
was on the order of 2 percent of GDP in 1997.[Footnote 10] Efficiency
cost estimates such as these are often quite sensitive to the assumed
magnitude of key behavioral responses and those assumptions are often
based on empirical research that continues to evolve over time or, in
other cases, has yet to be undertaken. For example, the consensus of
recent research is that individuals are less responsive to changes in
taxes than the first study assumed them to be.
The extent to which efficiency gains could be realized by switching to
an alternative tax system depends critically on the detailed
characteristics of the alternative. All of the alternative tax system
proposals that have received serious consideration in recent decades
would have imposed significant efficiency costs. Moreover, in assessing
the potential efficiency gains from any tax reform proposal it is also
important to consider compensating changes that may be made on the
spending side of the federal budget. For example, if any tax
expenditures in the current federal income taxes are replaced by
grants, spending programs, regulations, or other forms of nontax
subsidies, those subsidies can result in efficiency costs similar in
magnitude to those associated with the tax expenditures they replaced.
Perceptions of Inequities in the Tax System Can Undermine Its Success:
The success of our tax system hinges very much on the public's
perception of its fairness and transparency. The myriad of tax
deductions, credits, special rates, and so forth cause taxpayers to
doubt the fairness of the tax system because they do not know whether
those with the same ability to pay actually pay the same amount of tax.
Fairness is ultimately a matter of personal judgment about issues such
as how progressive tax rates should be and what constitutes ability to
pay.
Public confidence in the nation's tax laws and tax administration is
critical because we rely heavily on a system of voluntary compliance.
If taxpayers do not believe that the tax system is credible, easy to
understand, and treats everyone fairly, then voluntary compliance is
likely to decline. The latest available IRS estimates indicate that
about 84 percent of total taxes due for tax year 2001 were paid
voluntarily and on time. Complexity and the lack of transparency it can
create exacerbate doubts about the current tax system's fairness.
There are differences of opinion about the fairness of the individual
income tax. Likewise, concerns have been expressed about the equity of
many specific features of the tax, such as:
* marriage penalties (and bonuses) built into the tax under which the
combined tax liabilities of two individuals differ, depending on
whether or not those individuals are married;
* the inconsistent treatment between taxable wages and salaries and
other components of total employee compensation, such as employer-
provided health benefits that are not taxed;
* the fact that many low-income individuals face high effective
marginal tax rates over certain income ranges as the benefits of tax
preferences, such as the earned income tax credit, phase out;
* the provision of certain tax benefits in the form of deductions,
which are more valuable to taxpayers in higher income brackets, rather
than as tax credits;
* the requirement that a taxpayer must own a home in order to receive
the significant advantage of tax-preferred borrowing; and:
* the greater ease with which self-employed individuals can underreport
income, compared to employees whose incomes are subject to withholding
and third-party reporting.
Judging the equity of the individual income tax can depend
substantially on the frame of reference used. For example, for many, a
progressive tax code is considered to be more equitable. When looked at
in isolation, the individual income tax system is somewhat progressive.
If the frame of reference is expanded, however, and payroll taxes are
also taken into account, total progressivity drops.[Footnote 11] As
mentioned earlier, more than 70 percent of taxpayers are estimated to
pay more in payroll taxes than individual income taxes when the
combined employee and employer shares are considered.[Footnote 12]
These frames of reference, of course, look only at the payment of
taxes. An even wider frame of reference would take into account the
benefits taxpayers receive, which could alter yet again judgments about
the equity of the tax system. In fact, it could be argued that the full
effect of federal government policies on different groups of
individuals can only be determined by examining the effects of all
federal taxes, spending programs, and regulations.
Ensuring Individual Taxpayer Compliance with the Tax Laws Is
Challenging:
The extent of individual taxpayer noncompliance with the current tax
laws is another factor that could motivate calls for reform. Ensuring
compliance with our nation's tax laws is a challenging process for both
taxpayers and IRS. The difficulty in ensuring compliance is underscored
by the tax gap--the difference between the taxes that should be paid
voluntarily and on time and what is actually paid--that arises every
year when taxpayers fail to comply fully with the tax laws. Most
recently, IRS estimated the gross tax gap for tax year 2001 to be $345
billion, including individual income, corporate income, employment,
estate, and excise taxes. IRS estimated it would eventually recover
about $55 billion of the gross tax gap through late payments and
enforcement actions, resulting in a net tax gap of $290
billion.[Footnote 13]
About 70 percent of the gross tax gap for tax year 2001, or an
estimated $244 billion, was attributed to the individual income tax. As
shown in table 1, individual taxpayers that underreported their income,
underpaid their taxes, or failed to file an individual tax return
altogether or on time (nonfiling) accounted for $197 billion, $23
billion, and $25 billion of the tax gap, respectively.
Table 1: Individual Income Tax Portion of the Tax Year 2001 Gross Tax
Gap Estimate:
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): $197.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Business income;
ax gap (dollars in billions): 109.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Business income: Nonfarm
proprietor income;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 68.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Business income: Partnership, S-
Corp, estate and trust;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 22.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Business income: Rents &
royalties;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 13.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Business income: Farm income;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 6.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Nonbusiness income;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 56.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Nonbusiness income: Capital
gains;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 11.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Nonbusiness income: Wages,
salaries, tips;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 10.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Nonbusiness income: Pensions and
annuities;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 4.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Nonbusiness income: Interest and
dividend income;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 3.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Nonbusiness income: Other;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 28.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Credits;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 17.
Type of noncompliance: Underreporting: Deductions, exemptions,
adjustments;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 15.
Type of noncompliance: Underpayment;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 23.
Type of noncompliance: Nonfiling;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): 25.
Type of noncompliance: Total;
Tax gap (dollars in billions): $244.
Source: IRS.
Note: Figures may not sum to totals because of rounding.
[End of table]
Improving compliance and reducing the tax gap would help improve the
nation's fiscal stability. Even modest progress would yield significant
revenue; each 1 percent reduction would likely yield nearly $3 billion
annually. However, the tax gap has been a persistent problem in spite
of a myriad of congressional and IRS efforts to reduce it, as the rate
at which taxpayers voluntarily comply with our tax laws has changed
little over the past three decades. As such, we need to consider not
only options that have been previously proposed but also explore new
and innovative approaches to improving compliance including fundamental
reform of the tax system as well as providing IRS with additional
enforcement tools and ensuring that significant resources are devoted
to enforcement.
Fundamentally reforming our tax system has the potential to improve
compliance, especially if a new system has few tax preferences or
complex tax code provisions and if taxable transactions are transparent
to tax administrators. One factor that some believe contributes to the
difficulty of achieving compliance is the complexity of our tax system.
The complexity of, and frequent revisions to, the tax system make it
more difficult and costly for taxpayers who want to comply to do so and
for IRS to explain and enforce tax laws. Complexity also creates a
fertile ground for those intentionally seeking to evade taxes, and
often trips others into unintentional noncompliance. Likewise, the
complexity of the tax system challenges IRS in its ability to
administer our tax laws.
Whether under our current income tax system or a reformed one,
enforcement tools, particularly information reporting[Footnote 14] and
tax withholding,[Footnote 15] are key to high levels of compliance. The
extent to which individual taxpayers accurately report the income they
earn has been shown to be related to the extent to which the income is
reported to them and IRS by third parties or taxes on the income are
withheld, as shown in figure 6. Taxpayers tend to report income subject
to tax withholding or information reporting with high levels of
compliance because the income is transparent to the taxpayers as well
as to IRS. For example, employers report most wages, salaries, and tip
compensation to employees and IRS through Form W-2. Also, banks and
other financial institutions provide information returns (Forms 1099)
to account holders and IRS showing the taxpayers' annual income from
some types of investments. Findings from IRS's recent study of
individual tax compliance indicate that nearly 99 percent of these
types of income are accurately reported on individual tax returns. For
types of income for which there is little or no information reporting,
individual taxpayers tend to misreport over half of their income.
Figure 6: Individual Net Income Misreporting Categorized by the Extent
of Income Subject to Withholding and Information Reporting:
[See PDF for image]
Source: IRS.
[End of figure]
Ensuring that significant resources are devoted to enforcement also has
the potential to minimize the tax gap for our current income tax system
as well as for reformed systems Congress may adopt. For the current
system, devoting more resources has the potential to reduce the tax gap
by billions of dollars in that IRS would be able to expand its
enforcement efforts to reach a greater number of potentially
noncompliant taxpayers. Importantly, expanded enforcement efforts could
reduce the tax gap more than through direct tax revenue collection, as
widespread agreement exists that IRS enforcement programs have an
indirect effect through increases in voluntary tax compliance.[Footnote
16] However, determining the appropriate level of enforcement resources
to provide IRS requires taking into account many factors, such as how
effectively and efficiently IRS is currently using its resources, how
to strike the proper balance between IRS's taxpayer service and
enforcement activities, and competing federal funding priorities.
Generally, when holding IRS accountable for the use of resources, it is
also desirable to focus on the outcomes achieved rather than on how IRS
allocates the resources it receives. Results are really what counts. If
IRS, or any other agency, can figure out how to more cost effectively
achieve a result, then reallocation of resources to other problem areas
could be an appropriate strategy, within the restrictions applying to
appropriation accounts, for making the best use of limited resources.
In sum, regardless of the tax system, Congress needs to assure itself
that the revenue agency has sufficient resources and reasonable
flexibility to achieve desired outcomes and hold the agency accountable
for those outcomes.
Comparing Proposals on Common Dimensions:
In moving forward on tax reform, policymakers may find it useful to
compare proposals on common dimensions. These comparisons can be
helpful whether reform is of the individual income tax, the current tax
system more broadly, or in considering new systems altogether.
First, is the tax base as broad as possible? Broad-based tax systems
with minimal exceptions have many advantages. Fewer exceptions
generally means less complexity, less compliance cost, less economic
efficiency loss, and by increasing transparency may improve equity or
perceptions of equity. In terms of the individual income tax, this
suggests that eliminating or consolidating the myriad of tax
expenditures must be considered. We need to be sure that the benefits
achieved from having these special provisions are worth the associated
revenue losses just as we must ensure that outlay programs--which may
be attempting to achieve the same purposes as tax expenditures--achieve
outcomes commensurate with their costs. To the extent tax expenditures
are retained, consideration should be given to whether they are better
targeted to meet an identified need. Many tax expenditures are broadly
available and, in fact, provide greater "assistance" to those that most
would consider least in need. This is broadly true of any tax
expenditure that is worth more to higher income taxpayers than to lower
income taxpayers, like the exclusion for the value of employer-provided
health insurance and the mortgage interest deduction.
Broad based tax systems can yield the same revenue as more narrowly
based systems at lower tax rates. The combination of less direct
intervention in the marketplace from special tax preferences, and the
lower rates possible from broad based systems, can have substantial
benefits for economic efficiency. For instance, some economists
estimate that the economic efficiency costs of tax increases rise
proportionately faster than the tax rates. In other words, a 50 percent
tax increase could more than double the economic efficiency costs of a
tax system.
Does the proposed system raise sufficient revenue over time to fund our
expected expenditures? As I mentioned earlier, we will fall woefully
short of achieving this end if current spending and/or revenue trends
are not altered. The economic efficiency costs of our current tax
system likely will become an even more important issue as we grapple
with the nation's long-term fiscal challenges. Although we clearly must
restructure major entitlement programs and the basis of other federal
spending, it is unlikely that our long-term fiscal challenge will be
resolved solely by cutting spending. If we must raise revenues, doing
so from a broad base and a lower rate will help minimize economic
efficiency costs.
In this regard, the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform has taken
a useful step forward for tax reform, helping, for example, to focus
the debate on specific proposals. Those proposals incorporate broader
bases, with lower rates. However, the Panel acted within the guidance
it was given, and one result is that the proposed reforms, if
implemented as proposed, appear to provide much less than the necessary
revenue to fund expected government spending. Although we have not
evaluated the revenue effects of these proposals, other respected
analysts have and they point to future revenue yields that would worsen
the already difficult fiscal challenges the nation faces.
Does the proposal look to future needs? Like many spending programs,
the current tax system was developed in a profoundly different time. We
live now in a much more global economy, with highly mobile capital, and
investment options available to ordinary citizens that were not even
imagined decades ago. We have growing concentrations of income and
wealth. More firms operate multi-nationally and willingly move
operations and capital around the world as they see best for their
firms.
Do the revenues for the proposed system hold up in the future? As an
adjunct to looking forward when making reforms, the revenue
consequences of all major tax changes should be estimated well into the
future. Such long-term projections undoubtedly will be subject to
uncertainty, but at the very least we should have the best estimates
possible of whether the revenue trend is likely to shift up or down
over the long-term.
Does the proposed system have attributes associated with high
compliance rates? Because any tax system can be subject to tax gaps,
the administrability of reformed systems should be considered as part
of the debate for change. In general, a reformed system is most likely
to have a small tax gap if the system has few tax preferences or
complex provisions and taxable transactions are transparent.
Transparency in the context of tax administration is best achieved when
third parties report information both to the taxpayer and the tax
administrator.
What transition issues exist and have they been dealt with in an
equitable fashion that minimizes additional complexity and any adverse
effects on the benefits to be gained from the new tax system? Under the
current individual income tax system, citizens have made fundamental
life choices based at least in part on the incentives in the tax
system. For many, the favorable tax treatment of owner-occupied housing
has led to choices to invest disproportionately in housing. Others have
made long-term investments in tax-favored college savings plans. Thus,
changes to the tax system can materially affect citizens' futures.
Still others make their livings advising taxpayers, helping them
understand tax provisions and complete their tax returns, and helping
them devise investment and other financial plans taking into account
current tax rules.
Our publication, Understanding the Tax Reform Debate: Background,
Criteria, and Questions,[Footnote 17] may be useful in guiding
policymakers as they consider tax reform proposals. It was designed to
aid policymakers in thinking about how to develop tax policy for the
21st century. While not designed to break new conceptual ground, this
report brings together a number of topics that tax experts have
identified as those that should be considered when evaluating tax
policy. It attempts to provide information about these topics in a
clear, concise, and easily understandable manner for a non-technical
audience.
Concluding Observations:
The problems that I have reviewed today relating to the compliance
costs, efficiency costs, equity and tax gap associated with the current
individual income tax system--many of which arise from the complex
accumulation of tax preferences in that system--would seem to make an
overwhelming case for a comprehensive review and reform of our tax
policy. Further, we live a world that is profoundly different than when
the individual income tax and many of its provisions were adopted.
Despite numerous and repeated calls for such reform, progress has been
slow. One reason why reform is difficult to accomplish is that the
provisions of the tax code that generate compliance costs, efficiency
costs, the tax gap and inequities also benefit many taxpayers and the
individuals and companies that advise taxpayers and help them with
their tax filing obligations. Reform is also difficult because, even
when there is agreement on the amount of revenue to raise, there are
differing opinions on the appropriate balance among the often
conflicting objectives of equity, efficiency, and administrability.
This, in turn, leads to widely divergent views on even the basic
direction of reform.
Fiscal necessity, prompted by the nation's unsustainable fiscal path,
will eventually force changes to our spending and tax policies. We must
fundamentally rethink policies and everything must be on the table.
Tough choices will have to be made about the appropriate degree of
emphasis on cutting back federal programs versus increasing tax
revenue.
Tax reform, if it broadens the tax base, could reduce the costs of
raising a given amount of revenue by reducing the associated efficiency
costs. Such a reform also likely would reduce inequities, compliance
burden, and administrative costs. The recent report of the President's
Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform recommended two different tax
reform plans. Although each plan provides for significant
simplification, neither of them addresses the growing imbalance between
federal spending and revenues that I highlighted earlier. One approach
for getting the process of comprehensive fiscal reform started would be
through the establishment of a credible, capable, and bipartisan
commission, to examine options for a combination of entitlement and tax
reform.
As policymakers consider proposals to reform the current individual
income tax, or the entire tax system, they may find it useful to
compare the proposals on common dimensions. Our publication,
Understanding the Tax Reform Debate, may be useful when making these
comparisons.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes my statement.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information on this testimony please contact James White on
(202) 512-9110 or whitej@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this testimony. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony include Michael Brostek, Director; Kevin Daly and Jim Wozny,
Assistant Directors; Jeff Arkin; Elizabeth Fan; Tom Gilbert; Don
Marples; and Jeff Procak.
FOOTNOTES
[1] I addressed a number of issues relating to the corporate income tax
in a statement before this committee several weeks ago. See GAO, Tax
Compliance: Challenges to Corporate Tax Enforcement and Options to
Improve Securities Basis Reporting, GAO-06-851T (Washington, D.C.: June
13, 2006).
[2] President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, Simple, Fair, and
Pro-Growth: Proposals to Fix America's Tax System, (Washington, D.C.:
November 2005).
[3] GAO, Understanding the Tax Reform Debate: Background, Criteria, &
Questions, GAO-05-1009SP (Washington, D.C.: September 2005).
[4] GAO-05-1009SP.
[5] GAO-05-1009SP.
[6] Department of the Treasury, IRS, Publication 970, Tax Benefits for
Education, 2004.
[7] Three of the tax incentives for saving--Coverdell Education Savings
Accounts, Qualified Tuition Programs, and U.S. education savings bonds-
-differ across more than a dozen dimensions. Similarly, three other tax
expenditures, all of which help students meet current costs--the Hope
credit, Lifetime Learning credit, and the tuition deduction--differ in
terms of eligibility criteria, benefit levels, and income-related phase-
outs. For a fuller discussion, including estimates of the number of
taxpayers who made suboptimal choices in selecting among three tax
provisions, see GAO, Student Aid and Postsecondary Tax Preferences:
Limited Research Exists on Effectiveness of Tools to Assist Students
and Families through Title IV Student Aid and Tax Preferences, GAO-05-
684 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005).
[8] Summing the individual tax expenditure estimates is useful for
gauging the general magnitude of the federal revenue involved, but it
does not take into account possible interactions between individual
provisions.
[9] Martin Feldstein, "Tax Avoidance and the Deadweight Loss of the
Income Tax," The Review of Economics and Statistics (1999).
[10] Dale Jorgenson and Kun-Young Yun, Investment Volume 3: Lifting the
Burden: Tax Reform, the Cost of Capital, and U.S. Economic Growth
(Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press), 2001.
[11] Although it makes sense to consider the significant additional
burden of social insurance taxes when evaluating individual tax
burdens, there is some disagreement regarding the proper way to analyze
the two taxes jointly. Many economists consider the portion of payroll
taxes that fund Old-Age and Survivors Insurance benefits to be
materially different from other federal taxes because individuals
receive future benefits that are directly related to the amount of tax
they pay. In their view some account should be made of the
redistributive nature of the social security benefits formula. (See,
for example, Richard V. Burkhauser and John A. Turner, "Is the Social
Security Payroll Tax a Tax?," 13 Public Finance Quarterly, (1985) and
Andrew Mitrusi and James Poterba, "The Distribution of Payroll and
Income Tax Burdens, 1979-99," National Tax Journal, Vol. 53 no. 3 Part
2 (September 2000) pp. 765- 794.) Other observers assert that future
benefits are an entitlement based on participation in the workforce,
not on the payment of tax, and that all social insurance taxes should
be treated the same as individual income taxes when analyzing the
distribution of tax burdens. (See Patricia E. Dilley, "Taking Public
Rights Private: The Rhetoric and Reality of Social Security
Privatization," Boston College Law Review, 975 (2000) and Deborah A.
Geier, "Integrating the Federal Tax Burden on Labor Income," Tax Notes,
January 27, 2003), pp. 563-583.)
[12] The Tax Policy Center, using its tax simulation model, has
estimated that 96 percent of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than
individual income taxes when both the employee and employer shares of
taxes are considered. Economists widely agree that the employee bears
the full amount of the payroll tax.
[13] Unless otherwise noted, references to the tax gap refer to the
gross tax gap.
[14] Information reporting involves the filing of information returns
with IRS and taxpayers that contain information on certain
transactions, such as wage and salary information employers report to
employees and IRS through Form W-2.
[15] An example of tax withholding is when employers withhold taxes on
the wages that employees earn and remit them to IRS.
[16] Two types of indirect effect are (1) the increase in voluntary
compliance in the larger population resulting from examinations or
other enforcement and nonenforcement actions on targeted taxpayers, and
(2) the increase in voluntary compliance of the targeted taxpayer in
subsequent years.
[17] GAO-05-1009SP.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: