what’s the real impact of irs audits?

blue audit button on keyboardthree types, including one that some taxpayers don’t recognize as an audit.

by 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 research

according to harper’s magazine, more than half of all americans would rather be mugged than audited by the irs. and many americans don’t see much of a difference between the two events.

more: why shouldn’t all tax practitioners need licenses? | data divers profile taxpayer filing styles | salary survey shows pay for tax professionals | fixing the tax system: accountants sound off | 2 ways the eitc error rate is high
goprocpa.comexclusively for pro members. log in here or 2022世界杯足球排名 today.

and that’s a problem. because fear and loathing are not conducive to voluntary compliance.

what taxpayer can help but cringe at the thought of having to document every penny of income and deduction? and the fact is, taxpayers are supposed to cringe at the thought of an audit. that’s half the purpose of audits – to encourage compliance through deterrence.

but how well does deterrence work?

the irs should be concerned.

according to several social science research studies, deterrence has some effect on compliance, but a few other factors may have even stronger impacts. and deterrence, in the form of audits and subsequent penalties, may actually work against compliance.

the american system of taxation depends fundamentally on voluntary compliance. no one is looking over every taxpayer’s shoulder as they try to figure out what they owe and what they can legally get away with. without voluntary compliance, the whole system falls apart. the nation goes broke.

the irs, therefore, is concerned about factors that positively or negatively impact compliance. and national taxpayer advocate nina e. olson believes the irs should be even more concerned.

in its annual report to congress, the taxpayer advocacy service says, “… the national taxpayer advocate believes that in selecting returns and evaluating audit cases, the irs should research and consider how the audits build taxpayers’ trust and affect future voluntary compliance.”

according to a few studies, audits, regardless of their outcome, may actually discourage subsequent compliance.

audits in decline

over the years, with its budget steadily reduced, the irs has been conducting fewer and fewer audits. in 2007, 1.5 million, or 0.9 percent of taxpayers, got the bad news. ten years later, the irs touched 1.1 million, or just 0.5 percent, of taxpayers.

 

bar chart of 2017 closed audits by type

 

the irs conducts three kinds of audits.

  • correspondence (71 percent of audits)
  • office (10 percent of audits)
  • field (19 percent of audits)

audits are mandated from three divisions of the irs.

  • wage & investment (w&i) handles taxpayers who pay taxes through withholding. all w&i audits are done through correspondence.
  • small business and self-employed (sb/se) handles compliance of businesses with assets under $10 million and self-employed individuals.
  • large business and international (lb&i) handles larger companies and individuals with international implications.

correspondence audits are by far the most common, accounting for almost three-quarters of all audits. contrary to common thought, they can be the most burdensome of audits, especially for low-income taxpayers. while a given taxpayer’s tax situation might be relatively simple, as in the case of w&i audits, the process can be especially infuriating because

  1. the irs does not assign a taxpayer to a single irs examiner,
  2. responses to taxpayer inquiries and documentation can take up to 65 days and
  3. audits are generally closed without any personal contact.

hoping to better understand the impact of audits on subsequent taxpayer behavior, the tas commissioned a survey of 2,729 schedule c filers, about half of whom had experienced an audit.

some of the findings would seem obvious while others were surprising.

in the surprising category are the 36 percent of audited taxpayers who did not recall being audited. recollection was especially poor among those who had experienced a correspondence audit. apparently many of them did not recognize the audit as an audit. deterrence, then, was probably minimal.

it was less surprising that 72 of those who experienced a field audit and 80 percent of those who experienced an office audit recalled the audit, suggesting that face-to-face audits have a stronger impact on attitudes and behavior.

so the next question is: what are the impacts?

coercive power

results were curiously contradictory.

  • on the one hand, audited taxpayers reported a higher perceived level of audit risk, suggesting that audits might be effective in discouraging future noncompliance.
  • on the other hand, audited taxpayers perceived a relatively low level of sanctions for noncompliance, suggesting a lower level of deterrence.

less curious were findings that audits induced negative attitudes. audited taxpayers were found to

  • perceive greater coercive power within the irs,
  • have relatively less trust in the agency,
  • express weaker sentiments with regard to voluntary compliance and
  • be more likely to feel that taxes are something taken away from them rather than a contribution to society.

the process of the audit was found to have important implications on perceptions of fairness. typically, individuals who had experienced field or office audits reported a greater sense of fairness in the process than those who had experienced the relatively simpler but less personal correspondence audits.

audit outcomes also impacted attitudes, perceptions and, possibly, the extent of deterrence.

  • when audits resulted in additional taxes, taxpayers perceived higher risk of future audits and had a weaker sense of procedural and distributive justice.
  • they also came away with lower levels of trust in the irs and stronger feelings of anger and threat.

low levels of understanding taxation

the tas also reviewed outside studies on attitudes and compliance. some studies found levels of tax knowledge tend to be pretty low – low enough that taxpayers did not see the connection between tax rates and public expenditures.

among the findings of various studies are

  • understanding taxation has a positive effect on compliance.
  • owners of business startups oppose paying taxes more than experienced self-employed taxpayers.
  • taxpayers who have not been audited report more income when they learn that others have been audited.
  • random tax audits reduce compliance among taxpayers who were previously found compliant.
  • audited taxpayers not assessed for additional taxes report lower income and tax in subsequent years.
  • the more taxpayers perceive prevalent noncompliance, the more likely they will be noncompliant.
  • appealing to social norms can increase tax compliance.

all of the above lead to various conclusions, among them:

  • audits impact taxpayer behavior.
  • audit outcomes impact behavior.
  • different types of audits impact behavior differently.
  • perceptions of fairness impact behavior.
  • attitudes about the irs impact behavior.
  • knowledge and understanding of taxation impact behavior.
  • the norms of a taxpayer’s social groups impact behavior.
  • the treatment of a taxpayer during an audit impacts behavior.

recommendations to congress

in that many factors besides audits-as-deterrence impact taxpayer behavior, the tas report to congress makes a few recommendations for earning audited taxpayers’ trust and perceptions of fair treatment.

  • improve office audits by making several changes, including tracking results of audits that are appealed by the taxpayer.
  • educate taxpayers on future compliance by adding taxpayer education as a quality attribute.
  • increase number of tax compliance officers in more locations so taxpayers feel their particular facts and circumstances are understood.
  • share a small business audit plan so they can propose changes to it.
  • notify small business of possible consultations with specialists so taxpayer can also consult on technical issues.
  • study taxpayer filing behavior following audit to determine impact on compliance.