Back Matter

William Joseph Crandall; Elizabeth Gavin; Andrew R Masters

doi:10.5089/9781484383216.087.A999

Back Matter

Author:

William Joseph Crandall

William Joseph Crandallhttps://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396, International Monetary Fund

Search for other papers by William Joseph Crandall in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Elizabeth Gavin

Elizabeth Gavin
Search for other papers by Elizabeth Gavin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

, and

Mr. Andrew R Masters

Mr. Andrew R Masters
Search for other papers by Mr. Andrew R Masters in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Publication Date:: 08 Mar 2019

ISBN:: 9781484383216

Language:: English

Keywords:: DPPP; DP; tax administration; income tax; time series; collection ratio; human resources

Download PDF (327.6 KB)

References

Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations (CIAT). 2016. The Revenue Administrations in Latin America and the Caribbean 2011–2013. Panama City, Panama: CIAT.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations (CIAT). 2018. “Tax Administrations: Collection, Costs and Personnel Evidence for the CIAT Countries with Data of ISORA.” Working Paper WP-02-2018, CIAT, Panama City, Panama.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
International Labour Organisation (ILO). 2018. Labour force by sex and age. www.ilo.org/ilostat.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2006. “Revenue Authorities: Issues and Problems in Evaluating Their Success.” IMF Working Paper 06/240, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2015a. “Understanding Revenue Administration. An Initial Data Analysis Using the Revenue Administration Fiscal Information Tool.” Fiscal Affairs Departmental Paper, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2015b. “IMF Engagement with Countries in Post-Conflict and Fragile Situations—Stocktaking.” IMF Policy Paper, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2015c. “Current Challenges in Revenue Mobilization: Improving Tax Compliance.” IMF Staff Report, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2017. “Understanding Revenue Administration. Results from the Second Survey of the Revenue Administration – Fiscal Information Tool.” Fiscal Affairs Departmental Paper, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2018. “2017 Staff Guidance Note on the Fund’s Engagement with Small Developing States.” IMF Policy Paper, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2016. Advanced Analytics for Better Tax Administration: Putting Data to Work. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017. Tax Administration 2017: Comparative Information on OECD and Other Advanced and Emerging Economies. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation

Appendix Tables

Chapter 2—Performance-related Data

Appendix Table 1.

Median On-time Filing Rates

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. CIT 5 corporate income tax; PIT 5 personal income tax; VAT 5 value-added tax.

Appendix Table 1.

Median On-time Filing Rates

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
Small States (14/14/11/19/14/15/12/19)	43	72	67	78	40	63	61	81
Lower Income (28/25/22/29/27/22/20/25)	85	81	79	78	72	80	72	84
Higher Income (47/44/26/41/42/40/27/42)	83	90	91	90	81	86	88	90
All (89/83/59/89/83/77/59/86)	81	81	79	83	75	81	74	85

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. CIT 5 corporate income tax; PIT 5 personal income tax; VAT 5 value-added tax.

Appendix Table 1.

Median On-time Filing Rates

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
Small States (14/14/11/19/14/15/12/19)	43	72	67	78	40	63	61	81
Lower Income (28/25/22/29/27/22/20/25)	85	81	79	78	72	80	72	84
Higher Income (47/44/26/41/42/40/27/42)	83	90	91	90	81	86	88	90
All (89/83/59/89/83/77/59/86)	81	81	79	83	75	81	74	85

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. CIT 5 corporate income tax; PIT 5 personal income tax; VAT 5 value-added tax.

Appendix Table 2.

Average On-time Filing Rates

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. CIT 5 corporate income tax; HICs 5 high-income countries; LICs 5 low-income countries; LMICs 5 low-middle-income countries; PIT 5 personal income tax; UMICs 5 upper-middle-income countries; VAT 5 value-added tax.

Appendix Table 2.

Average On-time Filing Rates

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (12/11/11/13/11/10/9/11)	85	81	78	80	80	78	57	85
LMICs (19/16/13/19/19/4/13/17)	72	77	79	77	65	74	72	76
UMICs (30/28/20/30/29/26/20/30)	67	70	75	79	69	64	72	76
HICs (28/28/15/27/24/27/17/28)	91	96	91	91	87	96	90	91
All (89/83/59/89/83/77/59/86)	81	81	79	83	75	81	74	85
Small States (14/14/11/19/14/15/12/19)	43	72	67	78	40	63	61	81
Nonsmall States (75/69/48/70/69/62/47/67)	84	83	87	86	79	84	83	86
Fragile States (12/10/10/12/10/8/8/10)	85	89	83	80	73	89	75	89
Nonfragile States (77/73/49/77/73/69/51/76)	80	80	79	83	75	79	74	84

Appendix Table 2.

Average On-time Filing Rates

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (12/11/11/13/11/10/9/11)	85	81	78	80	80	78	57	85
LMICs (19/16/13/19/19/4/13/17)	72	77	79	77	65	74	72	76
UMICs (30/28/20/30/29/26/20/30)	67	70	75	79	69	64	72	76
HICs (28/28/15/27/24/27/17/28)	91	96	91	91	87	96	90	91
All (89/83/59/89/83/77/59/86)	81	81	79	83	75	81	74	85
Small States (14/14/11/19/14/15/12/19)	43	72	67	78	40	63	61	81
Nonsmall States (75/69/48/70/69/62/47/67)	84	83	87	86	79	84	83	86
Fragile States (12/10/10/12/10/8/8/10)	85	89	83	80	73	89	75	89
Nonfragile States (77/73/49/77/73/69/51/76)	80	80	79	83	75	79	74	84

Appendix Table 3.

Median On-time Payment Rate for Core Taxes by Value

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. CIT 5 corporate income tax; PAYE 5 pay as yo PIT 5 personal income tax; VAT 5 value-added tax.

Appendix Table 3.

Median On-time Payment Rate for Core Taxes by Value

	Median On-time Payment Rate (percent)
	2014				2015
Group	CIT	PIT	PAYE	VAT	CIT	PIT	PAYE	VAT
Small States (6/5/5/8/8/8/6/8)	79	84	98	84	84	89	101	84
Lower Income (17/17/13/19/21/21/16/19)	90	91	95	98	88	88	95	93
Higher Income (24/23/20/25/26/24/20/26)	94	89	96	94	94	86	97	93
All (47/45/38/52/55/53/42/53)	90	89	96	94	90	88	97	92

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. CIT 5 corporate income tax; PAYE 5 pay as yo PIT 5 personal income tax; VAT 5 value-added tax.

Appendix Table 3.

Median On-time Payment Rate for Core Taxes by Value

	Median On-time Payment Rate (percent)
	2014				2015
Group	CIT	PIT	PAYE	VAT	CIT	PIT	PAYE	VAT
Small States (6/5/5/8/8/8/6/8)	79	84	98	84	84	89	101	84
Lower Income (17/17/13/19/21/21/16/19)	90	91	95	98	88	88	95	93
Higher Income (24/23/20/25/26/24/20/26)	94	89	96	94	94	86	97	93
All (47/45/38/52/55/53/42/53)	90	89	96	94	90	88	97	92

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. CIT 5 corporate income tax; PAYE 5 pay as yo PIT 5 personal income tax; VAT 5 value-added tax.

Appendix Table 4.

Average On-time Payment Rates for Core Taxes by Value u earn;

Appendix Table 4.

Average On-time Payment Rates for Core Taxes by Value u earn;

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (6/6/6/7/10/10/10/8)	84	87	94	99	82	79	96	83
LMICs (12/12/8/14/12/12/7/13)	91	91	101	91	91	87	101	93
UMICs (14/14/13/16/16/17/12/16)	89	86	96	95	90	75	98	91
HICs (15/13/11/15/17/14/13/16)	93	89	97	95	95	90	97	95
All (47/45/38/52/55/53/42/53)	90	89	96	94	90	88	97	92
Small States (6/5/5/8/8/8/6/8)	79	84	98	84	84	89	101	84
Nonsmall States (41/40/33/44/47/45/36/45)	92	90	96	95	91	88	97	93
Fragile States (12/10/10/12/10/8/8/10)	84	87	95	101	82	75	96	74
Nonfragile States (35/35/28/40/45/45/34/43)	92	89	97	93	90	89	97	93

Appendix Table 4.

Average On-time Payment Rates for Core Taxes by Value u earn;

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (6/6/6/7/10/10/10/8)	84	87	94	99	82	79	96	83
LMICs (12/12/8/14/12/12/7/13)	91	91	101	91	91	87	101	93
UMICs (14/14/13/16/16/17/12/16)	89	86	96	95	90	75	98	91
HICs (15/13/11/15/17/14/13/16)	93	89	97	95	95	90	97	95
All (47/45/38/52/55/53/42/53)	90	89	96	94	90	88	97	92
Small States (6/5/5/8/8/8/6/8)	79	84	98	84	84	89	101	84
Nonsmall States (41/40/33/44/47/45/36/45)	92	90	96	95	91	88	97	93
Fragile States (12/10/10/12/10/8/8/10)	84	87	95	101	82	75	96	74
Nonfragile States (35/35/28/40/45/45/34/43)	92	89	97	93	90	89	97	93

Appendix Table 5.

Median Proportion of Returns Filed Electronically

Appendix Table 5.

Median Proportion of Returns Filed Electronically

	2014 (percent)			2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	VAT	CIT	PIT	VAT
LICs (1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (8/6/8/6/5/4)	34	34	18	92	97	—
UMICs (15/14/12/12/11/10)	97	77	98	95	80	99
HICs (26/26/27/24/26/27)	87	76	93	93	83	98
All (50/47/48/43/43/42)	87	76	93	93	83	98
Small States (6/6/8/4/5/7)	2	25	28	3	34	53
Nonsmall States (44/41/40/39/38/35)	88	77	96	94	83	99
Fragile States (1/1/2/1/1/2)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (49/46/46/42/42/40)	88	76	94	94	83	99

Appendix Table 5.

Median Proportion of Returns Filed Electronically

	2014 (percent)			2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	VAT	CIT	PIT	VAT
LICs (1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (8/6/8/6/5/4)	34	34	18	92	97	—
UMICs (15/14/12/12/11/10)	97	77	98	95	80	99
HICs (26/26/27/24/26/27)	87	76	93	93	83	98
All (50/47/48/43/43/42)	87	76	93	93	83	98
Small States (6/6/8/4/5/7)	2	25	28	3	34	53
Nonsmall States (44/41/40/39/38/35)	88	77	96	94	83	99
Fragile States (1/1/2/1/1/2)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (49/46/46/42/42/40)	88	76	94	94	83	99

Appendix Table 6.

Median Proportion of Payments Made Electronically

Appendix Table 6.

Median Proportion of Payments Made Electronically

	2014 (percent)			2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	VAT	CIT	PIT	VAT
LICs (0/0/0/0/0/0)	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (6/4/6/5/3/5)	2	—	1	6	—	2
UMICs (7/6/7/6/6/6)	44	30	11	27	15	19
HICs (8/8/7/8/8/6)	42	64	66	50	69	83
All (21/18/20/19/17/17)	12	30	7	13	27	14
Small States (3/3/3/1/2/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonsmall States (18/15/17/18/15/16)	30	54	22	15	37	19
Fragile States (0/0/0/0/0/0)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (21/18/20/19/17/17)	12	30	7	13	27	14

Appendix Table 6.

Median Proportion of Payments Made Electronically

	2014 (percent)			2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	VAT	CIT	PIT	VAT
LICs (0/0/0/0/0/0)	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (6/4/6/5/3/5)	2	—	1	6	—	2
UMICs (7/6/7/6/6/6)	44	30	11	27	15	19
HICs (8/8/7/8/8/6)	42	64	66	50	69	83
All (21/18/20/19/17/17)	12	30	7	13	27	14
Small States (3/3/3/1/2/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonsmall States (18/15/17/18/15/16)	30	54	22	15	37	19
Fragile States (0/0/0/0/0/0)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (21/18/20/19/17/17)	12	30	7	13	27	14

Appendix Table 7.

Debt at Year-end as Percentage of Total Tax Collected

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. HICs 5 high-income countries; LICs 5 low-income countries; LMICs 5 low-middle-income countries; UMICs 5 upper-middle-income countries.

Appendix Table 7.

Debt at Year-end as Percentage of Total Tax Collected

Group	2014 (percent)	2015 (percent)
LICs (13/13)	15	12
LMICs (12/14)	14	17
UMICs (21/21)	20	23
HICs (37/37)	13	12
All (83/85)	15	17
Small States (12/14)	25	20
Nonsmall States (61/61)	15	15
Fragile States (7/7)	10	6
Nonfragile States (76/78)	15	17

Appendix Table 7.

Debt at Year-end as Percentage of Total Tax Collected

Group	2014 (percent)	2015 (percent)
LICs (13/13)	15	12
LMICs (12/14)	14	17
UMICs (21/21)	20	23
HICs (37/37)	13	12
All (83/85)	15	17
Small States (12/14)	25	20
Nonsmall States (61/61)	15	15
Fragile States (7/7)	10	6
Nonfragile States (76/78)	15	17

Appendix Table 8.

Audits per 100 Active Taxpayers

Appendix Table 8.

Audits per 100 Active Taxpayers

	2014				2015
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (5/2/4/5/4/3/4/5)	5.38	—	—	12.29	—	—	—	7.88
UMICs (21/18/9/20/20/16/8/19)	1.51	0.34	0.60	7.20	1.72	0.39	0.60	5.25
HICs (17/17/9/19/18/19/10/21)	1.72	0.59	1.02	3.80	1.45	0.59	1.85	2.71
All (43/38/23/45/43/39/23/46)	1.72	0.38	1.02	5.01	1.65	0.45	0.92	4.02
Small States (6/5/5/8/7/6/4/8)	1.46	0.13	0.60	6.59	1.77	0.28	—	2.29
Nonsmall States (37/33/18/37/36/33/19/38)	1.77	0.47	1.29	4.01	1.65	0.54	0.92	4.28
Fragile States (1/1/1/2/1/1/1/2)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (42/37/22/43/42/38/22/44)	1.67	0.37	1.19	4.01	1.65	0.42	0.98	3.83

Appendix Table 8.

Audits per 100 Active Taxpayers

	2014				2015
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (5/2/4/5/4/3/4/5)	5.38	—	—	12.29	—	—	—	7.88
UMICs (21/18/9/20/20/16/8/19)	1.51	0.34	0.60	7.20	1.72	0.39	0.60	5.25
HICs (17/17/9/19/18/19/10/21)	1.72	0.59	1.02	3.80	1.45	0.59	1.85	2.71
All (43/38/23/45/43/39/23/46)	1.72	0.38	1.02	5.01	1.65	0.45	0.92	4.02
Small States (6/5/5/8/7/6/4/8)	1.46	0.13	0.60	6.59	1.77	0.28	—	2.29
Nonsmall States (37/33/18/37/36/33/19/38)	1.77	0.47	1.29	4.01	1.65	0.54	0.92	4.28
Fragile States (1/1/1/2/1/1/1/2)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (42/37/22/43/42/38/22/44)	1.67	0.37	1.19	4.01	1.65	0.42	0.98	3.83

Appendix Table 9.

Proportion of Audits Leading to Adjustment

Appendix Table 9.

Proportion of Audits Leading to Adjustment

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (6/5/5/5/4/4/4/4)	100	100	100	100	—	—	—	—
UMICs (20/18/11/22/19/18/11/21)	64	72	57	72	73	72	86	68
HICs (16/16/14/19/18/18/15/21)	51	66	67	55	45	53	64	56
All (43/40/31/47/42/41/31/47)	58	71	67	61	53	67	64	58
Small States (7/6/5/9/7/7/5/9)	67	98	100	78	54	89	100	76
Nonsmall States (36/34/26/38/35/34/26/38)	54	60	50	56	53	64	53	49
Fragile States (1/1/1/2/1/1/1/2)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (42/39/30/45/41/40/30/45)	58	71	67	66	54	66	64	61

Appendix Table 9.

Proportion of Audits Leading to Adjustment

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (6/5/5/5/4/4/4/4)	100	100	100	100	—	—	—	—
UMICs (20/18/11/22/19/18/11/21)	64	72	57	72	73	72	86	68
HICs (16/16/14/19/18/18/15/21)	51	66	67	55	45	53	64	56
All (43/40/31/47/42/41/31/47)	58	71	67	61	53	67	64	58
Small States (7/6/5/9/7/7/5/9)	67	98	100	78	54	89	100	76
Nonsmall States (36/34/26/38/35/34/26/38)	54	60	50	56	53	64	53	49
Fragile States (1/1/1/2/1/1/1/2)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (42/39/30/45/41/40/30/45)	58	71	67	66	54	66	64	61

Appendix Table 10.

Median Assessments Raised through Audits as Percentage of Revenue

Appendix Table 10.

Median Assessments Raised through Audits as Percentage of Revenue

	2014 (percent)			2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	VAT	CIT	PIT	VAT
LICs (1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (6/4/6/4/2/4)	2.1	—	1.0	—	—	—
UMICs (20/18/18/20/17/17)	6.4	2.0	2.4	13.3	3.3	2.6
HICs (18/18/21/19/19/22)	3.3	1.0	2.2	3.2	1.0	3.2
All (45/41/46/44/39/44)	3.6	1.4	1.9	7.1	1.9	2.6
Small States (7/7/7/9/7/7)	7.9	3.5	1.7	18.5	2.0	2.5
Nonsmall States (38/34/39/35/32/37)	3.5	1.1	1.9	4.6	1.5	2.6
Fragile States (1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (44/40/45/43/38/43)	3.9	1.4	1.9	7.5	1.5	2.6

Appendix Table 10.

Median Assessments Raised through Audits as Percentage of Revenue

	2014 (percent)			2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	VAT	CIT	PIT	VAT
LICs (1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—
LMICs (6/4/6/4/2/4)	2.1	—	1.0	—	—	—
UMICs (20/18/18/20/17/17)	6.4	2.0	2.4	13.3	3.3	2.6
HICs (18/18/21/19/19/22)	3.3	1.0	2.2	3.2	1.0	3.2
All (45/41/46/44/39/44)	3.6	1.4	1.9	7.1	1.9	2.6
Small States (7/7/7/9/7/7)	7.9	3.5	1.7	18.5	2.0	2.5
Nonsmall States (38/34/39/35/32/37)	3.5	1.1	1.9	4.6	1.5	2.6
Fragile States (1/1/1/1/1/1)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (44/40/45/43/38/43)	3.9	1.4	1.9	7.5	1.5	2.6

Appendix Table 11.

Value of Objections as Percentage of Total Tax Collected

Appendix Table 11.

Value of Objections as Percentage of Total Tax Collected

Group	2014 (percent)	2015 (percent)
LICs (6/6)	1.08	2.25
LMICs (10/10)	4.57	3.84
UMICs (13/14)	2.84	2.10
HICs (9/10)	0.07	0.21
All (38/40)	1.99	1.50
Small States (9/11)	0.04	0.11
Nonsmall States (29/29)	2.13	1.53
Fragile States (5/5)	0.36	1.44
Nonfragile States (33/35)	2.13	1.53

Appendix Table 11.

Value of Objections as Percentage of Total Tax Collected

Group	2014 (percent)	2015 (percent)
LICs (6/6)	1.08	2.25
LMICs (10/10)	4.57	3.84
UMICs (13/14)	2.84	2.10
HICs (9/10)	0.07	0.21
All (38/40)	1.99	1.50
Small States (9/11)	0.04	0.11
Nonsmall States (29/29)	2.13	1.53
Fragile States (5/5)	0.36	1.44
Nonfragile States (33/35)	2.13	1.53

Appendix Table 12.

Cost of Collection

(Percent)

Appendix Table 12.

Cost of Collection

(Percent)

	Average Recurrent Budget to Revenue Collected (less VAT and excise on imports)		Median Recurrent Budget to Revenue Collected (less VAT and excise on imports)
Group	2014	2015	2014	2015
LICs (5/6)	2.0	1.3	1.5	0.7
LMICs (15/15)	1.5	1.6	1.0	0.9
UMICs (19/18)	1.0	0.9	1.0	0.9
HICs (38/36)	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.8
All (77/76)	1.3	1.1	1.0	0.9
Small States (11/11)	1.7	1.9	1.3	1.2
Nonsmall States (66/65)	1.1	1.0	0.9	0.9
Fragile States (2/2)	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (75/74)	1.1	1.1	0.9	0.9

Appendix Table 12.

Cost of Collection

(Percent)

	Average Recurrent Budget to Revenue Collected (less VAT and excise on imports)		Median Recurrent Budget to Revenue Collected (less VAT and excise on imports)
Group	2014	2015	2014	2015
LICs (5/6)	2.0	1.3	1.5	0.7
LMICs (15/15)	1.5	1.6	1.0	0.9
UMICs (19/18)	1.0	0.9	1.0	0.9
HICs (38/36)	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.8
All (77/76)	1.3	1.1	1.0	0.9
Small States (11/11)	1.7	1.9	1.3	1.2
Nonsmall States (66/65)	1.1	1.0	0.9	0.9
Fragile States (2/2)	—	—	—	—
Nonfragile States (75/74)	1.1	1.1	0.9	0.9

Appendix Table 13.

Active Core Taxpayers per Full-time Equivalent

(Median)

Appendix Table 13.

Active Core Taxpayers per Full-time Equivalent

(Median)

Group	2014	2015
LICs (10/11)	11	23
LMICs (16/19)	44	63
UMICs (30/29)	497	537
HICs (39/41)	673	703
All (95/100)	439	426
Small States (18/20)	90	120
Nonsmall States (77/80)	364	309
Fragile States (11/11)	11	23
Nonfragile States (84/89)	400	426

Appendix Table 13.

Active Core Taxpayers per Full-time Equivalent

(Median)

Group	2014	2015
LICs (10/11)	11	23
LMICs (16/19)	44	63
UMICs (30/29)	497	537
HICs (39/41)	673	703
All (95/100)	439	426
Small States (18/20)	90	120
Nonsmall States (77/80)	364	309
Fragile States (11/11)	11	23
Nonfragile States (84/89)	400	426

Appendix Table 14.

Citizens per Full-time Equivalent

(Median)

Appendix Table 14.

Citizens per Full-time Equivalent

(Median)

Group	2014	2015
LICs (13/15)	21,575	14,902
LMICs (22/21)	6,109	5,348
UMICs (34/34)	2,274	2,260
HICs (44/45)	1,125	1,124
All (113/115)	2,167	2,192
Small States (25/26)	1,461	1,430
Nonsmall States (88/89)	3,221	3,402
Fragile States (13/15)	13,075	13,044
Nonfragile States (100/100)	1,867	1,839

Appendix Table 14.

Citizens per Full-time Equivalent

(Median)

Group	2014	2015
LICs (13/15)	21,575	14,902
LMICs (22/21)	6,109	5,348
UMICs (34/34)	2,274	2,260
HICs (44/45)	1,125	1,124
All (113/115)	2,167	2,192
Small States (25/26)	1,461	1,430
Nonsmall States (88/89)	3,221	3,402
Fragile States (13/15)	13,075	13,044
Nonfragile States (100/100)	1,867	1,839

Chapter 2—Profile Data

Appendix Table 15.

Institutional Arrangements—Autonomy and Tax Only/Tax and Customs, 2015

Appendix Table 15.

Institutional Arrangements—Autonomy and Tax Only/Tax and Customs, 2015

	Tax (percent)		Tax and Customs (percent)
Group	Semiautonomous	Within Ministry	Semiautonomous	Within Ministry
LICs (22)	4.5	45.5	50.0	0.0
LMICs (26)	26.9	38.5	26.9	7.7
UMICs (40)	17.5	50.0	27.5	5.0
HICs (47)	29.8	36.2	21.3	12.8
All (135)	21.5	42.2	28.9	7.4
Small States (31)	12.9	64.5	12.9	9.7
Nonsmall States (104)	24.0	35.6	33.7	6.7
Fragile States (18)	5.6	55.6	38.9	0.0
Nonfragile States (117)	23.9	40.2	27.4	8.5

Appendix Table 15.

Institutional Arrangements—Autonomy and Tax Only/Tax and Customs, 2015

	Tax (percent)		Tax and Customs (percent)
Group	Semiautonomous	Within Ministry	Semiautonomous	Within Ministry
LICs (22)	4.5	45.5	50.0	0.0
LMICs (26)	26.9	38.5	26.9	7.7
UMICs (40)	17.5	50.0	27.5	5.0
HICs (47)	29.8	36.2	21.3	12.8
All (135)	21.5	42.2	28.9	7.4
Small States (31)	12.9	64.5	12.9	9.7
Nonsmall States (104)	24.0	35.6	33.7	6.7
Fragile States (18)	5.6	55.6	38.9	0.0
Nonfragile States (117)	23.9	40.2	27.4	8.5

Appendix Table 16.

Institutional Arrangements—Type of Institution, 2015

(Percent)

Appendix Table 16.

Institutional Arrangements—Type of Institution, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Single Directorate in Ministry	Multiple Directorates in Ministry	Unified Semiautonomous Body	Unified Semiautonomous Body with Board	Other
LICs (22)	31.8	13.6	4.5	50.0	0.0
LMICs (26)	34.6	11.5	23.1	30.8	0.0
UMICs (40)	45.0	5.0	15.0	30.0	5.0
HICs (47)	27.7	14.9	40.4	10.6	6.4
All (135)	34.8	11.1	23.7	26.7	3.7
Small States (31)	51.6	22.6	9.7	16.1	0.0
Nonsmall States (104)	29.8	7.7	27.9	29.8	4.8
Fragile States (18)	33.3	22.2	5.6	38.9	0.0
Nonfragile States (117)	35.0	9.4	26.5	24.8	4.3

Appendix Table 16.

Institutional Arrangements—Type of Institution, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Single Directorate in Ministry	Multiple Directorates in Ministry	Unified Semiautonomous Body	Unified Semiautonomous Body with Board	Other
LICs (22)	31.8	13.6	4.5	50.0	0.0
LMICs (26)	34.6	11.5	23.1	30.8	0.0
UMICs (40)	45.0	5.0	15.0	30.0	5.0
HICs (47)	27.7	14.9	40.4	10.6	6.4
All (135)	34.8	11.1	23.7	26.7	3.7
Small States (31)	51.6	22.6	9.7	16.1	0.0
Nonsmall States (104)	29.8	7.7	27.9	29.8	4.8
Fragile States (18)	33.3	22.2	5.6	38.9	0.0
Nonfragile States (117)	35.0	9.4	26.5	24.8	4.3

Appendix Table 17.

Proportion of Administrations Collecting Each Revenue Type

(Percent)

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. HICs = high-income countries; LICs = low-income countries; LMICs = low-middle-income countries; UMICs = upper-middle-income countries; VAT = value-added tax.

Appendix Table 17.

Proportion of Administrations Collecting Each Revenue Type

(Percent)

Group	Taxes on Payroll and Workforce	Income Tax—Individuals	Income Tax— Corporate and Other Entities	VAT (domestic)	VAT (import)	Excises (domestic)	Excises (import)	Other Taxes on Goods and Services	Motor Vehicle Taxes	Real Property	Wealth Taxes	Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes	Other Taxes	Social Security Contributions	Nontax Revenue
LICs (22)	91	100	100	100	68	86	59	82	41	41	23	23	32	23	73
LMICs (26)	69	81	96	88	69	69	50	58	38	35	27	35	54	27	42
UMICs (40)	58	95	98	83	53	70	43	63	38	40	18	28	70	48	73
HICs (47)	30	96	98	89	28	51	15	43	43	60	23	53	64	32	57
Total (135)	56	93	98	89	50	66	37	58	40	46	22	37	59	34	61
Small States (31)	58	77	90	74	52	48	39	42	45	42	16	23	61	23	58
Nonsmall States (104)	55	98	100	93	49	71	37	63	38	47	24	41	58	38	63
Fragile States (18)	94	89	100	89	61	72	50	78	39	44	28	28	44	28	56
Nonfragile States (117)	50	94	97	89	48	65	35	55	40	46	21	38	61	35	62

Appendix Table 17.

Proportion of Administrations Collecting Each Revenue Type

(Percent)

Group	Taxes on Payroll and Workforce	Income Tax—Individuals	Income Tax— Corporate and Other Entities	VAT (domestic)	VAT (import)	Excises (domestic)	Excises (import)	Other Taxes on Goods and Services	Motor Vehicle Taxes	Real Property	Wealth Taxes	Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes	Other Taxes	Social Security Contributions	Nontax Revenue
LICs (22)	91	100	100	100	68	86	59	82	41	41	23	23	32	23	73
LMICs (26)	69	81	96	88	69	69	50	58	38	35	27	35	54	27	42
UMICs (40)	58	95	98	83	53	70	43	63	38	40	18	28	70	48	73
HICs (47)	30	96	98	89	28	51	15	43	43	60	23	53	64	32	57
Total (135)	56	93	98	89	50	66	37	58	40	46	22	37	59	34	61
Small States (31)	58	77	90	74	52	48	39	42	45	42	16	23	61	23	58
Nonsmall States (104)	55	98	100	93	49	71	37	63	38	47	24	41	58	38	63
Fragile States (18)	94	89	100	89	61	72	50	78	39	44	28	28	44	28	56
Nonfragile States (117)	50	94	97	89	48	65	35	55	40	46	21	38	61	35	62

Appendix Table 18.

Proportion of Administrations by Region Collecting Each Revenue Type

(Percent)

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. AFR = sub-Saharan Africa; APD = Asia Pacific; EUR = Europe; MCD = Middle East and Central Asia; VAT = value-added tax; WHD = Western Hemisphere.

Appendix Table 18.

Proportion of Administrations by Region Collecting Each Revenue Type

(Percent)

Region	Taxes on Payroll and Workforce	Income Tax—Individuals	Income Tax— Corporate and Other Entities	VAT (domestic)	VAT (import)	Excises (domestic)	Excises (import)	Other Taxes on Goods and Services	Motor Vehicle Taxes	Real Property	Wealth Taxes	Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes	Other Taxes	Social Security Contributions	Nontax Revenue
AFR (37)	81	95	100	97	68	78	51	76	46	41	30	38	51	27	59
APD(19)	37	84	95	68	42	42	26	37	11	26	5	16	47	5	47
EUR (41)	39	100	100	98	34	54	20	51	46	51	22	56	68	54	66
MCD (5)	80	100	100	100	60	80	60	80	40	60	0	20	40	40	60
WHD (33)	55	88	94	79	52	79	45	55	42	55	27	27	64	33	67
All (135)	56	93	98	89	50	66	37	58	40	46	22	37	59	34	61

Appendix Table 18.

Proportion of Administrations by Region Collecting Each Revenue Type

(Percent)

Region	Taxes on Payroll and Workforce	Income Tax—Individuals	Income Tax— Corporate and Other Entities	VAT (domestic)	VAT (import)	Excises (domestic)	Excises (import)	Other Taxes on Goods and Services	Motor Vehicle Taxes	Real Property	Wealth Taxes	Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes	Other Taxes	Social Security Contributions	Nontax Revenue
AFR (37)	81	95	100	97	68	78	51	76	46	41	30	38	51	27	59
APD(19)	37	84	95	68	42	42	26	37	11	26	5	16	47	5	47
EUR (41)	39	100	100	98	34	54	20	51	46	51	22	56	68	54	66
MCD (5)	80	100	100	100	60	80	60	80	40	60	0	20	40	40	60
WHD (33)	55	88	94	79	52	79	45	55	42	55	27	27	64	33	67
All (135)	56	93	98	89	50	66	37	58	40	46	22	37	59	34	61

Appendix Table 19.

Nontax Roles, 2015

(Percent)

Appendix Table 19.

Nontax Roles, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Collection of SSC	Welfare Benefits	Child Support	Property Valuation	Student Loans	Population Register	Retirement Savings	Lotteries/Gambling/Gaming	Other
LICs (22)	4.5	0.0	0.0	22.7	4.5	0.0	4.5	50.0	27.3
LMICs (26)	11.5	0.0	0.0	11.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	26.9	38.5
UMICs (40)	37.5	7.5	5.0	30.0	5.0	2.5	7.5	42.5	25.0
HICs (47)	42.6	12.8	10.6	44.7	10.6	4.3	10.6	31.9	57.4
All (135)	28.9	6.7	5.2	30.4	5.9	2.2	6.7	37.0	39.3
Small States (31)	25.8	3.2	3.2	41.9	3.2	0.0	6.5	38.7	25.8
Nonsmall States (104)	29.8	7.7	5.8	26.9	6.7	2.9	6.7	36.5	43.3
Fragile States (18)	0.0	0.0	0.0	22.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	33.3	22.2
Nonfragile States (117)	33.3	7.7	6.0	31.6	6.8	2.6	7.7	37.6	41.9

Appendix Table 19.

Nontax Roles, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Collection of SSC	Welfare Benefits	Child Support	Property Valuation	Student Loans	Population Register	Retirement Savings	Lotteries/Gambling/Gaming	Other
LICs (22)	4.5	0.0	0.0	22.7	4.5	0.0	4.5	50.0	27.3
LMICs (26)	11.5	0.0	0.0	11.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	26.9	38.5
UMICs (40)	37.5	7.5	5.0	30.0	5.0	2.5	7.5	42.5	25.0
HICs (47)	42.6	12.8	10.6	44.7	10.6	4.3	10.6	31.9	57.4
All (135)	28.9	6.7	5.2	30.4	5.9	2.2	6.7	37.0	39.3
Small States (31)	25.8	3.2	3.2	41.9	3.2	0.0	6.5	38.7	25.8
Nonsmall States (104)	29.8	7.7	5.8	26.9	6.7	2.9	6.7	36.5	43.3
Fragile States (18)	0.0	0.0	0.0	22.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	33.3	22.2
Nonfragile States (117)	33.3	7.7	6.0	31.6	6.8	2.6	7.7	37.6	41.9

Appendix Table 20.

Average Percentage of Staff by Function, 2015

Appendix Table 20.

Average Percentage of Staff by Function, 2015

Group	Registration and Taxpayer Service	Payment and Returns Processing	Audit and Verification	Enforcement and Debt Collection	Disputes and Appeals	Other Tax Operations	Support Functions
LICs (9)	9	12	19	18	4	21	16
LMICs (12)	13	18	24	11	3	11	20
UMICs (28)	15	11	30	12	3	8	20
HICs (38)	14	18	31	9	4	6	19
All (87)	14	15	28	11	3	9	19
Small States (21)	15	15	30	11	2	9	18
Nonsmall States (66)	14	15	28	11	4	9	19
Fragile States (10)	12	12	22	12	3	20	18
Nonfragile States (77)	14	14	29	11	3	7	19

Appendix Table 20.

Average Percentage of Staff by Function, 2015

Group	Registration and Taxpayer Service	Payment and Returns Processing	Audit and Verification	Enforcement and Debt Collection	Disputes and Appeals	Other Tax Operations	Support Functions
LICs (9)	9	12	19	18	4	21	16
LMICs (12)	13	18	24	11	3	11	20
UMICs (28)	15	11	30	12	3	8	20
HICs (38)	14	18	31	9	4	6	19
All (87)	14	15	28	11	3	9	19
Small States (21)	15	15	30	11	2	9	18
Nonsmall States (66)	14	15	28	11	4	9	19
Fragile States (10)	12	12	22	12	3	20	18
Nonfragile States (77)	14	14	29	11	3	7	19

Appendix Table 21.

Average Percentage of Staff by Office Type, 2015

Appendix Table 21.

Average Percentage of Staff by Office Type, 2015

Group	Headquarters	Regional Offices	Local/Branch Offices	Data Processing Centers	Service Centers (including call centers)	Other Offices
LICs (7)	35	13	34	2	3	14
LMICs (10)	41	20	34	3	2	0
UMICs (22)	34	22	33	2	7	3
HICs (37)	28	20	44	2	5	1
All (76)	32	20	39	2	5	3
Small States (17)	53	10	30	0	6	1
Nonsmall States (59)	26	23	41	3	5	3
Fragile States (6)	33	20	26	2	3	16
Nonfragile States (76)	32	20	40	2	5	1

Appendix Table 21.

Average Percentage of Staff by Office Type, 2015

Group	Headquarters	Regional Offices	Local/Branch Offices	Data Processing Centers	Service Centers (including call centers)	Other Offices
LICs (7)	35	13	34	2	3	14
LMICs (10)	41	20	34	3	2	0
UMICs (22)	34	22	33	2	7	3
HICs (37)	28	20	44	2	5	1
All (76)	32	20	39	2	5	3
Small States (17)	53	10	30	0	6	1
Nonsmall States (59)	26	23	41	3	5	3
Fragile States (6)	33	20	26	2	3	16
Nonfragile States (76)	32	20	40	2	5	1

Appendix Table 22.

Age Distribution of Staff, 2015

Appendix Table 22.

Age Distribution of Staff, 2015

Group	Under 25 Years	25 to 34 Years	35 to 44 Years	45 to 54 Years	55 to 64 Years	65 Years and Older
LICs (10)	1	28	43	20	8	0
LMICs (22)	4	29	33	24	10	0
UMICs (33)	6	25	28	25	15	2
HICs (43)	2	16	25	31	23	2
All (108)	4	23	30	27	16	1
Small States (25)	8	27	29	22	12	2
Nonsmall States (83)	2	21	30	28	18	1
Fragile States (10)	1	26	42	21	11	0
Nonfragile States (98)	4	22	28	27	17	1

Appendix Table 22.

Age Distribution of Staff, 2015

Group	Under 25 Years	25 to 34 Years	35 to 44 Years	45 to 54 Years	55 to 64 Years	65 Years and Older
LICs (10)	1	28	43	20	8	0
LMICs (22)	4	29	33	24	10	0
UMICs (33)	6	25	28	25	15	2
HICs (43)	2	16	25	31	23	2
All (108)	4	23	30	27	16	1
Small States (25)	8	27	29	22	12	2
Nonsmall States (83)	2	21	30	28	18	1
Fragile States (10)	1	26	42	21	11	0
Nonfragile States (98)	4	22	28	27	17	1

Appendix Table 23.

Average Percentage of Staff by Length of Service, 2015

Appendix Table 23.

Average Percentage of Staff by Length of Service, 2015

Group	Less than 5 Years	5 to 9 Years	10 to 19 Years	20 Years or More
LICs (9)	1	28	8	0
LMICs (21)	4	29	10	0
UMICs (31)	6	25	15	2
HICs (41)	2	16	23	2
All (102)	4	23	16	1
Small States (23)	8	27	12	2
Nonsmall States (79)	2	21	18	1
Fragile States (10)	1	26	11	0
Nonfragile States (92)	4	22	17	1

Appendix Table 23.

Average Percentage of Staff by Length of Service, 2015

Group	Less than 5 Years	5 to 9 Years	10 to 19 Years	20 Years or More
LICs (9)	1	28	8	0
LMICs (21)	4	29	10	0
UMICs (31)	6	25	15	2
HICs (41)	2	16	23	2
All (102)	4	23	16	1
Small States (23)	8	27	12	2
Nonsmall States (79)	2	21	18	1
Fragile States (10)	1	26	11	0
Nonfragile States (92)	4	22	17	1

Appendix Table 24.

Average Percentage of Female Staff, 2015

Appendix Table 24.

Average Percentage of Female Staff, 2015

Group	All Staff	Executives
LICs (15/11)	32	30
LMICs (23/22)	42	32
UMICs (38/32)	54	44
HICs (45/38)	63	46
All (121/103)	52	41
Small States (29/23)	60	42
Nonsmall States (92/80)	50	40
Fragile States (13/12)	35	30
Nonfragile States (108/91)	54	42

Appendix Table 24.

Average Percentage of Female Staff, 2015

Group	All Staff	Executives
LICs (15/11)	32	30
LMICs (23/22)	42	32
UMICs (38/32)	54	44
HICs (45/38)	63	46
All (121/103)	52	41
Small States (29/23)	60	42
Nonsmall States (92/80)	50	40
Fragile States (13/12)	35	30
Nonfragile States (108/91)	54	42

Appendix Table 25.

Differentiated Treatment of Taxpayer Segments

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. HICs 5 high-income countries; HNWI 5 high-net-wealth individual; LICs 5 low-income countries; LMICs 5 low-middle-income countries; LTO/P 5 large taxpayer office/program; UMICs 5 upper-middle-income countries.

Appendix Table 25.

Differentiated Treatment of Taxpayer Segments

	Percentage of Administrations with ...
Group	LTO/P	HNWI Program	Simplified Tax Regime(s) for Small Taxpayers
LICs (22)	100	5	91
LMICs (26)	96	15	65
UMICs (40)	83	18	55
HICs (47)	77	32	36
All (135)	86	20	56
Small States (31)	52	13	26
Nonsmall States (104)	96	22	65
Fragile States (18)	100	11	78
Nonfragile States (117)	84	21	53

Appendix Table 25.

Differentiated Treatment of Taxpayer Segments

	Percentage of Administrations with ...
Group	LTO/P	HNWI Program	Simplified Tax Regime(s) for Small Taxpayers
LICs (22)	100	5	91
LMICs (26)	96	15	65
UMICs (40)	83	18	55
HICs (47)	77	32	36
All (135)	86	20	56
Small States (31)	52	13	26
Nonsmall States (104)	96	22	65
Fragile States (18)	100	11	78
Nonfragile States (117)	84	21	53

Appendix Table 26.

Characteristics of the Large Taxpayer Office or Program

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. FTE 5 full-time equivalent; HICs 5 high-income countries; HNWI 5 high-net-wealth individual; LICs 5 low-income countries; LMICs 5 low-middle-income countries; LTO 5 large taxpayer office; UMICs 5 upper-middle-income countries.

Appendix Table 26.

Characteristics of the Large Taxpayer Office or Program

	Median Percentage of Revenue Collected Through LTO		Median Percentage of Corporate Taxpayers Managed Through LTO		Median Number of Corporate Taxpayers per FTE
Group	2014	2015	2014	2015	2014	2015
LICs (9/9/12/12/15/16)	54	63	11.2	8.5	6.0	5.7
LMICs (14/10/14/17/21/20)	39	37	4.3	4.1	9.6	7.0
UMICs (15/13/25/24/29/28)	43	48		0.4		8.0
HICs (18/17/25/25/31/31)	44	43	0.5	0.4	11.0	9.9
All (56/49/76/78/96/95)	44	45	1.6	2.0	8.5	7.8
Small States (2/2/6/7/13/13)	—	—	2.2	2.7	16.3	18.8
Nonsmall States (54/47/70/71/83/82)	44	45	1.6	1.9	7.4	7.3
(Fragile States (5/4/11/11/14/17)	47	—	13.7	9.5	7.7	6.7
Nonfragile States (51/45/65/67/82/78)	44	44	1.6	1.9	8.6	8.5

Appendix Table 26.

Characteristics of the Large Taxpayer Office or Program

	Median Percentage of Revenue Collected Through LTO		Median Percentage of Corporate Taxpayers Managed Through LTO		Median Number of Corporate Taxpayers per FTE
Group	2014	2015	2014	2015	2014	2015
LICs (9/9/12/12/15/16)	54	63	11.2	8.5	6.0	5.7
LMICs (14/10/14/17/21/20)	39	37	4.3	4.1	9.6	7.0
UMICs (15/13/25/24/29/28)	43	48		0.4		8.0
HICs (18/17/25/25/31/31)	44	43	0.5	0.4	11.0	9.9
All (56/49/76/78/96/95)	44	45	1.6	2.0	8.5	7.8
Small States (2/2/6/7/13/13)	—	—	2.2	2.7	16.3	18.8
Nonsmall States (54/47/70/71/83/82)	44	45	1.6	1.9	7.4	7.3
(Fragile States (5/4/11/11/14/17)	47	—	13.7	9.5	7.7	6.7
Nonfragile States (51/45/65/67/82/78)	44	44	1.6	1.9	8.6	8.5

Appendix Table 27.

Criteria Used to Identify Large Taxpayers, 2015

Appendix Table 27.

Criteria Used to Identify Large Taxpayers, 2015

	Percentage of Administrations Identifying Large Taxpayer Through ...
Group	Turnover/Revenue	Economic Sector/Activity	Other Criteria	Taxes (assessed/paid)	Assets	Income
LICs (22)	100	32	27	9	5	0
LMICs (25)	96	36	24	32	4	8
UMICs (33)	79	45	39	39	12	15
HICs (36)	86	53	58	22	17	14
All (116)	89	43	40	27	10	10
Small States (16)	94	19	19	19	0	13
Nonsmall States (100)	88	47	43	28	12	10
Fragile States (18)	100	22	22	11	6	0
Nonfragile States (98)	87	47	43	30	11	12

Appendix Table 27.

Criteria Used to Identify Large Taxpayers, 2015

	Percentage of Administrations Identifying Large Taxpayer Through ...
Group	Turnover/Revenue	Economic Sector/Activity	Other Criteria	Taxes (assessed/paid)	Assets	Income
LICs (22)	100	32	27	9	5	0
LMICs (25)	96	36	24	32	4	8
UMICs (33)	79	45	39	39	12	15
HICs (36)	86	53	58	22	17	14
All (116)	89	43	40	27	10	10
Small States (16)	94	19	19	19	0	13
Nonsmall States (100)	88	47	43	28	12	10
Fragile States (18)	100	22	22	11	6	0
Nonfragile States (98)	87	47	43	30	11	12

Appendix Table 28.

Functions Carried Out in Large Taxpayer Office or Program, 2015

Appendix Table 28.

Functions Carried Out in Large Taxpayer Office or Program, 2015

	Percentage of Administrations Executing Various Functions Within their LTO
Group	Audit	Services (for example, telephone calls, contacts, and rulings)	Collection, Enforcement, and Management of Arrears	Return and Payment Processing	Dispute Resolution	Registration
LICs (22)	82	82	100	95	45	41
LMICs (25)	84	88	84	64	40	52
UMICs (33)	94	85	67	58	39	48
HICs (36)	97	83	42	56	61	42
All (116)	91	84	69	66	47	46
Small States (16)	88	81	69	50	50	25
Nonsmall States (100)	91	85	69	68	47	49
Fragile States (18)	72	78	89	94	39	44
Nonfragile States (98)	94	86	65	60	49	46

Appendix Table 28.

Functions Carried Out in Large Taxpayer Office or Program, 2015

	Percentage of Administrations Executing Various Functions Within their LTO
Group	Audit	Services (for example, telephone calls, contacts, and rulings)	Collection, Enforcement, and Management of Arrears	Return and Payment Processing	Dispute Resolution	Registration
LICs (22)	82	82	100	95	45	41
LMICs (25)	84	88	84	64	40	52
UMICs (33)	94	85	67	58	39	48
HICs (36)	97	83	42	56	61	42
All (116)	91	84	69	66	47	46
Small States (16)	88	81	69	50	50	25
Nonsmall States (100)	91	85	69	68	47	49
Fragile States (18)	72	78	89	94	39	44
Nonfragile States (98)	94	86	65	60	49	46

Appendix Table 29.

Incidence of Simplified Regimes in Tax Administrations, 2015

Appendix Table 29.

Incidence of Simplified Regimes in Tax Administrations, 2015

	Proportion Administering Various Simplified Regimes
Group	Flat Rate Turnover Regime	Other	Simplified Participation in Regular Regimes	Forfait (Agreed) Regime	Simple Patent	Indicator-based Regime
LICs (20)	75	15	30	25	15	10
LMICs (17)	47	35	18	24	24	0
UMICs (22)	50	18	27	18	14	18
HICs (17)	47	35	18	12	24	18
All (76)	55	25	24	20	18	12
Small States (8)	75	0	13	0	13	0
Nonsmall States (68)	53	28	25	22	19	13
Fragile States (14)	71	7	29	36	7	7
Nonfragile States (62)	52	29	23	16	21	113

Appendix Table 29.

Incidence of Simplified Regimes in Tax Administrations, 2015

	Proportion Administering Various Simplified Regimes
Group	Flat Rate Turnover Regime	Other	Simplified Participation in Regular Regimes	Forfait (Agreed) Regime	Simple Patent	Indicator-based Regime
LICs (20)	75	15	30	25	15	10
LMICs (17)	47	35	18	24	24	0
UMICs (22)	50	18	27	18	14	18
HICs (17)	47	35	18	12	24	18
All (76)	55	25	24	20	18	12
Small States (8)	75	0	13	0	13	0
Nonsmall States (68)	53	28	25	22	19	13
Fragile States (14)	71	7	29	36	7	7
Nonfragile States (62)	52	29	23	16	21	113

Appendix Table 30.

Proportion of Administrations with Active Taxpayers Only on Register

Appendix Table 30.

Proportion of Administrations with Active Taxpayers Only on Register

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (6/6/6/7/10/10/10/8)	84	87	94	99	82	79	96	83
LMICs (12/12/8/14/12/12/7/13)	91	91	101	91	91	87	101	93
UMICs (14/14/13/16/16/17/12/16)	89	86	96	95	90	75	98	91
HICs (15/13/11/15/17/14/13/16)	93	89	97	95	95	90	97	95
All (47/45/38/52/55/53/42/53)	90	89	96	94	90	88	97	92
Small States (6/5/5/8/8/8/6/8)	79	84	98	84	84	89	101	84
Nonsmall States (41/40/33/44/47/45/36/45)	92	90	96	95	91	88	97	93
Fragile States (12/10/10/12/10/8/8/10)	84	87	95	101	82	75	96	74
Nonfragile States (5/35/28/40/45/45/34/43)	92	89	97	93	90	89	97	93

Appendix Table 30.

Proportion of Administrations with Active Taxpayers Only on Register

	2014 (percent)				2015 (percent)
Group	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT	CIT	PIT	Employers	VAT
LICs (6/6/6/7/10/10/10/8)	84	87	94	99	82	79	96	83
LMICs (12/12/8/14/12/12/7/13)	91	91	101	91	91	87	101	93
UMICs (14/14/13/16/16/17/12/16)	89	86	96	95	90	75	98	91
HICs (15/13/11/15/17/14/13/16)	93	89	97	95	95	90	97	95
All (47/45/38/52/55/53/42/53)	90	89	96	94	90	88	97	92
Small States (6/5/5/8/8/8/6/8)	79	84	98	84	84	89	101	84
Nonsmall States (41/40/33/44/47/45/36/45)	92	90	96	95	91	88	97	93
Fragile States (12/10/10/12/10/8/8/10)	84	87	95	101	82	75	96	74
Nonfragile States (5/35/28/40/45/45/34/43)	92	89	97	93	90	89	97	93

Appendix Table 31.

Management Approach of Tax Administrations, 2015

Appendix Table 31.

Management Approach of Tax Administrations, 2015

	Percentage of Administrations that have a/an ...
Group	Strategic Plan	Annual Business/ Operational Plans	Annual Report	Formal Internal Assurance Mechanism (Internal Audit)	Enterprise-wide Risk Policy
LICs (22)	100	95	95	82	59
LMICs (26)	88	92	96	92	62
UMICs (40)	90	93	90	80	58
HICs (47)	91	87	91	91	72
All (135)	92	91	93	87	64
Small States (31)	84	90	84	58	35
Nonsmall States (104)	94	91	95	95	72
Fragile States (18)	94	89	89	83	44
Nonfragile States (117)	91	91	93	87	67

Appendix Table 31.

Management Approach of Tax Administrations, 2015

	Percentage of Administrations that have a/an ...
Group	Strategic Plan	Annual Business/ Operational Plans	Annual Report	Formal Internal Assurance Mechanism (Internal Audit)	Enterprise-wide Risk Policy
LICs (22)	100	95	95	82	59
LMICs (26)	88	92	96	92	62
UMICs (40)	90	93	90	80	58
HICs (47)	91	87	91	91	72
All (135)	92	91	93	87	64
Small States (31)	84	90	84	58	35
Nonsmall States (104)	94	91	95	95	72
Fragile States (18)	94	89	89	83	44
Nonfragile States (117)	91	91	93	87	67

Appendix Table 32.

Human Resources Strategy and Approach: Percentage Responding Yes, 2015

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. HICs = high-income countries; UCs = low-income countries; LMICs = low-middle-income countries; UMICs = upper-middle-income countries.

Appendix Table 32.

Human Resources Strategy and Approach: Percentage Responding Yes, 2015

Group	Human Resources Strategy Exists	Training Plan Exists	Recruitment Plan Exists	Demographic Characteristics of Staff are Taken into Account	Polices for Flexible Working Arrangements Exist	Leadership and Talent Management Programs Exist	A Time Reporting System Is in Place
LICs (22)	64	91	59	55	32	32	45
LMICs (26)	73	88	65	54	27	50	58
UMICs (40)	60	75	58	48	30	48	55
HICs (47)	81	89	72	64	77	77	87
All (135)	70	85	64	56	46	56	65
Small States (31)	52	61	52	45	39	55	77
Nonsmall States (104)	76	92	68	59	48	56	62
Fragile States (18)	72	89	50	33	17	33	50
Nonfragile States (117)	70	85	67	59	50	59	68

Appendix Table 32.

Human Resources Strategy and Approach: Percentage Responding Yes, 2015

Group	Human Resources Strategy Exists	Training Plan Exists	Recruitment Plan Exists	Demographic Characteristics of Staff are Taken into Account	Polices for Flexible Working Arrangements Exist	Leadership and Talent Management Programs Exist	A Time Reporting System Is in Place
LICs (22)	64	91	59	55	32	32	45
LMICs (26)	73	88	65	54	27	50	58
UMICs (40)	60	75	58	48	30	48	55
HICs (47)	81	89	72	64	77	77	87
All (135)	70	85	64	56	46	56	65
Small States (31)	52	61	52	45	39	55	77
Nonsmall States (104)	76	92	68	59	48	56	62
Fragile States (18)	72	89	50	33	17	33	50
Nonfragile States (117)	70	85	67	59	50	59	68

Appendix Table 33.

Performance Management: Percentage Responding Yes, 2015

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. HICs = high-income countries; LICs = low-income countries; LMICs = low-middle-income countries; PM = performance management system; UMICs = upper-middle-income countries.

Appendix Table 33.

Performance Management: Percentage Responding Yes, 2015

Group	PM Present	PM Includes Individual Development Plans	PM Includes Specific Objectives for Staff	Staff Performance Is Evaluated Annually	Performance Is Linked to Pay and Reward	Increased Remuneration for Good Performance Possible	Poor Performance can Result in Reduced Salary	Poor Performance can Result in Denial of Annual Increment
LICs (22)	59	55	50	55	41	41	18	36
LMICs (26)	81	58	69	81	65	62	27	27
UMICs (40)	83	60	65	80	53	50	10	33
HICs (47)	85	68	74	81	70	64	34	49
All (135)	79	61	67	76	59	56	23	38
Small States (31)	71	61	61	68	52	48	13	39
Nonsmall States (104)	82	62	68	79	62	58	26	38
Fragile States (18)	50	44	33	50	39	39	22	33
Nonfragile States (117)	84	64	72	80	62	58	23	38

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. HICs = high-income countries; LICs = low-income countries; LMICs = low-middle-income countries; PM = performance management system; UMICs = upper-middle-income countries.

Appendix Table 33.

Performance Management: Percentage Responding Yes, 2015

Group	PM Present	PM Includes Individual Development Plans	PM Includes Specific Objectives for Staff	Staff Performance Is Evaluated Annually	Performance Is Linked to Pay and Reward	Increased Remuneration for Good Performance Possible	Poor Performance can Result in Reduced Salary	Poor Performance can Result in Denial of Annual Increment
LICs (22)	59	55	50	55	41	41	18	36
LMICs (26)	81	58	69	81	65	62	27	27
UMICs (40)	83	60	65	80	53	50	10	33
HICs (47)	85	68	74	81	70	64	34	49
All (135)	79	61	67	76	59	56	23	38
Small States (31)	71	61	61	68	52	48	13	39
Nonsmall States (104)	82	62	68	79	62	58	26	38
Fragile States (18)	50	44	33	50	39	39	22	33
Nonfragile States (117)	84	64	72	80	62	58	23	38

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. HICs = high-income countries; LICs = low-income countries; LMICs = low-middle-income countries; PM = performance management system; UMICs = upper-middle-income countries.

Appendix Table 34.

Staff Engagement: Percentage Answering Yes, 2015

Appendix Table 34.

Staff Engagement: Percentage Answering Yes, 2015

Group	Staff are Surveyed Periodically	Staff Engagement Is Assessed	Staff Survey Results are Shared with Staff	Staff are Engaged in Developing and Implementing Action Plans
LICs (22)	36	27	27	27
LMICs (26)	54	46	38	38
UMICs (40)	48	43	38	35
HICs (47)	68	57	62	55
All (135)	54	46	44	41
Small States (31)	32	32	26	29
Nonsmall States (104)	61	50	50	45
Fragile States (18)	33	28	28	22
Nonfragile States (117)	57	49	47	44

Appendix Table 34.

Staff Engagement: Percentage Answering Yes, 2015

Group	Staff are Surveyed Periodically	Staff Engagement Is Assessed	Staff Survey Results are Shared with Staff	Staff are Engaged in Developing and Implementing Action Plans
LICs (22)	36	27	27	27
LMICs (26)	54	46	38	38
UMICs (40)	48	43	38	35
HICs (47)	68	57	62	55
All (135)	54	46	44	41
Small States (31)	32	32	26	29
Nonsmall States (104)	61	50	50	45
Fragile States (18)	33	28	28	22
Nonfragile States (117)	57	49	47	44

Appendix Table 35.

Formal Approaches to Compliance Risk, 2015

(Percent)

Appendix Table 35.

Formal Approaches to Compliance Risk, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Formal Approach for Identifying, Assessing, and Prioritizing Key Compliance Risks	Return Filing	Payment Processing	Collection Enforcement	Verification/ Audit	Taxpayer Service
LICs (22)	77	73	73	68	77	64
LMICs (26)	77	62	50	58	77	58
UMICs (40)	70	58	45	53	68	45
HICs (47)	74	68	53	57	74	49
All (135)	74	64	53	58	73	52
Small States (31)	55	48	39	39	52	32
Nonsmall States (104)	80	69	58	63	80	58
Fragile States (18)	72	67	61	61	72	61
Nonfragile States (117)	74	64	52	57	74	50

Appendix Table 35.

Formal Approaches to Compliance Risk, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Formal Approach for Identifying, Assessing, and Prioritizing Key Compliance Risks	Return Filing	Payment Processing	Collection Enforcement	Verification/ Audit	Taxpayer Service
LICs (22)	77	73	73	68	77	64
LMICs (26)	77	62	50	58	77	58
UMICs (40)	70	58	45	53	68	45
HICs (47)	74	68	53	57	74	49
All (135)	74	64	53	58	73	52
Small States (31)	55	48	39	39	52	32
Nonsmall States (104)	80	69	58	63	80	58
Fragile States (18)	72	67	61	61	72	61
Nonfragile States (117)	74	64	52	57	74	50

Appendix Table 36.

High-Priority Compliance Approaches, 2015

(Percent)

Appendix Table 36.

High-Priority Compliance Approaches, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Cooperative Compliance	Leveraging Compliance through Tax Intermediaries/Agents	Making Third-Party Data Visible to Taxpayers (for example, Prefilled Returns, Online Services, etc.)	Preassessment Verification	Exchange of Information	Tax Compliance by Design
LICs (22)	55	18	18	36	32	50
LMICs (26)	58	38	35	35	58	31
UMICs (39)	62	28	18	44	56	51
HICs (46)	63	33	57	39	70	48
All (133)	60	30	35	39	57	46
Small States (31)	77	29	23	39	52	42
Nonsmall States (102)	54	30	38	38	58	46
Fragile States (18)	61	33	11	39	44	33
Nonfragile States (115)	59	29	38	38	58	47

Appendix Table 36.

High-Priority Compliance Approaches, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Cooperative Compliance	Leveraging Compliance through Tax Intermediaries/Agents	Making Third-Party Data Visible to Taxpayers (for example, Prefilled Returns, Online Services, etc.)	Preassessment Verification	Exchange of Information	Tax Compliance by Design
LICs (22)	55	18	18	36	32	50
LMICs (26)	58	38	35	35	58	31
UMICs (39)	62	28	18	44	56	51
HICs (46)	63	33	57	39	70	48
All (133)	60	30	35	39	57	46
Small States (31)	77	29	23	39	52	42
Nonsmall States (102)	54	30	38	38	58	46
Fragile States (18)	61	33	11	39	44	33
Nonfragile States (115)	59	29	38	38	58	47

Appendix Table 37.

High-Priority Focus Areas, 2015

(Percent)

Appendix Table 37.

High-Priority Focus Areas, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Base Erosion and Profit Shifting	Aggressive Domestic Tax Avoidance/Schemes	VAT Fraud (including VAT Refund Fraud)	Identity Fraud	Underground/Cash Economy	Amortization of Goodwill	Preferential Tax Regimes/Incentives	Transactions with Tax Havens	High-Net-Wealth Individuals	Research and Development Tax Credits	E-commerce
LICs (22)	59	64	77	45	27	9	50	36	9	14	5
LMICs (26)	42	62	73	46	62	4	62	38	38	27	19
UMICs (39)	49	54	62	36	46	8	26	23	31	21	18
HICs (46)	63	63	72	43	72	11	15	57	30	24	43
All (133)	54	60	70	42	55	8	33	40	29	22	25
Small States (31)	42	48	48	29	52	3	23	19	3	3	13
Nonsmall States (102)	57	63	75	45	55	10	36	45	36	27	28
Fragile States (18)	56	56	67	44	50	6	44	28	11	6	0
Nonfragile States (115)	53	60	69	41	55	9	31	41	31	24	28

Appendix Table 37.

High-Priority Focus Areas, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Base Erosion and Profit Shifting	Aggressive Domestic Tax Avoidance/Schemes	VAT Fraud (including VAT Refund Fraud)	Identity Fraud	Underground/Cash Economy	Amortization of Goodwill	Preferential Tax Regimes/Incentives	Transactions with Tax Havens	High-Net-Wealth Individuals	Research and Development Tax Credits	E-commerce
LICs (22)	59	64	77	45	27	9	50	36	9	14	5
LMICs (26)	42	62	73	46	62	4	62	38	38	27	19
UMICs (39)	49	54	62	36	46	8	26	23	31	21	18
HICs (46)	63	63	72	43	72	11	15	57	30	24	43
All (133)	54	60	70	42	55	8	33	40	29	22	25
Small States (31)	42	48	48	29	52	3	23	19	3	3	13
Nonsmall States (102)	57	63	75	45	55	10	36	45	36	27	28
Fragile States (18)	56	56	67	44	50	6	44	28	11	6	0
Nonfragile States (115)	53	60	69	41	55	9	31	41	31	24	28

Appendix Table 38.

Tax Gap Estimates and Conduct of Random Audits and Uses, 2015

(Percent)

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. CIT = corporate income tax; HICs = high-income countries; UCs = low-income countries; LMICs = low-middle-income countries; PIT = personal income tax; UMICs = upper-middle-income countries; VAT = value-added tax.

Appendix Table 38.

Tax Gap Estimates and Conduct of Random Audits and Uses, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Tax Gap—PIT	Tax Gap—CIT	Tax Gap—VAT	Tax Gap—Other	Random Audits Conducted	Test Compliance in Targeted Sectors	Enhance Risk Profiling Systems	Produce Tax Gap Estimates	Measure the Behavioral Effects of Audits
LICs (22)	27	27	32	27	59	59	55	14	50
LMICs (26)	27	27	35	23	77	69	58	15	42
UMICs (40)	33	35	35	25	68	60	50	18	30
HICs (47)	21	23	36	21	62	53	43	17	23
All (135)	27	28	35	24	66	59	50	16	33
Small States (31)	13	13	16	13	74	68	42	10	26
Nonsmall States (104)	31	33	40	27	63	57	52	18	36
Fragile States (18)	28	28	28	28	67	67	50	17	44
Nonfragile States (117)	26	28	36	23	66	58	50	16	32

Appendix Table 38.

Tax Gap Estimates and Conduct of Random Audits and Uses, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Tax Gap—PIT	Tax Gap—CIT	Tax Gap—VAT	Tax Gap—Other	Random Audits Conducted	Test Compliance in Targeted Sectors	Enhance Risk Profiling Systems	Produce Tax Gap Estimates	Measure the Behavioral Effects of Audits
LICs (22)	27	27	32	27	59	59	55	14	50
LMICs (26)	27	27	35	23	77	69	58	15	42
UMICs (40)	33	35	35	25	68	60	50	18	30
HICs (47)	21	23	36	21	62	53	43	17	23
All (135)	27	28	35	24	66	59	50	16	33
Small States (31)	13	13	16	13	74	68	42	10	26
Nonsmall States (104)	31	33	40	27	63	57	52	18	36
Fragile States (18)	28	28	28	28	67	67	50	17	44
Nonfragile States (117)	26	28	36	23	66	58	50	16	32

Appendix Table 39.

Administrations Using Specified Case Selection Criteria, 2015

(Percent)

Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. BEPS = base erosion and profit shifting; HICs = high-income countries; LICs = low-income countries; LMICs = low-middle-income countries; UMICs = upper-middle-income countries.

Appendix Table 39.

Administrations Using Specified Case Selection Criteria, 2015

(Percent)

Group	LICs (22)	LMICs (26)	UMICs (40)	HICs (47)	All (135)	Small States (31)	Nonsmall States (104)	Fragile States (18)	Nonfragile States (117)
Economic Sector	95	92	88	85	89	81	91	94	88
Third-Party Information	86	96	80	91	88	77	91	89	88
Taxpayer Behavior	73	96	83	85	84	77	87	78	85
Taxpayer Category (for example, self-employed)	82	77	80	83	81	71	84	83	80
Information Cross-checking	77	88	68	87	80	61	86	83	79
Significant Changes to Taxpayer	77	81	78	79	79	65	83	89	77
Selected Based on Judgment	64	81	68	79	73	77	72	61	75
Internal Intelligence Function	77	81	65	72	73	61	76	78	72
Risk Profiling—Business Rules	68	73	58	77	69	42	77	72	68
Compliance Checks (for example, payroll)	64	65	63	77	68	71	67	50	71
Collected Tax	59	73	70	57	64	55	67	61	65
Frequency (time between audits)	77	69	53	57	61	42	67	67	61
BEPS or Aggressive Tax Planning	59	46	53	55	53	23	63	39	56
Random	36	65	55	51	53	58	51	39	55
Location	32	62	55	53	52	39	56	44	53
International Exchange of Information	32	42	48	70	52	26	60	17	57
Tax Control Framework	50	69	35	47	48	23	56	50	48
Ownership in a Corporate Entity	27	58	45	47	45	39	47	22	49
Risk Profiling—Predictive Modelling	36	50	43	38	41	19	48	50	40
Commercial Register	14	35	33	36	31	19	35	17	33
Other	0	12	10	9	8	6	9	0	9

Appendix Table 39.

Administrations Using Specified Case Selection Criteria, 2015

(Percent)

Group	LICs (22)	LMICs (26)	UMICs (40)	HICs (47)	All (135)	Small States (31)	Nonsmall States (104)	Fragile States (18)	Nonfragile States (117)
Economic Sector	95	92	88	85	89	81	91	94	88
Third-Party Information	86	96	80	91	88	77	91	89	88
Taxpayer Behavior	73	96	83	85	84	77	87	78	85
Taxpayer Category (for example, self-employed)	82	77	80	83	81	71	84	83	80
Information Cross-checking	77	88	68	87	80	61	86	83	79
Significant Changes to Taxpayer	77	81	78	79	79	65	83	89	77
Selected Based on Judgment	64	81	68	79	73	77	72	61	75
Internal Intelligence Function	77	81	65	72	73	61	76	78	72
Risk Profiling—Business Rules	68	73	58	77	69	42	77	72	68
Compliance Checks (for example, payroll)	64	65	63	77	68	71	67	50	71
Collected Tax	59	73	70	57	64	55	67	61	65
Frequency (time between audits)	77	69	53	57	61	42	67	67	61
BEPS or Aggressive Tax Planning	59	46	53	55	53	23	63	39	56
Random	36	65	55	51	53	58	51	39	55
Location	32	62	55	53	52	39	56	44	53
International Exchange of Information	32	42	48	70	52	26	60	17	57
Tax Control Framework	50	69	35	47	48	23	56	50	48
Ownership in a Corporate Entity	27	58	45	47	45	39	47	22	49
Risk Profiling—Predictive Modelling	36	50	43	38	41	19	48	50	40
Commercial Register	14	35	33	36	31	19	35	17	33
Other	0	12	10	9	8	6	9	0	9

Appendix Table 40.

Electronic Methods in Audit and Specific Uses, 2015

(Percent)

Appendix Table 40.

Electronic Methods in Audit and Specific Uses, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Electronic Audit Methods Used	Behavioral or Predictive Models and Analysis for Risk Assessment	Electronic Methods Used for Risk Profiling	Electronic Methods Used in Case Selection	Electronic Methods Used for Audit Case Management
LICs (22)	27	14	18	27	18
LMICs (26)	31	8	19	31	19
UMICs (40)	58	28	48	48	35
HICs (47)	85	47	70	74	57
All (135)	57	28	45	50	37
Small States (31)	48	16	29	29	23
Nonsmall States (104)	60	32	50	57	41
Fragile States (18)	28	11	17	28	17
Nonfragile States (117)	62	31	50	54	40

Appendix Table 40.

Electronic Methods in Audit and Specific Uses, 2015

(Percent)

Group	Electronic Audit Methods Used	Behavioral or Predictive Models and Analysis for Risk Assessment	Electronic Methods Used for Risk Profiling	Electronic Methods Used in Case Selection	Electronic Methods Used for Audit Case Management
LICs (22)	27	14	18	27	18
LMICs (26)	31	8	19	31	19
UMICs (40)	58	28	48	48	35
HICs (47)	85	47	70	74	57
All (135)	57	28	45	50	37
Small States (31)	48	16	29	29	23
Nonsmall States (104)	60	32	50	57	41
Fragile States (18)	28	11	17	28	17
Nonfragile States (117)	62	31	50	54	40

Chapter 2—Administrative and Operational Practices

Appendix Table 41.

Meeting Performance Standards Index

Appendix Table 41.

Meeting Performance Standards Index

	Mean Performance Indicator Value
Group	2014	2015
LICs (21/22)	48.1	42.3
LMICs (25/24)	58.0	58.3
UMICs (36)	59.4	60.6
HICs (45)	65.3	64.4
All (127)	59.4	58.3
Small States (28)	50.7	51.8
Nonsmall States (99)	61.8	60.2
Fragile States (17)	44.7	42.9
Nonfragile States (110)	61.6	60.7

Appendix Table 41.

Meeting Performance Standards Index

	Mean Performance Indicator Value
Group	2014	2015
LICs (21/22)	48.1	42.3
LMICs (25/24)	58.0	58.3
UMICs (36)	59.4	60.6
HICs (45)	65.3	64.4
All (127)	59.4	58.3
Small States (28)	50.7	51.8
Nonsmall States (99)	61.8	60.2
Fragile States (17)	44.7	42.9
Nonfragile States (110)	61.6	60.7

Appendix Table 42.

Autonomy Index, 2015 Averages

Appendix Table 42.

Autonomy Index, 2015 Averages

Group	Semiautonomous	Within Ministry	All
LICs (22)	94.7	61.8	79.8
LMICs (26)	87.0	62.9	75.9
UMICs (40)	86.4	55.0	69.1
HICs (47)	89.8	71.9	81.0
All (135)	89.2	63.2	76.3
Small States (8/23/31)	89.8	51.0	61.0
Nonsmall States (60/44/104)	89.1	69.6	80.9
Fragile States (8/10/18)	84.1	57.3	69.2
Nonfragile States (60/57/117)	89.8	64.3	77.4

Appendix Table 42.

Autonomy Index, 2015 Averages

Group	Semiautonomous	Within Ministry	All
LICs (22)	94.7	61.8	79.8
LMICs (26)	87.0	62.9	75.9
UMICs (40)	86.4	55.0	69.1
HICs (47)	89.8	71.9	81.0
All (135)	89.2	63.2	76.3
Small States (8/23/31)	89.8	51.0	61.0
Nonsmall States (60/44/104)	89.1	69.6	80.9
Fragile States (8/10/18)	84.1	57.3	69.2
Nonfragile States (60/57/117)	89.8	64.3	77.4

Appendix Table 43.

Public Accountability Index

Appendix Table 43.

Public Accountability Index

Group	2015 Average
LICs (22)	42.0
LMICs (26)	51.9
UMICs (40)	44.6
HICs (47)	55.1
All (135)	49.3
Small States (31)	31.2
Nonsmall States (104)	54.6
Fragile States (18)	32.4
Nonfragile States (117)	51.9

Appendix Table 43.

Public Accountability Index

Group	2015 Average
LICs (22)	42.0
LMICs (26)	51.9
UMICs (40)	44.6
HICs (47)	55.1
All (135)	49.3
Small States (31)	31.2
Nonsmall States (104)	54.6
Fragile States (18)	32.4
Nonfragile States (117)	51.9

Appendix Table 44.

Service Orientation Index

Appendix Table 44.

Service Orientation Index

Group	2015 Average
LICs (22)	51.7
LMICs (26)	64.2
UMICs (40)	65.0
HICs (47)	74.0
All (135)	65.8
Small States (31)	50.4
Nonsmall States (104)	70.4
Fragile States (18)	43.6
Nonfragile States (117)	69.2

Appendix Table 44.

Service Orientation Index

Group	2015 Average
LICs (22)	51.7
LMICs (26)	64.2
UMICs (40)	65.0
HICs (47)	74.0
All (135)	65.8
Small States (31)	50.4
Nonsmall States (104)	70.4
Fragile States (18)	43.6
Nonfragile States (117)	69.2

Appendix Table 45.

Consolidation of All Indices, 2015

Appendix Table 45.

Consolidation of All Indices, 2015

Index Averages for 2015
Group	Meeting Performance Standards	Management and Human Resource Autonomy	Public Accountability	Service Orientation
LICs (22/22/22/22)	42.3	79.8	42.0	51.7
LMICs (24/26/26/26)	58.3	75.9	51.9	64.2
UMICs (36/40/40/40)	60.6	69.1	44.6	65.0
HICs (45/47/47/47)	64.4	81.0	55.1	74.0
All (127/135/135/135)	58.3	76.3	49.3	65.8
Small States (28/31/31/31)	51.8	61.0	31.2	50.4
Nonsmall States (99/104/104/104)	60.2	80.9	54.6	70.4
Fragile States (17/18/18/18)	42.9	69.2	32.4	43.6
Nonfragile States (110/117/117/117)	60.7	77.4	51.9	69.2

Appendix Table 45.

Consolidation of All Indices, 2015

Index Averages for 2015
Group	Meeting Performance Standards	Management and Human Resource Autonomy	Public Accountability	Service Orientation
LICs (22/22/22/22)	42.3	79.8	42.0	51.7
LMICs (24/26/26/26)	58.3	75.9	51.9	64.2
UMICs (36/40/40/40)	60.6	69.1	44.6	65.0
HICs (45/47/47/47)	64.4	81.0	55.1	74.0
All (127/135/135/135)	58.3	76.3	49.3	65.8
Small States (28/31/31/31)	51.8	61.0	31.2	50.4
Nonsmall States (99/104/104/104)	60.2	80.9	54.6	70.4
Fragile States (17/18/18/18)	42.9	69.2	32.4	43.6
Nonfragile States (110/117/117/117)	60.7	77.4	51.9	69.2

This is in sharp contrast to TADAT, which is a formal evidence-based tool to assess tax administrative performance against nine broad performance outcome areas that cover the entire range of tax administration operations, and the assessment is carried out in situ by persons certified in the TADAT methodology.

The IMF’s Staff Report Current Challenges in Revenue Mobilization: Improving Tax Compliance (IMF 2015c) points to the value of comparative data in enabling countries to improve their basic operations and implement approaches that grow tax compliance and hence revenue.

OECD published a biannual Tax Administration Series with the results of their own survey, their most recent publication—Tax Administration 2017: Comparative Information on OECD and Other Advanced and Emerging Economies—is based on ISORA 2016 and covers 55 tax administrations. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/tax_admin-2017-en.

The IMF published Understanding Revenue Administration in 2015 and Understanding Revenue Administration Volume 2 in 2017 to present some of the aggregated data and related analyses and observations from RA-FIT Rounds 1 and 2, respectively.

CIAT’s 2016 publication The Revenue Administrations in Latin America and the Caribbean was based on data collected through RA-FIT Round 2. Several CIAT working papers published in 2018 have used ISORA 2016 data.

The use of the on-line platform for data capture improves data quality, through the implementation of consistency and completion checks as well as other validations of data entered by respondents.

Not all participants are sovereign states, but all are members of one of the international partner groups or have a relationship with one of the IMF’s Regional Technical Assistance Centers.

The World Bank groups countries by 2013 gross national income per capita as follows: low-income countries—$1,045 or less; lower-middle-income countries—$1,046 to $4,125; upper-middle-income countries—$4,126 to $12,745; and high-income countries—$12,746 or more.

Data in the Tax Administration Forum’s database can be accessed from https://qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?Subject=TAS.

See, for example, IMF (2018).

The IMF uses a three-year average of the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment score as opposed to the most recent outturn only. See IMF (2015b). This results in the designation of 39 states as fragile in 2015, of which 18 provided responses to ISORA 2016.

For example, scrutiny of ISORA 2016 responses resulted in significant changes to the 2018 questionnaire, which will facilitate easier completion by participants. The proportion of prefilled data entry points has grown from 44 percent (in the ISORA 2016 questionnaire) to 69 percent, along with a reduced proportion and number (reduced from 368 to 282 data entry points) of annual questions, of which most are numerical. Both the 2016 and 2018 questionnaires may be found at http://data.raft.org/?sk=3dba84d7-1dd8-4533-b682-c0dfcb1d7f13&sId=1445908451587.

The TADAT definition of “core taxes” is used in this publication. Core taxes are defined by TADAT as direct taxes such as PIT and CIT, and indirect taxes such as VAT and other goods and services taxes; and social security contributions where they are a major source of revenue and collected by the tax administration. This is discussed in more detail in the section on scope in Part IIB. See also http://tadat.org/fles/IMF_TADAT-FieldGuide_web.pdf.

For VAT, the expected returns and the on-time returns across all return frequencies were totaled to derive an overall VAT on-time filing rate.

In this figure and the tables and figures that follow, the number of responses on which the statistics shown in each graphical point or table column are based is shown in parentheses in the order in which the statistics are provided.

See OECD (2017).

No data was collected on the on-time filing rate of employers for pay-as-you-earn in Round 1. Round 2 separated PIT filing data for “salaried” and “other” taxpayers; the data have been combined to create a single PIT on-time filing rate for comparability with later years.

Currently, the TADAT Field Guide does not provide specific advice on this methodology. Some jurisdictions appear to be simply using their “active” registrant base, which in some cases is the same as total registrants, in their ISORA submissions, without any consideration of the impact of upcoming changes due to program activity (such as initiatives to expand the formal economy) or economic forecasts. Others seem to be making a calculation of the number of expected returns for a specific tax year rather than for a specific time period, and this may have an impact.

TADAT measures electronically filed declarations for all core taxes, and assigns ratings as follows: A—at least 85 percent of declarations are filed electronically for each of the core taxes, and all large taxpayers file core tax declarations electronically; B—at least 70 percent of declarations are filed electronically for each of the core taxes, and at least 80 percent of large taxpayers file core tax declarations electronically; C—at least 50 percent of declarations are filed electronically for at least two core taxes; and D—the requirements for a “C” rating or higher are not met.

TADAT also measures electronic payments for core taxes, with the following rating: A—electronic payments account for more than 75 percent of the value of total tax collections for each of CIT, PIT, VAT, and PAYE; B—electronic payments account for more than 50 percent of the value of total tax collections for each of CIT, PIT, VAT, and PAYE; C—electronic payment facilities are used for at least one of the four core taxes; and D— the requirements for a “C” rating or higher are not met.

TADAT defines the measure as “the value of total core tax arrears at fiscal year-end as a percentage of total core tax revenue collections for the fiscal year.” The numerator in this ratio (that is, total core tax arrears) includes all core tax arrears including penalties and interest, both collectible and uncollectible. The denominator includes the total amount of core tax collected (net of refunds) by the tax administration during the year.

Most ISORA partners only focus on tax administration and as such do not regard VAT on imports as a tax collected by the tax administration.

The whiskers extend to 2.5 times the third/second quartile range above/below the median.

This section deals with “assessment results,” or additional taxes assessed through audit. This is sometimes called the “audit effort.” It would be preferable to deal with additional tax assessed through audit that is collected. While this information is requested in ISORA, response rates are low. Many administrations report an inability to track collection at this level of specificity.

Such as OECD (2016).

TADAT does not deal with any specific measures for verification results, or coverage or adjustment rates. It focuses more on the qualitative aspects of verification programs, their application to core taxes, the use of risk-based case selection, and the like. TADAT notes that verification programs have a far wider import than simply raising additional revenues—they also have critical roles in providing a deterrent and obtaining intelligence for the administration.

IMF- and Inter-American Center of Tax Administration–supported administrations were presented with these questions as optional questions. In other words, they were not required to provide data.

This is found on ISORA Form 3A, question 1, Col. B.

This is found on Form 1, question 3, Col. C less 3.II.B. b and e.

The ratio of active taxpayers to jurisdiction population for ISORA 2016 respondents varies from under 0.1 percent to over 100 percent.

See https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.pop.totl.

”Revenue authority refers to a governance model for revenue administration where traditional ministry of finance departments (tax and usually customs administrations) are established as an organization or agency with a degree of autonomy from government and independence from standard public service policies. A more precise definition of [revenue authority] is not really possible since these governance models cover a range on a spectrum” (IMF 2006).

Examples of “others” include, among others, taxes on payroll and workforce, travel tax, selective hydrocarbon taxes, capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, various withholding taxes, nonresident shareholders’ tax, education tax, hotel room tax, insurance surrender tax, graded tax, tourism marketing tax, technology tax, and tax on weapons.

Examples of “others” provided by ISORA participants includes financial police, commercial registration, provision of statistics, tourism fees, public accounts management, treasury functions, vehicle licenses, gun licenses, state laboratory services, cadaster, passport fees, trade licenses, liquor administration, public officials asset declarations, traffic fines, toll road fees, state property administration, broadcasting fees, scholarship schemes, identity checks, mining royalties, stamp duties, training levies, utilities payments, land transfer fees, immigration fees, and clearance certificates.

OECD (2017).

Tax Operations: includes functions both at headquarters and operating offices related to – Registration and Taxpayer Services – taxpayer registration, taxpayer services and education; Returns and Payment Processing -processing returns, processing payments (including electronic payments), reconciling accounts and processing refunds; Audit, Investigation, and Other Verification – audit, investigation and other tasks involved with verification of taxpayer statements and claims; Enforced Debt Collection and Related Functions – debt collection and enforcement; Disputes and Appeals – management of objections and appeals; and, Other Tax Operations Functions – activities not covered by the prior descriptions, for example, staff involved in interpretations and rulings. Support Activities: includes all administrative, human resource management, information technology and other overhead functions, both at headquarters and in operational offices

7he types of offices are headquarters—those central units not involved in operational activity; regional offices—offices reporting to headquarters that manage one or more local offices; local/branch offices—offices directly carrying out service or compliance activities; and three standalone office types—data processing centers; service centers (including call centers); and other offices.

The ISORA 2016 questionnaire requested the age profile for permanent staff; however, many administrations have provided information covering more than permanent staff alone.

International Labour Organisation (2018).

The meaning of “executive” varies among tax administrations: in a few cases, particularly in very small tax administrations, the ratio of “executives” to staff is over 25 percent, whereas the lowest ratio is less than 1 in a 1,000, and thus the figures provided by participants are not necessarily comparable.

The small taxpayer regimes are detailed in the ISORA 2016 Guide, available on the RA-FIT Data portal.

On registration, TADAT assesses, among others, who must register, by law; the nature and content of the registration database; use of a taxpayer identification number; procedures for registration and deregistration; accuracy of register; detection of potential taxpayers not in register; and the extent of computerization in registration processes.

The complete TADAT definition reads: “A registered taxpayer from whom a tax declaration (return) is expected (i.e. ‘active’ taxpayers exclude those who have not filed a declaration within at least the last year because the case is defunct (e.g. a business taxpayer has ceased trading or an individual is deceased), the taxpayer cannot be located, or the taxpayer is insolvent).”

These are cases where total taxpayers on the registry are provided, but not active taxpayers, or where active taxpayers are provided but not total, or where the same number has been used for both active and total.

This calculation uses active taxpayers where that data is provided, or total taxpayers where active is not provided.

Due to the limited responses available for the Middle East and Central Asia, the percentage of “Yes” responses ranges more widely than it does for other regions.

For each of the 10 subject areas there could be a single standard or a group of standards. Participants are asked to self-evaluate the extent to which they have met the standard or standards for each area.

GDP per capita was used as a measure of income.

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share Link

Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/087/2019/005/article-A999-en.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Collapse
Expand

ISORA 2016: Understanding Revenue Administration

Author:

William Joseph Crandall

Elizabeth Gavin

, and

Mr. Andrew R Masters

Volume/Issue:: Volume 2019: Issue 005

Publisher:: International Monetary Fund

ISBN:: 9781484383216

ISSN:: 2616-5333

Pages:: 137

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484383216.087

Keywords
References
Appendix Tables

Foresee

Appendix Table 45.

Consolidation of All Indices, 2015

Index Averages for 2015
Group	Meeting Performance Standards	Management and Human Resource Autonomy	Public Accountability	Service Orientation
LICs (22/22/22/22)	42.3	79.8	42.0	51.7
LMICs (24/26/26/26)	58.3	75.9	51.9	64.2
UMICs (36/40/40/40)	60.6	69.1	44.6	65.0
HICs (45/47/47/47)	64.4	81.0	55.1	74.0
All (127/135/135/135)	58.3	76.3	49.3	65.8
Small States (28/31/31/31)	51.8	61.0	31.2	50.4
Nonsmall States (99/104/104/104)	60.2	80.9	54.6	70.4
Fragile States (17/18/18/18)	42.9	69.2	32.4	43.6
Nonfragile States (110/117/117/117)	60.7	77.4	51.9	69.2

Topics

Countries

Series

About

Resources

References

Appendix Tables

Chapter 2—Performance-related Data

Chapter 2—Profile Data

Chapter 2—Administrative and Operational Practices

Share Link

Table of Contents

Headings

Metrics

Foresee