Encyclopedia of Law & Economics - 6020 Tax Evasion And Tax Compliance

6020

Tax Evasion And Tax Compliance

Luigi Alberto Franzoni

University of Bologna, Italy

© Copyright 1998 Luigi Alberto Franzoni

Contents

Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Definition and Extent of Tax Evasion
3. The Decision to Evade
4. Empirical Evidence on Taxpayers' Behavior
5. Evasion and Enforcement
6. Procedures and Institutions
7. Conclusions
Bibliography on Tax Evasion and Tax Compliance (6020)
Other References


Abstract

This essay offers an overview of the theoretical and empirical research on taxevasion, delineating the variety of factors affecting noncompliance andexamining possible remedies. Particular emphasis is placed on the institutionaland procedural rules governing the tax enforcement policy.

JEL classification: K34

Keywords: Tax Enforcement, Compliance, Taxpayer's Behavior, Tax Gap

1. Introduction

Tax evasion is said to occur when individuals deliberately fail to comply withtheir tax obligations. The resulting tax revenue loss may cause serious damageto the proper functioning of the public sector, threatening its capacity to financeits basic expenses.

Although tax compliance is a major concern for all governments andanalytical investigation of tax evasion can be traced as far back as the work oneof the pioneers of "law and economics," Cesare Beccaria (1764), the problem waslong segregated from the main body of economics and left essentially to theattention of tax authorities and jurisprudence. The modern use of economic toolsfor the analysis of tax compliance can be credited to Allingham and Sandmo(1972), who extended the influential work of Becker (1968) on law enforcementto taxation using modern risk theory.

In the decades since, the literature on tax evasion has blossomed (aswitnessed by the voluminous bibliography enclosed). Probably no aspect of taxcompliance has escaped at least preliminary scrutiny. Detailed introductions tothis theme are now available, as in the monographs of Cowell (1990)(theoretically oriented) and Roth et al. (1989) (an interdisciplinary perspective),and the surveys of Andreoni, Erard and Feinstein (1998) (including a thoroughdiscussion of empirical results) and Slemrod and Yitzhaki (1998) (with largesections devoted to avoidance and administration).

As a complex phenomenon, tax compliance can be addressed from a varietyof perspectives. Taxpayers' stance is influenced by many factors, including theirdisposition towards public institutions, the perceived fairness of the taxes,prevailing social norms, and the chances of noncompliance being detected andpunished. Without questioning the relevance of ethical and sociologicalmotivations, the economic analysis of tax compliance has focused mainly onhow evasion can be deterred through detection and sanctions. The thesis is thatthe taxpayer's behavior can be fruitfully seen as the result of a rational calculus,a careful assessment of the costs and benefits of evasion. Since even in thesimplest tax and enforcement systems the incentives to comply are far fromobvious, this economic perspective offers precious insights that can be used toderive suitable policy measures. Yet, given the complexity of the economicset-up in which the taxpayer usually makes compliance decisions, no simplepolicy prescription should be expected. In fact, as we will see, to date theoreticaland empirical research has managed to establish very few firm points.Nevertheless, the general picture of tax compliance is much clearer now than justa few decades ago. At least the literature has shown that evasion is a seriousproblem, too complex to be solved by simple policy adjustments, and that the setof instruments for controlling it is vast.

This article provides an overview of the findings of the theoretical and theempirical literature on tax evasion. Section 2 defines tax evasion, as opposed totax avoidance and other unlawful activities. In Section 3, Allingham andSandmo's basic model of tax evasion is presented and discussed, with a briefreview of its numerous extensions. Section 4 surveys the empirical evidence ontaxpayer compliance. Section 5 deals with optimal tax enforcement policy, andinvestigates some possible strategies for combating evasion. Section 6 examinesadditional policy issues, connected with the institutional and procedural aspectsof tax enforcement. Section 7 provides some concluding observations.

2. Definition and Extent of Tax Evasion

By distancing effective payments from statutory taxes, tax evasion defines aspecific revenue deficiency, known as the "tax gap." (In the US, for example, thefederal income tax gap has been estimated at 17%).

Let us emphasize from the outset that the tax gap is not equal to the amountof additional revenue that would be collected by stricter enforcement. For perfectenforcement would significantly affect the economic scenario (some firms wouldgo bankrupt, taxpayers would modify their labor supply, prices and incomeswould change, etc.), so the tax base would surely be altered. As a result, at leastin theory, net revenue could even turn out to be smaller. Thus standardmeasures of tax gaps must be interpreted cautiously. They are only roughlysuggestive of the likely immediate effects of marginal improvements inenforcement. Also, one should be wary of the cliché that statutory taxesrepresent the ideal world and tax gaps an intrinsic evil. This is not only becausetaxes may not be "just", but also because statutory taxes themselves are usuallydetermined by a legislature that is perfectly aware that they will only be partiallyenforced and therefore differ from those that would be optimal under perfectenforcement.

On closer scrutiny, therefore, estimation of the tax gap merely portrays thewedge between economic reality and a purely legal construct called "statutorytaxes." Reality and its legal representation may differ for any number of reasons,among which, as we shall see, the willful misrepresentation of tax liabilities is justone.

In economic terms, evasion problems originate in the fact that the variablesthat define the tax base (incomes, sales, revenues, wealth, etc.) are often not"observable." That is, an external observer cannot usually see the actualmagnitude of an individual's tax base, and hence cannot know his true taxliability. Sometimes this knowledge can be obtained by means of costly audits,in which case we say that the tax base is verifiable (at a cost). In other cases, aswhen it is related to cash payments, the tax base cannot be verified at all.Taxpayers can take advantage of the imperfect information about their liabilityand elude taxation.

A related concept is tax avoidance (or reduction), by which individualsreduce their own tax in a way that may be unintended by tax legislators but ispermissible by law. Avoidance is typically accomplished by structuringtransactions so as to minimize tax liability. In some cases, avoidance isencouraged by legislation granting favorable tax treatment to specific activitiesin contrast to general taxation principles. From a legal standpoint, evasion differsfrom avoidance in being unlawful, and hence punishable (at least in theory). Asfar as economic function is concerned, however, evasion and avoidanceobviously have very strong similarities; sometimes, indeed, they can hardly bedistinguished [see for instance Feldman and Kay (1981), Cowell (1990), andMcBarnet (1992)]. This adds to the difficulty of interpreting the real implicationsof the tax gap.

Another problem with the measurement of tax evasion relates to its properdelimitation within the broader set of the informal economy. No taxes aregenerally levied on transactions in the home and criminal sectors, which areusually beyond the reach of authorities and official statistics. Hence, properdetermination of the boundaries of evasion is a formidable task, in that evasionis often inextricable from other illegal and unrecorded activities. What, one mightask, is the evaded tax of a hired killer?

Aggregate estimates of evasion must deal with all these problems, in additionto the classic problem of lack of direct data. Various estimation methods havebeen devised, some based on data collected by fiscal authorities, others - lessreliable - on data derived from national accounts and surveys. Their applicationsuggests that in the Western industrialized countries evaded taxes amount tobetween 5% and 25% of potential tax revenue, depending on the techniqueadopted and the country [see monographs by Feige (1989), Pyle (1989) andThomas (1992)], with higher figures (up to a 30-40%) for less developedcountries [Tanzi and Shome (1994)].

As noted, one should not attach too much importance to such estimates,which essentially tell us that statutory taxes are not the whole story. Whatmatters is effective taxation, i.e. the net tax burden on individuals. This has majorimplications bearing on the economic consequences of evasion: the mainquestion is not how evasion alters the shape of statutory allocation of the fiscalburden, but how it constrains the set of policies that can be implemented. Whentaxes can be evaded, taxation will prove to be an imperfect tool for pursuinggovernment aims (be they redistribution, efficiency, or whatever), which will beonly partly achieved. Indeed, effective taxation may turn regressive, as the moreaffluent usually have better opportunities to evade (or avoid) taxes. Also,evasion may be powerfully deleterious to horizontal equity, owing to unequaldistribution of opportunities to evade and of the willingness to seize them. Thisin turn may induce production inefficiencies, because competition would bedistorted by the unequal distribution of the tax burden among firms.

The adverse consequences of tax evasion are sometimes exacerbated bylaws, or even constitutions, drafted as if the tax base were observable, limitingthe set of corrective instruments available to the government (which cannot, forinstance, set tax rates according to their presumed degree of enforceability).

In order to evaluate the way in which noncompliance affects the actual taxpayment of individuals, one must examine taxpayers' compliance behavior moreclosely. This can be done by developing a theoretical model to predict howtaxpayers' behavior is affected by the relevant variables. The following sectionreviews some models and assesses their fit with observed practise.

3. The Decision to Evade

Compliance with the tax law typically means: i) true reporting of the tax base, ii)correct computation of the liability, iii) timely filing of the return, and iv) timelypayment of the amounts due. The bulk of tax evasion involves the first point.Most evaders either do not declare their liability at all, or declare it only in part.In the following, we concentrate on the problem faced by an individual who hasto decide how much of his tax aggregate to report, or whether to report it at all.The focus is on income taxes (which account for a large part of fiscal revenue inmost countries). However, the insights provided can be applied to other taxesas well.

3.1 Allingham and Sandmo

A useful model of taxpayers' evasion decision is that developed by Allinghamand Sandmo (1972) and Srinivasan (1973), and revised by Yitzhaki (1974).Evasion is viewed as a portfolio allocation problem: the taxpayer must decidewhat portion of his income y (postulated as exogenous) to invest in the riskyactivity labeled "tax evasion." If the taxpayer does not want to take any risk, hereports his income in full; otherwise, he reports only a fraction of it and bears therisk of being caught and fined. The problem is thus to choose the optimal taxreturn, when the income reported is taxed at a fixed rate t and evasion is fined ata penalty rate f proportional to the tax evaded. The probability of an audit, i.e.the probability that the true income level will be discovered, is a constantdenoted by a. The taxpayer decides the amount to conceal so as to maximize hisexpected utility from net income. If we call yNA the net income when the evaderis not audited (gross income less taxes on reported income) and yA the netincome when he is audited (gross income less taxes on true income less the fine),we can write the taxpayer's expected utility as

EU(e)= (1 - a) u(yNA) + a u(yA)= (1 - a) u(y - t(y - e)) + a u(y - ty - fte),

where e denotes the amount of income concealed.

This representation yields some interesting results from the standpoint ofcomparative statics. On the reasonable assumption that the taxpayer isrisk-averse, it can be shown that the amount of tax evaded, te* , varies inverselywith the audit rate a and the penalty rate f, while it depends negatively on the taxrate t and positively on income y if and only if taxpayer's utility functiondisplays Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion. Further, the proportion of taxevaded, te*/y, increases with income if and only if taxpayer's utility functiondisplays Decreasing Relative Risk Aversion [see Cowell (1990)]. Of these results,the least obvious is surely the inverse correlation between the amount ofevasion and the tax rate (with DARA). This stems from the fact that both thedirect gain from evasion (taxes saved) and the expected fine dependproportionally on t. Hence, an increase in the tax rate does not induce the"substitution" of the risky asset for the safe one, but operates solely throughthe reduction in disposable income [Yitzhaki (1974)].

Once the optimal amount of underreporting, e*, has been calculated, one caneasily derive the "evasion rent," defined as the monetary benefit accruing to theevader (more precisely, the amount of income that he would be willing to pay toswitch from a virtual system of perfect enforcement to the actual, imperfect, one):

Evasion rent = [1 - a(1 + f)]te* - RP(e*),

where RP(e*) is the risk premium associated with the audit lottery. The evasionrent is therefore equal to the net return on evasion (evaded taxes less expectedsanctions) less the "loss" due to the riskiness associated with random auditing(note, incidentally, that if taxpayers were risk-lovers, the risk premium wouldeffectively represent a "gain").

Several observations are in order. First, for evasion rent to be positive, thenet return on evasion has to be positive (the evasion gamble needs to be "betterthan fair"). That is, for evasion to occur at all, it is necessary that a(1+f)<1; i.e.the penalty and audit rates must be sufficiently low. Second, when the net returnon evasion is positive, the only reason why taxpayers may not evade their wholetaxes is the fear of uncertainty (the risk premium loss). Indeed, if taxpayers wereinfinitely averse to risk, they would report their income in full even if the netreturn on evasion were positive (taxpayers are hyper-pessimists and behave asif they were to be audited for sure). Finally, the risk premium produces adifferential between the rent to the taxpayer and the net revenue loss to the taxauthorities. Hence, it provides a monetary measure of the "deadweight loss" dueto the randomness of tax enforcement [Yitzhaki (1987)].

3.2 Extensions

This basic model gives an account of taxpayers' evasion decisions in a verysimple set-up: taxes and penalties are proportional, the audit rate is constant,only one form of evasion is available. In addition, the taxpayer is assumed to relyon expected utility theory and to be perfectly amoral, i.e. to make compliancedecisions with exclusive reference to the consequences for net income. All theseassumptions are open to criticism, and models based on alternative assumptionshave been developed. The following touches briefly on these contributions.

One standard criticism of the Allingham and Sandmo model is grounded inthe belief that compliance decisions depend on moral views. This is clearly aproblematic issue, one that cannot be captured by the consequentialistic set-upof standard decision theory. Bordignon (1993) makes an interesting attempt toaccount for non-self-motivated decisions in tax evasion. He develops acompliance model in which taxpayers are guided by suitably defined "Kantianprinciples," which determine the amount that each taxpayer considers fair to pay.Under this assumption, it turns out that tax evasion is generally lower than underselfish behavior, that compliance depends on the level of public expenditure,and that evasion is likely to increase with tax rates.

Other authors have stressed the "social" factors at the basis of taxpayers'decision [see Roth et al. (1989) for an excellent account of the sociologicalresearch]. Economists have emphasized the "stigma" attached to the violationof social norms and shown that tax evasion may have strong spill-over effects.Social stigma is likely to give rise to a multiplicity of possible equilibria: whenmost people evade, the stigma effect is small and evasion is not in factdiscouraged; when few evade, the stigma effect is great and evasion isdiscouraged. The transition from one equilibrium to the other takes the form ofa "noncompliance epidemic:" if, for some reason, more people start to evade, thestigma decreases and evasion spreads to an ever larger fraction of thepopulation [see Benjamini and Maital (1985), Gordon (1989) and Myles andNaylor (1996)].

Alm and McCallin (1990), Landskroner, Paroush and Swary (1990), Yaniv(1990), and Wrede (1995) have extended Allingham and Sandmo with models inwhich taxpayers face more complex "portfolio" set-ups offering other riskyactivities and alternative forms of evasion. Wadhawan (1992) posits that auditsdetect only a fraction of taxpayer's evasion, while Das-Gupta (1994) analyses thecase in which taxpayer's income derives from a multiplicity of transactions.

Scotchmer and Slemrod (1989) and Scotchmer (1989) consider the effect ofrandomness in tax liability assessments. Among other things, both papersconclude that uncertainty over the true liability level or outcome of the auditincreases net tax revenue, either because increased uncertainty makes evasionmore costly (when taxpayers are risk-averse) or because it may lead taxpayers tounder-report their income and be subject to a fine (whereas over-reporting onlyyields a rebate of the overpaid tax).

Several authors have tried to extend Allingham and Sandmo's model toinclude the labor supply decision, so as to endogenize taxpayers' gross income[see, among others, Andersen (1977), Pencavel (1979), Isachsen and Strom(1980), Isachsen, Samuelsen and Strom (1985), and Cowell (1985)]. The problemis that as soon as the labor decision is factored in, the simple comparative staticsof Allingham and Sandmo are lost. Depending on the taxpayer's marginaldisutility from labor and her risk-attitudes, all predictions become possible. Thisproblem is usually overcome by imposing strong restrictions on the utilityfunction. Cowell (1985) takes a different course, assuming that decisions aremade in two separate stages: first, the taxpayer decides how many hours towork; then he allocates this total labor supply between legal and illegal activities(alternatively, between reported and unreported income). On this assumption,Cowell is able to show that Allingham and Sandmo's results carry over (withsome qualifications) to the extended set-up if taxpayer's labor supply is forwardrising. Perhaps more importantly, he shows that the comparative statics resultsare strictly dependent on the nature of the evasion choice, as it can be tied eitherto the amount of income to report (for the self-employed) or to the amount oftime to spend in "off the books" activities (for the moonlighter).

The insights drawn from analysis of income tax evasion usually apply toother forms of evasion as well. Different considerations may be relevant,however, when the taxpayer is a firm subject to indirect taxation, as the evasiondecision may affect output or pricing policy (tax shifting). However, Marrelli(1984) derives a separability result for the case of a monopolist: the evasion andshifting decisions are independent of one another as long as the auditprobability is constant [see also Yaniv (1995)]. The same result applies tooligopolistic markets when firms compete à la Cournot [Marrelli and Martina(1988)]. Here, the amount of evasion by each firm is shown to depend, apart fromthe enforcement parameters, on the degree of collusion and on market shares.

Gordon (1990) offers an interesting insight on sales tax evasion. He suggeststhat under-the-counter cash sales may serve as a means of price discrimination:cash discounts are the best pricing strategy when the demand for cashpurchases is highly elastic. The author also shows that, in order to reduce cashsales, a liability on detected cash customers could be imposed, but on thecondition that this is an additional liability, and not just a transfer of a part ofthe supplier's existing liability onto the consumer.

As is clear form the foregoing, taxpayer noncompliance decisions may bevery complex and are likely to be powerfully affected by the practical frameworkin which decisions are made. This thesis is strongly supported by the empiricalevidence, which we now briefly review.

4. Empirical Evidence on Taxpayers' Behavior

Evidence on taxpayers' behavior is notoriously difficult to come by. Data on theextent of evasion may be confidential (not available for external analysis) or notcompletely reliable (such as those derived from national accounting sources). Allthe same, empirical studies on the determinants of taxpayers' compliancedecisions have proliferated. The most detailed are based on the AmericanTaxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP), conducted regularly bythe IRS and based on a "line by line" audit of a sample of 45,000 to 55,000 taxreturns. In addition to statistical estimates, major insights on the dynamics ofcompliance have been obtained from questionnaires and experimentation.

In his pioneering analysis, Clotfelter (1983) uses TCMP data for 1969 toinvestigate the determinants of underreporting, which is defined as thedifference between the income reported and that assessed by IRS examiners. Hefinds that both the marginal tax rate and after-tax income have significant effectson individual underreporting. In contrast to Allingham and Sandmo's prediction,he finds that elasticities with respect to marginal tax rates are positive and rangefrom 0.5 for non-farm business to 0.8 for non-business returns. In line withAllingham and Sandmo, elasticities with respect to after-tax income are positiveand range from 0.3 for non-business returns to 0.65 for farm returns. Also,wages, interest and dividends are associated with better compliance andunderreporting is higher for the youngest age-groups. Witte and Woodbury(1985) also analyze data from the TCMP for 1969, but focus on the effect ofenforcement parameters. They find that the percentage of underreporting isrelated inversely to the probability of audit (with a lagged effect), and directlyto the "opportunities" for tax evasion (absence of withholding and informationreporting) and to income, though in a decreasing way. Dubin and Wilde (1988)criticize Witte and Woodbury's results and highlight the potential endogeneityof audit rates. The idea is that audit rates are decided by the IRS in view of theirpotential yield: a decrease in noncompliance rates reduces the net return fromauditing and leads the IRS to devote less effort to auditing. Using the IRSbudget per return as an instrumental variable for the audit rates, they find theaudit rate to be endogenous in 5 out of 7 audit classes. They also find thataudits have a deterrent effect on evasion, and that noncompliance is positivelyrelated to the unemployment rate and the nonwhite fraction of the population.Feinstein (1991) uses a sophisticated estimation technique, which allows forpartial detection by IRS examiners. His results confirm the great unevenness incompliance attitudes between groups of taxpayers, with "own business" and"farm" filers scoring the lowest compliance rates. Using TCMP data for 1982 and1985, Feinstein more easily disentangles the effects of marginal tax rates andgross income (taxpayers with identical incomes filing in different years facedifferent marginal tax rates). He finds that the effect of marginal tax rates onevasion is negative and highly significant, while the effect of income isessentially zero. The former finding is consistent with Allingham and Sandmo'spredictions, while the latter is not. Another finding is that greater propensity toevade is accompanied by a higher detection rate (thanks to greater IRSexamination effort).

Studies based on IRS data provide a picture of the compliance phenomenonin which many factors come into play: income source, socioeconomic grouping(age, sex, location), detection probability, marginal tax rate and income level.Notably, the severity of the sanction does not seem to play a significant role(partly because in the US sanctions are rarely inflicted). Estimates based on IRSdata, however, are subject to several weaknesses. First, by definition, TCMPprograms relate to filers only, whereas in 1976, for example, strategic non-filersaccounted for an estimated 36% of all unreported income. In addition, it is wellknown that IRS examiners have only limited capacity to detect evasion,especially on income from moonlighting and cash-only businesses. Finally,strong assumptions underlie the choice of instruments and variables asexogenous regressors.

Another important source of information about taxpayers' attitudes issurveys. Much work has been done in this area, and results cannot be easilygeneralized [see, among others, Vogel (1974), Spicer and Lundstedt (1976),Mason and Calvin (1984), Lewis (1979), Westat (1980), Scott and Grasmick(1981), Yankelovich, Skelly and White (1984), Kinsey (1992), Sheffrin and Triest(1992) and De Juan, Lasheras and Mayo (1994)]. On the whole, though, thesestudies would support the deterrence hypothesis. Specifically, the followingfactors have been found to be significant determinants of tax compliance: 1) theperceived probability of detection; 2) the severity of informal sanctions; 3) moralbeliefs about tax compliance; 4) experience with other noncompliers and pastexperience with IRS enforcement (both encouraging evasion), and, 5)demographic characteristics (older people seem to be more compliant) [Klepperand Nagin (1989)]. These results are largely concordant with those based onTCMP data. The main additional insight they provide lies in the importance ofsociological factors, which can hardly be detected by other means.

Survey studies face several problems, however. First, results dependcrucially on the representativeness of the sample, which is often difficult toassess. Second, respondents are reluctant to report acts of noncompliance [see,for instance, Elffers, Weigel and Hessing (1987)]. Third, causal relationships aredifficult to establish. The finding that respondents who perceive the highestprobability of detection are most compliant, for instance, is consistent both withthe standard "deterrence hypothesis" and with the "experiential hypothesis"whereby taxpayers initially overestimate detection probabilities and evaders laterlower their estimates if they are not detected [Saltzman et al., (1982)]. Finally,individuals often seek to provide a consistent image of themselves, offering adhoc rationalizations for their behavior [Elffers, Weigel and Hessing (1987)].

A third, increasingly widespread empirical approach is based on "laboratory"experiments [see, for instance, Baldry (1987), Webley et al. (1991), Alm,Cronshaw and McKee (1993), Alm, Jackson, and McKee (1993), and Alm,Sanchez and de Juan (1995)]. Individuals (often students) are asked toparticipate in games simulating tax compliance, where they can underreport andincur the risk of a penalty. At the end, they receive a real reward proportional totheir laboratory performance. The results tend to be very sensitive to theparticular design of the experiment. In general, this research suggest that auditrates may play an important role in compliance decisions (especially for thosewho have already been audited), and that compliance is an increasing functionof income and a decreasing function of the tax rate, while it is hardly affected bythe size of fines (unless the audit rate is very high). These experiments alsosuggest that social norms and ethical attitudes play an important part in evasionchoices, that individuals often take an all-or-nothing stance, that they tend tooverweight low probabilities, and that the structure of the taxes is important[Baldry (1987)].

While the empirical research is far from conclusive, it does appear to supportthe hypothesis that expected punishment (i.e. the size of sanctions discountedby the probability of incurring them) is relevant. Sociological and ethical factorssurely play an important role too, although their effect is subtler and harder tomeasure. This suggests that standard enforcement polices based onapprehension and punishment should not be abandoned. They could besupplemented by alternative approaches, seeking to appeal to taxpayers' moralconscience or to reinforce social cohesion.

The following section treats the question of optimal design of taxenforcement policy, focusing on detection and punishment of evaders.

5. Evasion and Enforcement

Let us go back to the model of Allingham and Sandmo. While it provides a fairlysophisticated description of taxpayers' evasion decisions, it leaves very littlescope for enforcement policy. The latter is essentially reduced to twoparameters: the penalty rate and the audit rate. The main policy prescriptionimplicit in the model and most of its variants is that, in order to curb evasion,audits have to be stepped up and fines increased. And given that raising theaudit rate is likely to require public resources while an increase in the penaltyrate is not, the end result is likely to be one with Draconian but rare punishment,a rule such as "hang evaders with probability (close to) zero."

This is a difficult prescription to elude. But in fact it is not clear whethercurbing or eliminating evasion is always a desirable goal. In general terms, thedesirability of perfect enforcement is tied to the "goodness" of the tax to beenforced. For instance, when perfect enforcement of income tax would result inthe collapse of the taxed activity, one may well ask whether such unbearableburden represents the right policy.

Even if perfect enforcement were theoretically beneficial, however, it wouldnot be likely to be cost free, as suggested by the Draconian rule. For instance,when adjudication is not perfect and innocent individuals can be convicted,infinite sanctions may entail very high welfare costs. Also, when individualsmay engage in activities to avoid conviction, the social cost of enforcement mayincrease with the penalty [Malik (1990)].

From a practical point of view, the major impediment to infinite fines derivesfrom taxpayers' limited wealth. Since convicted evaders cannot be forced tolabor, they will be able to foot a penalty at most as great as their own wealth. TheDraconian rule thus needs to be rephrased as follows: when strict enforcementis desirable, the optimal penalty is that which expropriates the taxpayer of all hiswealth.

Enforcement policies, however, can be much more sophisticated than thecombination of two variables, the penalty and the audit rate. The auditprobability itself, for instance, need not be the same for all taxpayers. Indeed, asimple way of making audit strategy more effective is to base it on informationspecific to the taxpayer, which may include any observable characteristiccorrelated with real tax liability, from compliance records to consumptionpatterns. Clearly, the relation of an individual's reported tax liability to theaverage for similar taxpayers may then become the key to singling outcandidates for auditing.

In an important article, Reinganum and Wilde (1985) prove that by makingaudits conditional on the level of reported liability, the enforcer can increase netrevenue. They analyze a simple cut-off rule, whereby an audit is triggered if andonly if reported income is "too low". They show that this rule dominates therandom audit rule considered by Allingham and Sandmo, and that it is the mosteconomical way to foster truthful reporting when taxpayers are risk-neutral andtaxes and fines are lump-sum. Scotchmer (1987) and Sanchez and Sobel (1993)extend this result, proving that the cut-off audit rule is the optimal policy for anet revenue-maximizing enforcer when taxes and fines are proportional andtaxpayers are risk-neutral. These findings prompt the following observations.First, cost-efficient enforcement requires that audits be used primarily as adeterrent rather than as a means to collect fines. Their function is to fostercorrect self-reporting by individuals. Indeed, under the optimal policy audits willbe performed only on people who are found (ex-post) to be honest - hence nofines will ever be collected. Second, the optimal cut-off level is strictly dependenton the distribution of income among the population: effective auditing requiresreliable information on taxpayers' expected liability. Finally, optimal enforcementis likely to induce a strong regressive bias, as it provides high-income taxpayerswith better chances to evade than low-income taxpayers. The idea is thathigh-income individuals have greater opportunities to misreport, and since it ismore costly to dissuade them from evading, one should let them off the hook [onthis, see also Scotchmer (1992)]. This problem may be alleviated by shapingaudit policy according to indexes correlated with true income [Scotchmer (1987)]and, to a lesser extent, by suitably adjusting the tax rate [Cremer, Marchand andPestieau (1990)].

These considerations indicate that simple models in the Allingham andSandmo mold are not adequate to the problematic issues underlying the designof an effective enforcement policy. The matter becomes still more complex whenone considers the interrelation between optimal enforcement and optimaltaxation.

Border and Sobel (1987), Mookherjee and Png (1989), Marhuenda andOrtuno-Ortin (1994), Hindriks (1994), and Chander and Wilde (1998) address thesimultaneous definition of the optimal audit and tax schedules, assuming thattaxpayers are subject to limited liability and risk-neutral, and that the enforcerseeks to maximize net tax revenue. The main finding of this literature is that, atthe optimum, effective taxation is regressive and the audit function isnon-increasing in reported income. Hence, the repercussions of noncompliancefor effective taxation indicated by Scotchmer (1987) and Sanchez and Sobel(1993) carry over to this more general set-up. An interesting insight [Border andSobel (1987)] is that when sanctions are upper-bounded and taxpayers arerisk-neutral, it is optimal to audit taxpayers with a very small probability and toprovide infinite rewards for truthful reporting.

The so-called "principal-agent" approach to enforcement discussed in theforegoing paragraphs constitutes one of the most general frameworks foranalyzing tax evasion and its relation to public policy. The main pitfall is itsextremely demanding assumptions concerning the enforcer's ability to deviseand execute the optimal policy. Indeed, one may argue that actual tax enforcersdo not always possess the features that would qualify them as "rational." Likeother branches of the public administration, they often have conflicting orill-defined incentives, they may be governed by "process" rather than"outcome" oriented rules, and they are likely to have short-sighted and perhapsmultiple goals. This suggests that the enforcer may tend to act myopically andjust "react" to impulses from the economic system. Thus the enforcer maydecide auditing policy taking the amount of evasion in the economy as givenand aiming to maximize detection, disregarding deterrence. This view, based onthe assumption that the tax enforcer cannot credibly precommit to any specificauditing policy, is forcefully advanced by Graetz, Reinganum and Wilde (1986)and Reinganum and Wilde (1991). Their argument is that since actual audit ratesare not observed by taxpayers, the enforcer has an incentive to relax anyannounced auditing policy once taxpayers have reported their incomes, i.e. afterthe policy has performed its deterrent effect. Since taxpayers will anticipate theenforcer's ex-post deviation, they will not rely on the announced policy and willengage in greater evasion. The bottom line is that, in equilibrium, audits will beperformed on likely evaders rather than on compliant (i.e. deterred) taxpayers.This would appear to be a most reasonable prediction, and it tallies with actualenforcement practices.

The comparative statics of the no-commitment model differ in nature fromthose of commitment models. With no-commitment, the evasion rate and theaudit rate are determined simultaneously, whereas under commitment the auditrate determines the evasion rate. Consider, for instance, the effect of an increasein the audit cost. In the no-commitment model, evaders will evade more becausethey know that, caeteris paribus, the enforcer will react less harshly (due to thehigher enforcement costs). The higher evasion rate, however, rises the net returnfrom auditing and restores the enforcer's incentive to exert effort. In equilibrium,the evasion rate will increase and the audit rate will not decrease. In the modelswith commitment, an increase in the audit cost means that audits become a moreexpensive deterrent tool. The enforcer will hence use them more parsimoniouslyand evasion rate will increase. In contrast to the no-commitment model, theequilibrium audit rate will decrease.

The two types of model provide different insights on tax enforcement."Principal-agent" models (with commitment) are probably best used to define theconstraints that tax evasion puts on the effective tax system. They neatly definethe set of implementable allocations on the assumption that the enforcerperforms at maximum capacity. The "no-commitment" approach, with a lowerprofile, aims at capturing a version of tax enforcement closer to actual practice.On the whole, however, these models still provide a very "stylized" view ofenforcement practice. They focus on just two enforcement tools, i.e. the penaltyand the audit probabilities, and ignore most of the institutional features of realenforcement.

6. Procedures and Institutions

It is clear by now that real compliance decisions are much more complex thanthose depicted by standard economic models, in that taxpayers are subject to awide variety of sociological and ethical factors. Nor is even the effect ofenforcement policy itself fully captured by standard models. Real enforcementis unquestionably more than a mere combination of penalty and auditprobabilities (regardless of how sophisticated these can be made). The processthat leads from the checking of tax returns to the conviction of evaders islengthy and complex, perhaps involving various bodies (tax administration, taxcourts) and procedures (interviews, cross-examinations, settlements, etc.). Theshape of the prosecution process affects taxpayers' attitudes towardscompliance in two ways. First, it determines the actual probability that a sanctionwill be imposed on evaders and, possibly, innocent taxpayers; and second, itmay affect the degree of "hostility" in the taxpayer's perception of the taxsystem.

In a word, institutional and procedural features matter. They impose costs ontaxpayers and affect the outcome of the prosecution process. We will touchbriefly on some of these aspects, starting with the costs.

According to a number of studies, the cost to the taxpayer of compliancewith the most common taxes (income and VAT) in industrialized countries canbe as high as 10-13% of the total tax liability [see the pioneering contribution ofSandford (1973), as well as Sanford et al. (1981), Slemrod (1989), Pitt and Slemrod(1989), Sandford, Goodwin, and Hardwick (1989), Blumenthal and Slemrod (1992)and Sandford (1995)]. High compliance costs, which may be due to complex taxschedules and rules, not only tilt the "cost-benefit analysis" towards evasion,but may also generate resentment, weakening taxpayers' moral conscience oreven prompting them to evade as a form of "punishment" for the taxadministration. Legislatures should accordingly avoid the vicious circle ofcountering evasion by increasing the complexity of tax regulations, which raisescompliance costs and fosters further evasion.

When the tax legislation is very complex, taxpayers usually have to turn totax experts (CPAs or tax preparers), who have great power to influence theirclients' attitudes towards evasion, thanks to their superior knowledge ofenforcement patterns. An interesting empirical study by Klepper and Nagin(1989b) on the United States suggests that tax preparers encourage compliancewith regard to unequivocal items, and discourage it with regard to ambiguousones. [Other investigations of this issue can be found in Scotchmer (1989),Reinganum and Wilde (1991), Erard (1993) and Franzoni (1998).]

Costs are also entailed in mandatory record-keeping and reporting, whoserole is to increase the visibility of offenses, i.e. the "frequency and ease withwhich they come to the attention of and can be proved by enforcement officials"[Kagan (1989)]. As noted in section 3, noncompliance varies greatly witheconomic grouping, as tax violation by different groups has different degrees of"visibility." Unsurprisingly, therefore, evasion is apparently most commonamong independent contractors, professionals, and farmers. Conversely,compliance is highest among payroll employees subject to withholding.

In a technical sense, higher visibility makes it easier both to "observe" thereal situation or behavior of the taxpayer (by signaling potential violations) andto "verify" it (prove it in court). Some forms of mandatory record-keeping, forexample, serve a legal evidentiary function, implying a de facto shift in theburden of proof. It is the taxpayer who has to prove his compliance with the law,and bear the costs thereof. The question of the optimal amount of complianceduties to impose on taxpayers is therefore bound up with the optimal allocationof the burden of proof. Generally, the efficient allocation is that which places theonus of the proof on the party for which it is least costly (given its level ofinformativeness).

Another important factor in the "visibility" of tax law violations is thestandard of proof. Indeed, the difference between the "observability" and the"verifiability" of the tax base is precisely defined by the type of evidence thatis necessary to asses it legally (and possibly prove that the original paymentswere not correct). In most countries, tax authorities have the power to estimatetaxpayer's liability by discretionary means when the information supplied by thetaxpayer is deemed insufficient or clearly incorrect [OECD (1990)]. Clearly, underthese circumstances the standard of proof can be rather lax, and the use of merestatistical evidence can be used to prove taxpayers' obligations. Presumptivetaxation is a case in which statistical estimates and proxies are used ab origineto define the tax obligation, resulting in the automatic visibility of the activitiescovered and imposing virtually no compliance costs on taxpayers [see Tanzi(1991)]. Note that simplifications and reductions in compliance costs willordinarily be achieved only at the expense of reduced ability to discriminateamong taxpayers (for purposes of either vertical or horizontal equity). As ispointed out by Kaplow (1996), a trade-off is likely to arise between containingcompliance costs and accuracy in liability assessment.

On the procedural side, another important consideration is the possibility ofresolving disputes through amicable settlements between taxpayers and theadministration. In most countries, taxpayers can make a "deal" with inspectorsand obtain substantial penalty discounts in exchange for collaboration [OECD(1990)]. When deals are left to the discretion of the revenue service, enforcementis likely to be adversely affected. Discretionary deals not only reduce theadministration's ability to precommit itself to any specific enforcement policy butmay also foster opportunism, tempting the administration to increase itsinefficiencies (e.g. lengthy and invasive prosecution procedures) so as toincrease its "take" at the settlement stage [Franzoni (1995)]. Tax amnesties,though sharing some of these problems, may prove desirable, as they offertaxpayers social insurance against unexpected shocks, allowing them tocomplete their payments after uncertainty (about their income or their truepreferences) has been resolved [Andreoni (1991), Malik and Schwab (1991)].

A fundamental problem in considering the optimal institutional design of taxenforcement relates to incentives for enforcers. More fundamentally, thequestion is whether enforcement should be the job of public or private agents.First raised in general terms by Becker and Stigler (1974), the issue has beenexamined in the specific context of tax evasion by several authors. While in mostcountries taxes are collected by a public agency, in a few cases (as with importduties in Indonesia) collection is delegated to private contractors. Melumad andMookherjee (1989) show that delegation of tax enforcement to a private partymay be viable (i.e., it can replicate the full-commitment solution) if it is backed byan incentive scheme based on publicly observable aggregate variables (auditexpenditure, taxes filed and fines collected). This scheme rewards the agent forcollecting fines, or, when no fine is collected, for meeting the target auditbudget. Toma and Toma (1992) observe that different institutional arrangementsmay entail different agency costs so that depending on their incidence eitherpublic or private enforcement may be desirable.

A key agency cost is that associated with the danger of corruption. Since thepersonal aim of enforcement officers may not correspond to institutionalpurposes, there is scope for collusion with taxpayers. This seriously complicatesthe analysis, as a third constraint (no collusion) must now be taken into account.For while it may be contended that combating corruption can help control taxevasion, it may well be that anti-evasion measures as such ultimately justincrease the scope and the extent of corruption [see Chu (1990), Chander andWilde (1992a), Besley and McLaren (1993), Mookherjee and Png (1995), Flattersand McLoad (1995), Hindriks, Keen and Muthoo (1996)]. This confirms that theinstitutional features of the enforcement system represent a point of fundamentalimportance. These features define the incentive structure governing the conductof enforcers and crucially affect the actual functioning of all enforcement tools.

7. Conclusions

The foregoing offers an analytical framework for treating some salient aspectsof tax noncompliance, suggesting causes and possible remedies. As must beclear by now, tax evasion is a complex phenomenon that cannot be eradicatedby marginal changes in enforcement practice. Social and moral attitudes, whichplay a very important role, are very slow to change and are often beyond thereach of public policy. Standard enforcement therefore remains crucial. Theempirical evidence suggests that a stricter enforcement regime is likely to inducegreater compliance; the key variable here is the probability of detection.

To date, most studies in this field have focused on two enforcement tools:penalty rates and auditing probabilities. Much work remains to be done toascertain the impact on compliance of less striking but nonetheless importantprocedural and institutional factors.

Actually, closer examination of institutional reality suggests that the auditrate may not be the relevant variable. What really matters is the probability thatan investigation will eventually result in conviction and sanction for thewrongdoer. Here a host of additional factors come into play: whether evasionleaves detectable traces, the specific ability and expertise of the auditors, the setof investigative tools at their disposal (e.g. the degree of banking secrecy), thepossibility of inducing taxpayer collaboration, the feasibility of out-of-courtsettlements, the standard of proof, the definition of "fault," the clarity of the taxlaw, the number of levels of appeal, and so on.

Research into the impact that these procedural aspects have on taxpayercompliance is still in its infancy. Better integration of the research on tax evasionwith the "law and economics" analysis of legal rules is definitely desirable. Astheoretical analysis proceeds, additional empirical work will be needed togetherwith more extensive study of comparative tax enforcement law and procedure.

Bibliography on Tax Evasion and Tax Compliance (6020)

Aaron, Henry J. and Munnell, Alicia H. (1992), 'Reassessing the Role for Wealth TransferTaxes', 45(3) National Tax Journal, 119-143.

Agapitos, George and Mavraganis, George (1995), 'Tax Evasion: The Case of Greece:Greece', 49 Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 569-576.

Al Zakari, Ibrahim A. (1994), Corporate Tax Compliance: A Case Study of Saudi Arabia,University of New Mexico, Ph.D.

Alexeev, Michael V., Gaddy, Clifford and Leitzel, Jim (1995), 'Economic Crime and RussianReform', 151 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 677-692.

Alford, Robert R. and Feige, Edgar L. (1989), 'Information Distortions in Social Systems:The Underground Economy and Other Observer-Subject-Policymaker Feedbacks', inFeige, Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and InformationDistortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 57-79.

Allingham, Michael G. and Sandmo, Agnar (1991), 'Income Tax Evasion: A TheoreticalAnalysis', in Atkinson, A.B. (ed.), Modern public finance. Volume 1, Aldershot, EdwardElgar, 50-65. Previously published: [1972].

Alm, James (1988), 'Compliance Costs and the Tax Avoidance-Tax Evasion Decision', 16Public Finance Quarterly, 31-66.

Alm, James (1991), 'A Perspective on the Experimental Analysis of Taxpayer Reporting',66(3) Accounting Review, 577-593.

Alm, James and Beck, William (1991), 'Wiping the Slate Clean: Individual Response to StateTax Amnesties', 57 Southern Economic Journal, 1043-1053.

Alm, James and Beck, William (1993), 'Tax Amnesties and Compliance in the Long Run:A Time Series Analysis', 46 National Tax Journal, 53-60.

Alm, James and McCallin, Nancy J. (1990), 'Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion as a JointPortfolio Choice', 45 Public Finance, 193-200.

Alm, James, Bahl, Roy and Murray, Matthew N. (1990), 'Tax Structure and TaxCompliance', 72 Review of Economics and Statistics, 603-613.

Alm, James, Bahl, Roy and Murray, Matthew N. (1991), 'Income Tax Evasion', in Bahl, Roy(ed.), The Jamaican Tax Reform, Cambridge (MA), Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,181-214.

Alm, James, Bahl, Roy and Murray, Matthew N. (1991), 'Tax Base Erosion in DevelopingCountries', 39 Economic Development and Cultural Change, 849-872.

Alm, James, Bahl, Roy and Murray, Matthew N. (1993), 'Audit Selection and Income TaxUnderreporting in the Tax Compliance Game', 42(1) Journal of DevelopmentEconomics, 1-33.

Alm, James, Cronshaw, Mark B. and McKee, Michael (1993), 'Tax Compliance withEndogenous Audit Selection Rules', 46 Kyklos, 27-45.

Alm, James, Jackson, Betty R. and McKee, Michael (1992), 'Institutional Uncertainty andTaxpayer Compliance', 82 American Economic Review, 1018-1026.

Alm, James, Jackson, Betty R. and McKee, Michael (1992), 'Deterrence and Beyond:Toward a Kinder, Gentler IRS', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: TaxCompliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 311-329.

Alm, James, Jackson, Betty R. and McKee, Michael (1992), 'Estimating the Determinantsof Taxpayer Compliance with Experimental Data', 45 National Tax Journal, 107-114.

Alm, James, Jackson, Betty R. and McKee, Michael (1993), 'Fiscal Exchange, CollectiveDecision Institutions, and Tax Compliance', 22 Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization, 285-303.

Alm, James, McClelland, Gary H. and Schulze, William D. (1992), 'Why Do People PayTaxes?', 48 Journal of Public Economics, 21-38.

Alm, James, Sanchez, Isabel and de Juan, Ana (1995), 'Economic and Noneconomic Factorsin Tax Compliance', 48 Kyklos, 3-18.

Altshuler, Rosanne and Fulghieri, Paolo (1992), Dynamic Effects of Foreign Tax Credits onMultinational Corporations, Columbia University Department of Economics DiscussionPaper, No. 611.

Altshuler, Rosanne and Newlon, T. Scott (1991), The Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on theIncome Repatriation Patterns of U.S. Multinational Corporations, National Bureau ofEconomic Research Working Paper, No. 3925.

Andersen, Per (1977), 'Tax Evasion and Labor Supply', 79 Scandinavian Journal ofEconomics, 375-383.

Andjelkovic Mileva (1995), 'Koncept zloupotrebe prava u poreskoj materiji (Concept ofAbuse of Law in Fiscal Matters)', 5-6 Finansije, 269-277.

Andreoni, James (1991), 'The Desirability of a Permanent Tax Amnesty', 45 Journal ofPublic Economics, 143-160.

Andreoni, James (1992), 'IRS as Loan Shark: Tax Compliance with Borrowing Constraints',49(3) Journal of Public Economics, 35-46.

Andreoni, James, Erard, Brian and Feinstein, Jonathan S. (1996), Tax Compliance,University of Wisconsin Working Paper, No. 9610.

Andreoni, James, Erard, Brian and Feinstein, Jonathan S. (1998), 'Tax Compliance', forthc.Journal of Economic Literature.

Antonides, Gerrit and Robben, Henry S. J. (1995), 'True Positives and False Alarms in theDetection of Tax Evasion', 16 Journal of Economic Psychology, 617-640.

Asorey, Ruben O. (1991), 'Transfer Pricing and the New Criminal Tax Law: Argentina', 45Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 74-75.

Baldry, Jonathan C. (1987), 'Income Tax Evasion and the Tax Schedule: Some ExperimentalResults', 42 Public Finance, 357-383.

Baldry, Jonathan C. (1994), 'Economic Analysis and Taxpayer Compliance: Time for a NewAgenda', 11 Australian Tax Forum, 45-62.

Banerji, Arup (1991), Tax Evasion Enforcement and Intertemporal Choice, University ofPennsylvania, Ph.D.

Bardsley, Peter (1994), 'Tax Compliance Research: An Economic Perspective on theResearch Agenda', 11 Australian Tax Forum, 271-290.

Barthelemy, Philippe (1989), 'The Underground Economy in France', in Feige, Edgar L.(ed.), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and Information Distortion,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 281-294.

Batina, Raymond G. (1992), 'Time-Consistent Income Taxation', 32 Quarterly Review ofEconomics and Finance, 68-81.

Bayar, Ali and Frank, Max (1987), 'The Erosion of the Different Tax Bases', 42 PublicFinance, 341-356.

Bazzoni, Stefania and Mori, Antonella (1994), 'Politiche fiscali e crescita endogena inun'economia con un settore informale (Fiscal Policy and Endogenous Growth in anEconomy with an Informal Sector)', 53 Giornale degli Economisti e Annali diEconomia, 219-234.

Beams, Mark K. (1992), 'Obtaining Relief through Competent Authority Procedures andTreaty Exchange of Tax Information: The U.S. Approach', 46 Bulletin for InternationalFiscal Documentation, 119-122.

Beaumont, Marion S. (1991), 'Proposition 13 Winners and Losers: Were First-Time HomeBuyers Affected Adversely?', in Stocker, Frederick D. (ed.), Proposition 13: A Ten YearRetrospective, Cambridge (MA), Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 135-173.

Becker, G. (1968), 'Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach', 76 Journal ofPolitical Economy, 169-217.

Becker, G. and Stigler, G. (1974), 'Law Enforcement, Malfeasance, and Compensation ofEnforcers, 3 Journal of Legal Studies, 1 ff.

Becker, Winfried, Buchner, Heinz Jurgen and Sleeking, Simon (1987), 'The Impact of PublicTransfer Expenditures on Tax Evasion: An Experimental Approach', 34 Journal ofPublic Economics, 243-252.

Benjamini, Yael and Maital, Shlomo (1985), 'Optimal Tax Evasion and Optimal TaxEvasion Policy: Behavioral Aspects', in Gaertner, Wulf and Wenig, Alois (eds.), TheEconomics of the Shadow Economy: Proceedings of th International Conference on theEconomics of the Shadow Economy Held at the University of Bielefeld, West Germany,October 10-14, 1983, Berlin, Springer, 245-264.

Beron, Kurt, Tauchen, Helen V. and Witte, Ann Dryden (1988), A Structural EquationModel for Tax Compliance and Auditing, National Bureau of Economic ResearchWorking Paper, No. 2556.

Beron, Kurt, Tauchen, Helen V. and Witte, Ann Dryden (1992), 'The Effect of Audits andSocioeconomic Variables on Compliance', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes:Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 67-89.

Besley, T., Preston, Ian and Ridge, Michael (1994), Fiscal Anarchy in the UK, UniversityCollege London Discussion Paper, No. 94-01.

Besley, Timothy and McLaren, John (1993), 'Taxes and Bribery: The Role of WageIncentives', 103 Economic Journal, 119-141.

Besley, Timothy, Preston, Ian and Ridge, Michael (1993), Fiscal Anarchy in the U.K.Modelling Poll Tax Noncompliance, National Bureau of Economic Research WorkingPaper, No. 4498.

Bird, Richard M. (1992), 'Does Deterrence Deter? Measuring the Effect of Deterrence onTax Compliance in Field Studies and Experimental Studies: Commentary', in Slemrod,Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor,University of Michigan Press, 306-310.

Bird, Richard M. and Miller, Barbara (1991), 'The Incidence of Indirect Taxes onLow-Income Households in Jamaica', in Bahl, Roy (ed.), The Jamaican Tax Reform,Cambridge (MA), Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 793-811.

Blumenthal, Marsha and Slemrod, Joel B. (1992), 'The Compliance Cost of the U.S.Individual Income Tax System: A Second Look After Tax Reform', 45 National TaxJournal, 185-202.

Blumenthal, Marsha and Slemrod, Joel B. (1995), 'The Compliance Cost of TaxingForeign-Source Income: Its Magnitude, Determinants, and Policy Implications', 2International Tax and Public Finance, 37-53.

Boadway, Robin W. and Keen, Michael (1993), 'Evasion and Time Consistency in theTaxation of Capital Income', Queen's Institute for Economic Research DiscussionPaper.

Boadway, Robin, Marchand, Maurice and Pestieau, Pierre (1992), 'Towards a Theory of theDirect-Indirect Tax Mix', Queen's Institute for Economic Research Discussion Paper.

Bogetic, Zeljko and llman, Arye L. (eds.) (1995), Financing government in the transition:Bulgaria: The political economy of tax policies, tax bases, and tax evasion, Regional andSectoral Studies. Washington, D.C., World Bank, 254 p.

Boidman, Nathan (1983), 'Tax Evasion: The Present State of Non-Compliance', 37(9-10)Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 451-479.

Bolderson, Sarah and Huiskes, Theodoor (1994), 'Central and Eastern Europe: Meeting TaxObligations in Central and Eastern Europe', 48 Bulletin for International FiscalDocumentation, 648-654.

Boone, Catherine (1994), 'Trade, Taxes, and Tribute: Market Liberalizations and the NewImporters in West Africa', 22 World Development, 453-467.

Border, K. and Sobel, J. (1987), 'Samurai Accountant: A Theory of Auditing and Plunder',54(4) Review of Economic Studies, 525-540.

Bordignon, Massimo (1993), 'A Fairness Approach to Income Tax Evasion', 52(3) Journalof Public Economics, 345-362.

Bowles, Roger A. and Jones, Philip (1993), 'Nonpayment of Poll Tax: An ExploratoryAnalysis of Tax Resistance', 13 International Review of Law and Economics, 445-455.

Brenner, Reuven and Brenner, Gabrielle A. (1990), Gambling and Speculation, Cambridge,Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in French edition by Presses Universitaires deFrance, 1993.

Broesterhuizen, G.A.A.M. (1989), 'The Unrecorded Economy and the National IncomeAccounts in the Netherlands: A Sensitivity Analysis', in Feige, Edgar L. (ed.), TheUnderground Economies: Tax Evasion and Information Distortion, Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, 159-174.

Brown, C.V. and others (1984), 'Tax Evasion and Avoidance on Earned Income: SomeSurvey Evidence', 5(3) Fiscal Studies, 1-22.

Burgess, Robin and Stern, Nicholas (1992), Taxation and Development, London School ofEconomics Suntory Toyota International Centre for Economics and Related DisciplinesWorking Paper, No. DEP 42.

Burgess, Robin and Stern, Nicholas (1993), A VAT in India, Problems and Options, LondonSchool of Economics Suntory Toyota International Centre for Economics and RelatedDisciplines Working Paper, No. EF/4.

Burgess, Robin, Howes, Stephen and Stern, Nicholas (1993), The Reform of Indirect Taxesin India, London School of Economics Suntory Toyota International Centre forEconomics and Related Disciplines Working Paper, No. EF/7.

Carroll, John S. (1992), 'How Taxpayers Think about Their Taxes: Frames and Values', inSlemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, AnnArbor, University of Michigan Press, 43-63.

Cassone, Alberto and Marchese, Carla (1995), 'Tax Amnesties as Special Sales Offers: theItalian Experience', 50 Public Finance/Finances Publiques, 51-66.

Chadha, V. and Singh, Gurjeet (1988), 'An Analysis of Tax Evasion in Punjab', in Raikhy,P.S. and Gill, Sucha Singh (eds.), Resource mobilisation and economic development: Aregional perspective, Amritsar, India, Guru Nanak Dev University, Punjab School ofEconomics, 140-151.

Chander, Parkash and Wilde, Louis (1992a), 'Corruption in Tax Administration', 49 Journalof Public Economics, 333-349.

Chander, P. and Wilde, L. (1998), 'A General Characterization of Optimal Income TaxEnforcement', 65 Review of Economic Studies, 165-183.

Chelvathurai, S.I. (1990), 'Tax Avoidance, Tax Evasion and the UndergroundEconomy--The CATA Experience: International', 44 Bulletin for International FiscalDocumentation, 594-599.

Christiansen, Vidar (1980), 'Two Comments on Tax Evasion', 13 Empirical Economics,389-393.

Chu, C.Y. Cyrus (1990), 'A Model of Income Tax Evasion with Venal Tax Officials: TheCase of Taiwan', 45(3) Public Finance, 392-408.

Chu, C.Y. Cyrus (1990), 'Plea Bargaining with the IRS', 41(3) Journal of Public Economics,1319-1333.

Chu, C.Y. Cyrus (1992), 'Analyzing Income Tax Evasion Using Amnesty Data withSelf-Selection Correction: The Case of the Michigan Tax Amnesty Program:Commentary', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance andEnforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 190-192.

Clotfelter, Charles T. (1983), 'Tax Evasion and Tax Rates: An Analysis of IndividualReturns', 65 Review of Economics and Statistics, 363-373.

Cnossen, Sijbren (1991), 'The Future Development of the Sales Tax in Jamaica', in Bahl,Roy (ed.), The Jamaican Tax Reform, Cambridge (MA), Lincoln Institute of LandPolicy, 519-535.

Coffey, Sergia (1995), Tax Evasion and the Development of a Financial Sector in LDC's,New York University, Ph.D.

Coleman, Cynthia and Freeman, Lynne (1994), 'The Development of Strategic MarketingOptions Directed at Improving Compliance Levels in Small Business', 11 Australian TaxForum, 347-367.

Collins, Julie H. (1992), 'Deterrence and Beyond: Toward a Kinder, Gentler IRS:Commentary', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance andEnforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 330-332.

Collins, Julie H. and Plumlee, R. David (1991), 'The Taxpayer's Labor and ReportingDecision: The Effect of Audit Schemes', 66 Accounting Review, 559-576.

Collins, Julie H., Murphy, Daniel P. and Plumlee, R. David (1992), 'The Taxpayer'sDilemma: How Hard to Work and What to Report?', in Stern, Jerrold J. (ed.), Advancesin Taxation. Volume 4, Greenwich (CT), JAI Press, 31-53.

Commerce Clearing House Tax Law (eds.) (1989), Understanding IRS communications,Chicago, Commerce Clearing House, 120 p.

Contini, Bruno (1989), 'The Irregular Economy of Italy: A Survey of Contributions', inFeige, Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and InformationDistortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 237-250.

Cowell, Frank A. (1985), 'Public Policy and Tax Evasion: Some Problems', in Gaertner,Wulf and Wenig, Alois (eds.), The Economics of the Shadow Economy: Proceedings ofth International Conference on the Economics of the Shadow Economy Held at theUniversity of Bielefeld, West Germany, October 10-14, 1983, Berlin, Springer, 273-284.

Cowell, Frank A. (1985), 'The Economic Analysis of Tax Evasion', 37 Bulletin of EconomicResearch, 163-193.

Cowell, Frank A. (1985), 'Tax Evasion with Labour Income', 26 Journal of PublicEconomics, 19-34.

Cowell, Frank A. (1987), 'The Economic Analysis of Tax Evasion', in Hey, John D. andLambert, Peter J. (eds.), Surveys in the Economics of Uncertainty, Oxford, Blackwell,173-203.

Cowell, Frank A. (1990), Cheating the government: The economics of evasion, Cambridge(MA), MIT Press, 267 p.

Cowell, F.A. (1990), 'Tax Sheltering and the Cost of Evasion', 42 Oxford Economic Papers,231-243.

Cowell, Frank A. (1991), 'Tax Sheltering and the Cost of Evasion', in Sinclair, Peter J. N.and Slater, Martin D. E. (eds.), Taxation, private information and capital. OxfordEconomic Papers, Special Issue 1990, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 231-243.

Cowell, F.A. (1992), 'Tax Evasion and Inequity', 13 Journal of Economic Psychology,521-543.

Cowell, Frank A. and Gordon, James P.F. (1988), 'Unwillingness to Pay: Tax Evasion andPublic Good Provision', 36 Journal of Public Economics, 305-321.

Crane, Steven E. and Nourzad, Farrokh (1985), 'Time Value of Money and Income TaxEvasion under Risk averse Behavior: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Evidence', 40Public Finance, 481-494.

Crane, Steven E. and Nourzad, Farrokh (1986), 'Inflation and Tax Evasion: An EmpiricalAnalysis', 68 Review of Economics and Statistics, 217-223.

Crane, Steven E. and Nourzad, Farrokh (1986), 'Federal Income Tax Evasion', in Lindholm,Richard W. (ed.), Examination of Basic Weaknesses of Income as the M, New York,Greenwood Press, 140-162.

Crane, Steven E. and Nourzad, Farrokh (1987), 'On the Treatment of Income Tax Rates inEmpirical Analysis of Tax Evasion', 40 Kyklos, 338-348.

Crane, Steven E. and Nourzad, Farrokh (1990), 'Tax Rates and Tax Evasion: Evidence fromCalifornia Amnesty Data', 43 National Tax Journal, 189-199.

Crane, Steven E. and Nourzad, Farrokh (1992), 'Analyzing Income Tax Evasion UsingAmnesty Data with Self-Selection Correction: The Case of the Michigan Tax AmnestyProgram', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance andEnforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 167-189.

Crane, Steven E. and Nourzad, Farrokh (1994), 'An Empirical Analysis of Factors ThatDistinguish Those Who Evade on Their Tax Return from Those Who Choose Not toFile a Return', 49(Suppl) Public Finance, 106-116.

Creedy, John (1994), Taxation, Poverty and Income Distribution, Aldershot, Edward Elgar,255 p.

Creedy, John and McDonald, Ian M. (1990), 'A Tax Package to Reduce the Marginal Rateof Income Tax and the Wage Demands of Trade Unions', 66 Economic Record,195-202.

Cremer, H., Marchand, M. and Pestieau, P. (1990), 'Evading, Auditing and Taxing: TheEquity-Compliance Tradeoff', 43 Journal of Public Economics, 67-92.

Cremer, Helmuth and Gahvari, Firouz (1992), 'Tax Evasion and the Structure of IndirectTaxes and Audit Probabilities', 47(Suppl) Public Finance, 351-365.

Cremer, Helmuth and Gahvari, Firouz (1993), 'Tax Evasion and Optimal CommodityTaxation', 50(2) Journal of Public Economics, 261-275.

Cremer, Helmuth and Gahvari, Firouz (1994), 'Tax Evasion, Concealment and the OptimalLinear Income Tax', 96 Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 219-239.

Cronshaw, Mark B. and Alm, James (1995), 'Tax Compliance with Two-Sided Uncertainty',23 Public Finance Quarterly, 139-166.

Cunningham, William T. (1989), 'Withholding Taxes: Portugal', 43 Bulletin forInternational Fiscal Documentation, 223-224.

Cunningham, William T. (1994), 'Portugal: Recent Developments', 48 Bulletin forInternational Fiscal Documentation, 185-190.

Danesh, Abol Hassan (1991), The Informal Economy: Underground Economy,Moonlighting, Subcontracting, Household Economy,Uunorganized Sector, Barter,Ghetto Economy, Second Economy: A Research Guide, New York, Garland Inc., 420p.

Das Gupta, Arindam (1994), 'A Theory of Hard-to-Tax Groups', 49(Suppl) Public Finance,28-39.

Das Gupta, Arindam, Lahiri, Radhika and Mookherjee, Dilip (1995), 'Income TaxCompliance in India: An Empirical Analysis', 23 World Development, 2051-2064.

Dassesse, Marc (1994), 'Introduction of the "Economic Reality" Test in Belgian Tax Law:Years of Uncertainty Ahead?', 48 Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation,127-129.

de Jantscher, Milka Casanegra, Silvani, Carlos and Holland, Graham (1991), 'The Audit ofVAT', in Tait, Alan A. (ed.), Value added tax: Administrative and policy issues.Occasional Paper, no. 88, Washington, International Monetary Fund, 67-88.

de Juan, Ana, Lasheras, Miguel A. and Mayo, Rafaela (1994), 'Voluntary Tax CompliantBehavior of Spanish Income Tax Payers', 49(Suppl) Public Finance, 90-105.

Dermine, J. (1994), EC Banking Regulation, Centralization or National Autonomy, INSEADWorking Papers, No. 94/13/FIN/EPS.

Drummond, Don and others (1994), 'The Underground Economy: Moving the Myth Closerto Reality', 2 Canadian Business Economics, 3-17.

Dubin, Jeffrey A. (1992), 'Can Brute Deterrence Backfire? Perceptions and Attitudes inTaxpayer Compliance: Commentary', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: TaxCompliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 219-222.

Dubin, Jeffrey A. and Wilde, Louis L. (1988), 'An Empirical Analysis of Federal Income TaxAuditing and Compliance', 41 National Tax Journal, 61-74.

Dubin, Jeffrey A., Graetz, Michael J. and Wilde, Louis L. (1987), 'Are We a Nation of TaxCheaters? New Econometric Evidence on Tax Compliance', 77 American EconomicReview. Papers and Proceedings, 240-245.

Dubin, Jeffrey A., Graetz, Michael J. and Wilde, Louis L. (1989), 'The Effect of Audit Rateson Federal Income Tax Filings and Collections, 1977-1986', Caltech Social ScienceWorking Paper.

Dubin, Jeffrey A., Graetz, Michael J. and Wilde, Louis L. (1992), 'State Income TaxAmnesties: Causes', 107 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1057-1070.

Elffers, H., Robben, H. S. J. and Hessing, D.J. (1991), 'Under-reporting Income: Who Is theBest Judge--Tax-payer or Tax Inspector?', 154 Journal of Royal Statistical Society,Series A, 125-127.

Elffers, Henk and Hessing, Dick J. (1988), 'A Linear Structural Model for Tax EvasionMeasurements', in Maital, Shlomo (ed.), Applied behavioural economics Volume 2, NewYork, New York University Press, 562-567.

Elffers, Henk, Robben, Henry S. J. and Hessing, Dick J. (1992), 'On Measuring Tax Evasion',13 Journal of Economic Psychology, 545-567.

Ellfers, H., Weigel, R. and Hessing, D. (1987), 'The Consequences of Different Strategiesfor Measuring Tax Evasion Behavior', 8 Journal of Economic Psychology, 311-337.

Erard, Brian (1990), Tax Practitioners and Tax Compliance: A Microeconometric Analysisof the Decision to Engage a Tax Preparer and Its Consequences, University ofMichigan, Ph.D.

Erard, Brian (1992), 'The Influence of Tax Audits on Reporting Behavior', in Slemrod, Joel(ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, Universityof Michigan Press, 95-114.

Erard, Brian (1993), 'Taxation with Representation: An Analysis of the Role of TaxPractitioners in Tax Compliance', 52(2) Journal of Public Economics, 163-197.

Erard, Brian and Feinstein, Jonathan S. (1994), 'The Role of Moral Sentiments and AuditPerceptions in Tax Compliance', 49(Suppl) Public Finance, 70-89.

Erard, Brian and Feinstein, Jonathan S. (1994), 'Honesty and Evasion in the TaxCompliance Game', 25 Rand Journal of Economics, 1-19.

Erbas, S. Nuri (1993), Presumptive Taxation: Revenue and Automatic Stabilizer Aspects,International Monetary Fund Working Paper, No. WP/93/69.

Falkinger, Josef (1988), 'Tax Evasion and Equity: A Theoretical Analysis', 43 PublicFinance, 388-395.

Falkinger, Josef (1991), 'On Optimal Public Good Provision with Tax Evasion', 45 Journalof Public Economics, 127-133.

Falkinger, Josef (1995), 'Tax Evasion, Consumption of Public Goods and Fairness', 16Journal of Economic Psychology, 63-72.

Falkinger, Josef and Walther, Herbert (1991), 'Separating Small and Big Fish: The Case ofIncome Tax Evasion', 54 Journal of Economics (Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie),55-67.

Falkinger, Josef and Walther, Herbert (1991), 'Rewards versus Penalties: On a New PolicyAgainst Tax Evasion', 19 Public Finance Quarterly, 67-79.

Feige, Edgar L. (1986), 'A Re-examination of the "Underground Economy' in the UnitedStates: A Comment', 33 International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 768-781.

Feige, Edgar L. (1989), 'The Meaning and Measurement of the Underground Economy', inFeige, Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and InformationDistortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 13-56.

Feige, Edgar L. (1989), 'The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and InformationDistortion: Introduction', in Feige, Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies: TaxEvasion and Information Distortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1-9.

Feige, Edgar L. (1989), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and InformationDistortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 378 p.

Feinstein, Jonathan S. (1991), 'An Econometric Analysis of Income Tax Evasion and itsDetection', 22 Rand Journal of Economics, 14-35.

Feinstein, Jonathan S. (1992), 'The Effect of Audits and Socioeconomic Variables onCompliance: Commentary', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: TaxCompliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 90-94.

Feldbrugge, F.J.M. (1989), 'The Soviet Second Economy in a Political and LegalPerspective', in Feige, Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion andInformation Distortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 297-338.

Feldman, J. and Kay, John A. (1981), 'Tax Avoidance', in Burrows, Paul and Veljanovski,Cento G. (eds.), The Economic Approach to Law, London, Butterworths, 320-333.

Filosa, Vincenzo (1979), 'Evasione fiscale: sanzioni anche per il governante e il legislatore(Tax Evasion: Sanctions Also for the Government and the Legislature)', 26 RivistaInternazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, 705-713.

Fishburn, Geoffrey (1981), 'Tax Evasion and Inflation', 20(37) Australian EconomicPapers, 325-332.

Fisher, Vickie L. (1985), 'Recent Innovations in State Tax Compliance Programs', 38National Tax Journal, 565-571.

Fishlow, Albert and Friedman, Jorge (1994), 'Tax Evasion, Inflation and Stabilization', 43Journal of Development Economics, 105-123.

Flatters, Frank and MacLeod, W. Bentley (1995), 'Administrative Corruption and Taxation',International Tax and Public Finance.

Fluet, Claude (1987), 'Fraude fiscale et offre de travail au noir (Tax Evasion and the Supplyof Unofficial Labour)', 63 L'actualité Economique, 225-242.

Fortin, Bernard and Lacroix, Guy (1994), 'Labour Supply, Tax Evasion and the MarginalCost of Public Funds: An Empirical Investigation', 55 Journal of Public Economics,407-431.

Fortin, Bernard, Garneau, Gaétan, Lacroix, Guy, Lemieux, Thomas and Montmarquette,Claude (1996), L'Économie Souterraine au Québec - Mythes et Réalités (TheUnderground Economy in Quebec - Myths and Realities), Sainte-Foy, Presses del'Université Laval.

Fossati, Amedeo, Cavalletti, Barbara and Pench, Alberto (1992), 'From Personal to IndirectTaxation: A General Equilibrium Approach', in Galeotti, G. and Marrelli, M. (eds.),Design and Reform of Taxation Policy. Financial and Monetary Policy Studies, vol. 25,Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 95-112.

Frank, Max (1976), 'Fraude des Revenus Soumis a l'Impot des Personnes Physiques et Perted'Impot qui en Resulte pour le Tresor-Etude Methodologique. (Income Tax Evasion andResulting Revenue Losses for the Treasury-Methodological Study. With Englishsummary.)', 31 Public Finance, 1-30.

Frank, Max and Dekeyser Meulders, Daniele (1977), 'A Tax Discrepancy CoefficientResulting from Tax Evasion or Tax Expenditures', 8 Journal of Public Economics,67-78.

Franzoni, Luigi Alberto (1994), 'Costly Prosecution, Tax Evasion and Amnesties', 23Economic Notes, 248-265.

Franzoni, Luigi Alberto (1995), On the Economics of Tax Amnesties (D.Phil. thesis),Nuffield College, Oxford.

Franzoni, Luigi Alberto (1998), 'Punishment and Grace: on the Economics of TaxAmnesties (forthc.)', Public Finance.

Franzoni, Luigi Alberto (1998), 'Independend auditors as fiscal gatekeepers (forthc.)',International Review of Law and Economics.

Frey, Bruno (1989), 'How Large (or Small) Should the Underground Economy Be?', in Feige,Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and Information Distortion,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 111-126.

Friedland, Nehemiah, Maital, Shlomo and Rutenberg, Aryeh (1978), 'A Simulation Study ofIncome Tax Evasion', 10 Journal of Public Economics, 107-116.

Friedman, Jorge Ricardo (1993), Essays in Tax Evasion, University of California, Berkeley,Ph.D. 1993.

Fullerton, Don and Karayannis, Marios (1993), Tax Evasion and the Allocation of Capital,National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 4581.

Fullerton, Don and Karayannis, Marios (1994), 'Tax Evasion and the Allocation of Capital',55 Journal of Public Economics, 257-278.

Gabor, Istvan R. (1989), 'Second Economy and Socialism: The Hungarian Experience', inFeige, Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and InformationDistortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 339-360.

Gangemi, Avv. Bruno (1993), 'Tax Avoidance: The Italian Experience', 47 Bulletin forInternational Fiscal Documentation, 522-528.

Geeroms, Hans J.A. and Wilmots, Hendrik (1985), 'An Empirical Model of Tax Evasion andTax Avoidance', 40 Public Finance, 190-209.

Gentry, William M. (1994), 'Review of: Why people pay taxes: Tax compliance andenforcement', 32 Journal of Economic Literature, 1248-1249.

Giovannini, Alberto (1987), Capital Controls and Public Finance: The Experience in Italy,Columbia First Boston Series in Money, Economics and Finance Working Paper,FB-87-19.

Giovannini, Alberto (1987), International Capital Mobility and Tax Evasion, NationalBureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 2460.

Gordon, James P.F. (1989), 'Individual Morality and Reputation Costs as Deterrents to TaxEvasion', 33 European Economic Review, 797-805.

Gordon, James P.F. (1990), 'Evading Taxes by Selling for Cash', 42 Oxford EconomicPapers, 244-255.

Gordon, James P.F. (1991), 'Evading Taxes by Selling for Cash', in Sinclair, Peter J. N. andSlater, Martin D. E. (eds.), Taxation, private information and capital. Oxford EconomicPapers, Special Issue 1990, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 244-255.

Gordon, Richard K., Jr. (1988), 'Income Tax Compliance and Sanctions in DevelopingCountries: An Outline of Issues', 42(1) Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation,3-12.

Gottlieb, Daniel (1985), 'Tax Evasion and the Prisoner's Dilemma', 10(1) MathematicalSocial Sciences, 81-89.

Graetz, Michael J. and Wilde, Louis L. (1985), 'The Economics of Tax Compliance: Factand Fantasy', 38 National Tax Journal, 335-363.

Graetz, Michael J. and Wilde, Louis L. (1993), 'The Decision by Strategic Nonfilers toParticipate in Income Tax Amnesties', 13 International Review of Law and Economics,271-283.

Graetz, Michael J., Reinganum, Jennifer F. and Wilde, Louis L. (1984), 'A Model of TaxCompliance with Budget-Constrained Auditors', Caltech Social Science Working Paper.

Graetz, Michael J., Reinganum, Jennifer F. and Wilde, Louis L. (1986), 'The TaxCompliance Game: Toward an Interactive Theory of Law Enforcement', 2 Journal ofLaw, Economics, and Organization, 1-32.

Graetz, Michael J., Reinganum, Jennifer F. and Wilde, Louis L. (1989), 'Expert Opinions andTaxpayer Compliance: A Strategic Analysis', Caltech Social Science Working Paper.

Green, Susan (1992), Schedule D Non-Compliance: Would an Amnesty Help?, Universityof Bristol Discussion Paper, No. 92/334.

Greenberg, Joseph (1984), 'Avoiding Tax Avoidance: A (Repeated) Game TheoreticApproach', 32(1) Journal of Economic Theory, 1-13.

Greenfield, Harry I. (1993), Invisible, outlawed, and untaxed: America's undergroundeconomy, Westport, Praeger, 137 p.

Greenspan, Edward L. (1988), Tax Evasion Is a Crime!, Canadian Tax Foundation. Incometax enforcement, compliance, and administration: Corporate management taxconference, Toronto, Author.

Groenland, Edward A.G. (1992), 'Developing a Dynamic Research Strategy for the EconomicPsychological Study of Taxation', 13 Journal of Economic Psychology, 589-596.

Gros, Daniel (1990), 'Tax Evasion and Offshore Centres', in Siebert, Horst (ed.), Reformingcapital income taxation. Symposien und Konferenzbande series, Tübingen, Mohr,113-127.

Hagemann, Robert P. (1990), 'Tax Evasion and Offshore Centres: Comment', in Siebert,Horst (ed.), Reforming capital income taxation. Symposien und Konferenzbande series,Tübingen, Mohr, 128-131.

Hansson, Ingemar (1985), 'Tax Evasion and Government Policy', in Gaertner, Wulf andWenig, Alois (eds.), The Economics of the Shadow Economy: Proceedings of thInternational Conference on the Economics of the Shadow Economy Held at theUniversity of Bielefeld, West Germany, October 10-14, 1983, Berlin, Springer, 285-300.

Hansson, Ingemar (1989), 'The Underground Economy in Sweden', in Feige, Edgar L. (ed.),The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and Information Distortion, Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, 219-236.

Harris, David and others (1991), Income Shifting in U.S. Multinational Corporations,National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 3924.

Harriss, C. Lowell (1994), 'An Address on Land Taxation as an Evasion-Proof RevenueSource', 53 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 97-98.

Hasseldine, D. John and Bebbington, K. Jan (1991), 'Blending Economic Deterrence andFiscal Psychology Models in the Design of Responses to Tax Evasion: The New ZealandExperience', 12 Journal of Economic Psychology, 299-324.

Hasseldine, D. John and Kaplan, Steven E. (1992), 'The Effect of Different SanctionCommunications on Hypothetical Taxpayer Compliance: Policy Implications from NewZealand', 47 Public Finance, 45-60.

Hepburn, Glen (1992), 'Estimates of Cash-Based Income Tax Evasion in Australia', 0(2)Australian Economic Review, 54-62.

Herschel, Federico J. (1978), 'Tax Evasion and Its Measurement in Developing Countries',33 Public Finance, 232-268.

Hessing, Dick J. and others (1988), 'Tax Evasion Research: Measurement Strategies andTheoretical Models', in van Raaij, W. Fred, van Veldhoven, Gery M., Warneryd, KarlErik (eds.), Handbook of economic psychology, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers,517-537.

Hessing, Dick J. and others (1992), 'Does Deterrence Deter? Measuring the Effect ofDeterrence on Tax Compliance in Field Studies and Experimental Studies', in Slemrod,Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor,University of Michigan Press, 291-305.

Hessing, Dick J., Elffers, Henk and Weigel, Russell H. (1988), 'Research in Tax Resistance:An Integrative Theoretical Scheme for Tax Evasion Behavior', in Maital, Shlomo (ed.),Applied behavioural economics Volume 2, New York, New York University Press,568-576.

Hey, John D. and Lambert, Peter J. (eds.) (1987), Surveys in the economics of uncertainty,Oxford, Blackwell, 232 p.

Hindriks, J. (1994), On the Equity-compliance Tradeoff, mimeo, University of Namur.

Hindriks, J., Keen, M. and Muthoo, A. (1996), Corruption, Extortion and Evasion, mimeo,University of Essex.

Hines, James R., Jr. (1990), The Flight Paths of Migratory Corporations, John M. OlinProgram for the Study of Economic Organization and Public Policy, No. 65.

Hite, Peggy A. (1990), 'An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Tax Shelters onTaxpayer Noncompliance', 45 Public Finance, 90-108.

Holland, Daniel M. (1984), 'Measuring and Combatting Income Tax Evasion', in Hanusch,Horst (ed.), Public Finance and the Quest for Efficiency: Proceedings of the 38thCongress of the International Institute of Public Finance, Copenhagen, Detroit, WayneState University Press, 329-348.

Holland, Daniel M. (1991), 'Property Taxes: Section Postscript', in Bahl, Roy (ed.), TheJamaican Tax Reform, Cambridge (MA), Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 673-676.

Hunter, William C. (1992), 'Cheating the Government: The Economics of Evasion: ReviewEssay', 77 Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 35-41.

Hunter, William J. and Nelson, Michael A. (1995), 'Tax Enforcement: A Public ChoicePerspective', 82 Public Choice, 53-67.

Inhaber, Herbert and Carroll, Sidney (1992), How rich is too rich? Income and wealth inAmerica, Westport, Praeger, 252 p.

International Fiscal Association (ed.) (1989), Administrative and Compliance Costs ofTaxation, Deventer, Kluwer, 650 p.

Isachsen, Arne Jon and Ström, Steinar (1981), Skattefritt. Svart Sektor i Vekst (Taxfree. TheGrowth of the Black Sector), Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.

Isachsen, Arne Jon and Ström, Steinar (1980), 'The Hidden Economy: The Labor Marketand Tax Evasion', 82 Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 304-311.

Isachsen, Arne Jon and Strom, Steinar (1989), 'The Hidden Economy in Norway with SpecialEmphasis on the Hidden Labor Market', in Feige, Edgar L. (ed.), The UndergroundEconomies: Tax Evasion and Information Distortion, Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress, 251-265.

Isachsen, Arne Jon, Samuelson, S.S. and Strom, Steinar (1985), 'The Behavior of TaxEvaders', in Gaertner, Wulf and Wenig, Alois (eds.), The Economics of the ShadowEconomy: Proceedings of th International Conference on the Economics of the ShadowEconomy Held at the University of Bielefeld, West Germany, October 10-14, 1983,Berlin, Springer.

Ishi, Hiromitsu (1984), 'International Tax Evasion and Avoidance in Japan', 25(1)Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 276-294.

Jain, Anil Kumar (1972), 'The Problem of Income Tax Evasion in India', 26(7) Bulletin forInternational Fiscal Documentation, 276-294.

Jensen, Richard, Toma, Eugenia Froedge and Toma, Mark (1994), 'Privatization of TaxCollection and the Time-Consistency Problem', 49 Public Finance, 57-71.

Jepsen, Gunnar Thorlund (1991), Wage Contracts and Design of Tax Enforcement Policy inthe Shadow Economy, Aarhus Institute of Economics Memo, No. 1991-21.

Jepsen, Gunnar Thorlund (1991), How to Close "The Gap"? Wage Contracts and Design ofTax Enforcement Policy in the Shadow Economy, Aarhus Institute of Economics Memo,No. 1991-14.

Jepsen, Gunnar Thorlund (1994), Is There Aversion Against Moonlighting?, Aarhus Instituteof Economics Memo, No. 1991-19.

Jepsen, Gunner Thorlund (1992), Measuring the Tax Evaders' Aversion Against Evading: AnIntroduction to an Empirical Research, Aarhus Institute of Economics Memo, No.1991-7.

Jonathan, R. Kesselman (1988), Income Tax Evasion in General Equilibrium, Universityof British Columbia Department of Economics Discussion Paper, No. 88-03.

Jou, Jyh Bang (1992), Income Tax Evasion: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the U.S.State-Level Data, Tax Year 1976-1989, University of Chicago, Ph.D. 1992.

Jung, Young H., Snow, Arthur and Trandel, Gregory A. (1994), 'Tax Evasion and the Sizeof the Underground Economy', 54(3) Journal of Public Economics, 391-402.

Jung, Young Heon (1992), Contributions to the Economic Theory of Tax Evasion, Universityof Georgia, Ph.D. 1992.

Kagan, Robert A. (1989), 'On the Visibility of Income Tax Violations', in Roth, Jeffrey A.and Scholz, John T. (eds.), Taxpayer Compliance, Philadelphia, University ofPennsylvania Press.

Kamdar, Nipoli (1993), Essays on Tax Compliance, Syracuse University, Ph.D..

Kamdar, Nipoli (1995), 'Information Reporting and Tax Compliance: An InvestigationUsing Individual TCMP Data', 23 Atlantic Economic Journal, 278-292.

Kaplan, Richard L. (1989), 'Perspectives on International Tax Compliance andEnforcement: Transfer Pricing in the United States', 6 Australian Tax Forum, 423-454.

Kaplan, Steven E. and Reckers, Philip M. J. (1985), 'A Study of Tax Evasion Judgments', 38National Tax Journal, 97-102.

Kaplow, Louis (1989), The Optimal Probability and Magnitude of Fines for Acts that areDefinitely Undesirable, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No.3008.

Kaplow, Louis (1990), 'Optimal Taxation with Costly Enforcement and Evasion', 43Journal of Public Economics, 221-236.

Kaplow, Louis (1995), 'A Model of the Optimal Complexity of Legal Rules', 11 Journal ofLaw, Economics, and Organization, 150-163.

Kaplow, Louis (1996), 'How Tax Complexity and Enforcement Affect the Equity andEfficiency of the Income Tax', 49 National Tax Journal, 135-150.

Karayannis, Marios (1991), Tax Evasion, Portfolio Choice, and the Allocation of Capitalin the U.S. Economy, University of Virginia, Ph.D..

Karoly, Lynn A. (1994), 'Review of: How rich is too rich? Income and wealth in America',32 Journal of Economic Literature, 130-131.

Kazemier, Brugt and van Eck, Rob (1992), 'Survey Investigations of the Hidden Economy:Some Methodological Results', 13 Journal of Economic Psychology, 569-587.

Kelsey, David and Schepanski, Al (1988), Testing for Regret and Disappointment in TaxCompliance Decisions, University of Cambridge Economic Theory Discussion Paper,No. 124.

Kemp, Robert, Reckers, Philip M. J. and Arrington, C. Edward (1986), 'U.S. Tax Reform:Tax Evasion Concerns', 21 Business Economics, 55-57.

Kesselman, Jonathan R. (1986), Evasion of Taxes in General Equilibrium, University ofBritish Columbia Department of Economics Discussion Paper, No. 86-45.

Kesselman, Jonathan R. (1989), 'Income Tax Evasion: An Intersectoral Analysis', 38Journal of Public Economics, 137-182.

Kesselman, Jonathan R. (1993), Compliance, Enforcement, and Administrative Factors inImproving Tax Fairness, University of British Columbia Department of EconomicsDiscussion Paper, No. 93-45.

Kesselman, Jonathan R. (1993), 'Evasion Effects of Changing the Tax Mix', 69 EconomicRecord, 131-148.

Kim, Chungkweon (1994), The Effects of Public Transfers and Tax Rate Changes onReported Income: Experimental Evidence, University of Pittsburgh, Ph.D.

Kinsey, Karyl A. (1992), 'Deterrence and Alienation Effects of IRS Enforcement: AnAnalysis of Survey Data', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Complianceand Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 259-285.

Klepper, Stephen and Nagin, Daniel (1989), 'The Criminal Deterrence Literature:Implications for Research on Taxpayer Compliance', in Roth, Jeffrey A. and Scholz,John T. (eds.), Taxpayer Compliance, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Klepper, Steven and Nagin, Daniel (1989), 'The Role of Tax Preparers in Tax Compliance',22 Policy Sciences, 167-194.

Klepper, Steven, Mazur, Mark and Nagin, Daniel S. (1991), 'Expert Intermediaries and LegalCompliance: The Case of Tax Preparers', 34 Journal of Law and Economics, 205-229.

Klepper, Steven, Nagin, Daniel and Spurr, Stephen (1991), 'Tax Rates, Tax Compliance, andthe Reporting of Long-Term Capital Gains', 46 Public Finance, 236-251.

Klovland, Jan Tore (1984), 'Tax Evasion and the Demand for Currency in Norway andSweden. Is There a Hidden Relationship?', 86 Scandinavian Journal of Economics,423-439.

Kolm, Serge Christophe (1973), 'A Note on Optimum Tax Evasion', 2 Journal of PublicEconomics, 265-270.

Kong, Randolph (1988), 'Cooperative Approaches among Tax Administrations to Preventand Counteract International Tax Evasion and Avoidance: Trinidad and Tabago', 42Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 526-530.

Koskela, Erkki (1983), 'On the Shape of Tax Schedule, the Probability of Detection, and thePenalty Schemes as Deterrents to Tax Evasion', 38 Public Finance, 70-80.

Koskela, Erkki (1983), 'A Note on Progression, Penalty Schemes and Tax Evasion', 22Journal of Public Economics, 127-133.

Kreutzer, David and Lee, Dwight R. (1988), 'Tax Evasion and Monopoly Output Decisions:A Reply', 41 National Tax Journal, 583-584.

Krupsky, Kenneth J. (1992), 'IRS Access to Foreign Transfer Pricing Information: UnitedStates', 46 Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 113-118.

Kuboniwa, Masaaki (1995), 'From Upward to Downward Bias of the Russian OutputStatistics. (In Japanese. With English summary.)', 46 Economic Review (Keizai Kenkyu),289-302.

Laban, Raul and Sturzenegger, Federico (1992), 'La economia politica de los programas deestabilizacion. (The Political Economy of Stabilization Programs. With Englishsummary.)', 0(36) Coleccion Estudios CIEPLAN, 41-66.

Lai, Ching Chong (1991), 'The Effect of Tax Evasion on Tax Collections: The Implicationof the Cebula Model', 38 Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali,639-647.

Lai, Ching Chong and Chang, Wen Ya (1988), 'Tax Evasion and Tax Collections: AnAggregate Demand-Aggregate Supply Analysis', 43 Public Finance, 138-146.

Landsberger, Michael and Meilijson, Isaac (1982), 'Incentive Generating State DependentPenalty System: The Case of Income Tax Evasion', 19 Journal of Public Economics,333-352.

Landskroner, Yoram, Muller, Eitan and Swary, Itzhak (1991), 'Tax Evasion and FinancialEquilibrium', 43 Journal of Economics and Business, 25-35.

Landskroner, Yoram, Paroush, J. and Swary, Itzhak (1990), 'Tax Evasion and PortfolioDecisions', 45 Public Finance, 409-422.

Langfeldt, Enno (1989), 'The Underground Economy in the Federal Republic of Germany:A Preliminary Assessment', in Feige, Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies: TaxEvasion and Information Distortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 197-217.

Lazos, Vaios (1996), 'E Kambyle Adiaforias enos Eglematos (The Indifference Curve of aCrime)', 6 Aissymnetes.

Lemieux, Thomas, Fortin, Bernard and Frechette, Pierre (1994), 'The Effect of Taxes onLabor Supply in the Underground Economy', 84 American Economic Review, 231-254.

Lempert, Richard (1992), 'Reciprocity and Fairness: Positive Incentives for TaxCompliance: Commentary', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: TaxCompliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 251-257.

Leonard, Herman B. and Zeckhauser, Richard J. (1986), Amnesty, Enforcement and TaxPolicy, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 2096.

Lewis, A. (1979), 'An Empirical Assessment of Tax Mentality', 43 Public Finance/FinancesPubliques, 245-257.

Lindholm, Richard W. (1986), Examination of Basic Weaknesses of Income as the MajorFederal Tax Base, New York, Greenwood Press, 320 p.

Long, Susan B. (1992), 'The Influence of Tax Audits on Reporting Behavior: Commentary',in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, AnnArbor, University of Michigan Press, 115-123.

Lovely, Mary E. (1994), 'Crossing the Border: Does Commodity Tax Evasion ReduceWelfare and Can Enforcement Improve It?', 27 Canadian Journal of Economics,157-174.

Lugaresi, Sergio and Di Nicola, Fernando (1991), Tax Policy and Income Redistribution inItaly, London School of Economics Suntory Toyota International Centre for Economicsand Related Disciplines Working Paper, No. TIDI/152.

Lyttkens, Carl Hampus (1992), 'Effects of the Taxation of Wealth in Athens in the FourthCentury B.C.', 40 Scandinavian Economic History Review, 3-20.

Macho-Stadler, I. and Pérez-Castrillo, J.David (1994), Random Audits in Tax EvasionModels, W.P. UAB-IAE, No. 287.94.

Macho-Stadler, I. and Pérez-Castrillo, J.David (1996), 'Optimal Tax Auditing when SomeIndividuals Need Not File', forthc. Economic Design.

Macho-Stadler, I. and Pérez-Castrillo, J.David (1997), 'Optimal Auditing Policy withHeterogeneous Incomes Sources', forthc. International Economic Review.

Macho-Stadler, I., Olivella-Cunill, P. and Pérez-Castillo, J.David (1993), Tax amnesties ina Dynamic Model of Tax Evasion, W.P. UAB-IAE, No. 247.94.

MacKie Mason, Jeffrey K. (1992), 'The Corporate Tax Gap: Evidence on Tax Complianceby Small Corporations: Commentary', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: TaxCompliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 162-166.

Madeo, Silvia A. (1992), 'How Taxpayers Think about Their Taxes: Frames and Values:Commentary', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance andEnforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 64-66.

Madeo, Silvia A., Schepanski, Albert and Uecker, Wilfred C. (1987), 'Modeling Judgmentsof Taxpayer Compliance', 62 Accounting Review, 323-342.

Maital, Shlomo (1988), Applied behavioural economics. 2 vols, New York, New YorkUniversity Press, 831 p.

Malik, Arun S. (1990), 'Avoidance, screening and optimum enforcement', 21 Rand Journalof Economics, 341-353.

Malik, Arun S., and Schwab, R. (1991), 'The Economics of Tax Amnesties', 46 Journal ofPublic Economics, 29-49.

Mann, Arthur J. and Smith, Robert (1988), 'Tax Attitudes and Tax Evasion in Puerto Rico:A Survey of Upper Income Professionals', 13 Journal of Economic Development,121-141.

Marhuenda, F. and Ortuno-Ortin, I. (1994), Honesty versus progressiveness in income taxenforcement problems, University of Alicante WP, No. 94-06.

Marrelli, M. (1987), 'The Economic Analysis of Tax Evasion: Empirical Aspects', in Hey,John D. and Lambert, Peter J. (eds.), Surveys in the Economics of Uncertainty, Oxford,Blackwell, 204-228.

Marrelli, Massimo (1984), 'On Indirect Tax Evasion', 25 Journal of Public Economics,181-196.

Marrelli, Massimo and Martina, Riccardo (1988), 'Tax Evasion and Strategic Behaviour ofthe Firms', 37 Journal of Public Economics, 55-69.

Martinez Vazquez, Jorge, Harwood, Gordon B. and Larkins, Ernest R. (1992), 'WithholdingPosition and Income Tax Compliance: Some Experimental Evidence', 20 PublicFinance Quarterly, 152-174.

Mason, Robert and Calvin, Lyle D. (1984), 'Public Confidence and Admitted Tax Evasion',37 National Tax Journal, 489-496.

McBarnet, Doreen (1992), 'The Construction of Compliance and the Challenge for Control:The Limits of Noncompliance Research', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes:Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 333-345.

McCaleb, Thomas S. (1976), 'Tax Evasion and the Differential Taxation of Labor andCapital Income', 31 Public Finance, 287-294.

McCracken, Gerald H. (1988), Preventing Tax Evasion through Enforcement: TheGovernment Perspective, Canadian Tax Foundation. Income tax enforcement,compliance, and administration: Corporate management tax conference.

McGee, Robert T. and Feige, Edgar L. (1989), 'Policy Illusion, Macroeconomic Instability,and the Unrecorded Economy', in Feige, Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies:Tax Evasion and Information Distortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,81-109.

McGee, Robert W. (1994), 'Is Tax Evasion Unethical?', 42(2) University of Kansas LawReview, 411-435.

McGee, Robert W. (1996), Taxation, Ethics & Public Policy, Dumont Institute for PublicPolicy Research. http: / ww.hili.com~dumontin

McGee, Robert W. (1996), Essays on accounting,Taxation & Public Finance, DumontInstitute for Public Policy Research.

Mehta, Shekhar (1990), 'Evasion of state taxes in India', New Delhi: Criterion.

Melumad, Nahum D. and Mookherjee, D. (1989), 'Delegation as Commitment: The Case ofIncome Tax Audits', 104(2) Rand Journal of Economics, 399-415.

Mintz, Jack M. and Seade, Jesus (1991), 'Cash Flow or Income? The Choice of Base forCompany Taxation', 6 World Bank Research Observer, 177-190.

Mirus, Rolf and Smith, Roger S. (1989), 'Canada's Underground Economy', in Feige, EdgarL. (ed.), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and Information Distortion,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 267-280.

Mookherjee, D. and Png, Ivan Paak-Liang (1989), 'Optimal Auditing, Insurance andRedistribution', 20(2) Quarterly Journal of Economics, 139-163.

Mork, Knut Anton (1975), 'Income Tax Evasion: Some Empirical Evidence', 30 PublicFinance, 70-76.

Moser, Donald V., Evans, John H., III and Kim, Chung K. (1995), 'The Effects ofHorizontal and Exchange Inequity on Tax Reporting Decisions', 70 Accounting Review,619-634.

Mtatifikolo, Fidelis P. (1990), 'An Economic Analysis of Tanzania's Tax PerformanceExperiences since the 1973 Tax Act', 6 Eastern Africa Economic Review, 55-67.

Mullin, Ronald David (1993), Enhancing Taxpayer Compliance: Experimental Evidence onAlternative Policies, University of Virginia, Ph.D.

Murray, Matthew N. (1986), A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Tax Evasion and TaxAvoidance, Syracuse University, Ph.D.

Murray, Matthew N. (1995), 'Sales Tax Compliance and Audit Selection', 48 National TaxJournal, 515-530.

Myles, G. and Naylor, R. (1996), 'A Model of Tax Evasion with Group Conformity andSocial Customs', 12 European Journal of Political Economy, 49-66.

Nagin, Daniel (1992), 'The Construction of Compliance and the Challenge for Control: TheLimits of Noncompliance Research: Commentary', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why PeoplePay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of MichiganPress, 346-348.

Nayak, P. B. (1978), 'Optimal Income Tax Evasion and Regressive Taxes', 33 PublicFinance, 358-366.

Nguyen, Trien T. (1989), 'The Parallel Market of Illegal Aliens: A ComputationalApproach', 17 World Development, 1965-1978.

Nitzan, Shmuel and Tzur, Joseph (1987), Taxpayers, Auditors and the Government - anExtended Tax Evasion Game, Universitat Bonn Sonderforschungsbereich 303 DiscussionPaper, No. A-105.

O'Higgins, Michael (1989), 'Assessing the Underground Economy in the United Kingdom',in Feige, Edgar L. (ed.), The Underground Economies: Tax Evasion and InformationDistortion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 175-195.

OECD (1990), Taxpayers' rights and obligations, Paris, OECD.

OKeeffe, Mary (1986), Audit Strategies with Heterogeneous Agents: Is Efficient DeterrenceCompatible with Efficient Detection?, Harvard Kennedy School of GovernmentDiscussion Paper, No. 145D.

Olivella, P. (1992), 'Un Estudio de la evasion fiscal desde la perspectiva de las relacionesprincipal-agente (A principal-Agent Approach of Tax Evasion)', 9(2) Revista Españolade Economía.

Olivella, P. (1992), Las amnistias fiscales: descripcion y analisis economico (Economicanalysis of Tax Amnesties), Universitat autonoma de Barcelona.

Olivella, P. (1996), Tax Amnesties and Tax Evasion Inertia, Universitat autonoma deBarcelona.

Panagariya, Arvind and Narayana, A. V. L. (1988), 'Excise Tax Evasion: A Welfare cumCrime Theoretic Analysis', 43 Public Finance, 248-260.

Panagariya, Arvind and Narayana, A. V. L. (1989), 'Excise Tax Evasion: Reply', 44 PublicFinance, 510-512.

Pandit, V. and Sundaram, K. (1977), 'Aggregate Demand under Conditions of Tax Evasion',32 Public Finance, 333-342.

Parikh, Parimal M. (1986), 'India: Is Tax Avoidance Merging into Tax Evasion? A Changein the Judiciaries' Approach to Tax Avoidance', 40(1) Bulletin for International FiscalDocumentation, 11-14.

Pasha, Hafiz A. (1993), 'Tax Audit Schemes in Pakistan and the Level of IncomeDeclaration', 38 Singapore Economic Review, 167-184.

Pastor, Santos (1995), '¿Qué hacer en los conflictos fiscales? Un análisis económico de laspropuestas de actas de conformidad (The Resolution of Tax Disputes)', HaciendaPública Española, 225-244.

Peacock, Alan and Shaw, G. K. (1982), 'Tax Evasion and Tax Revenue Loss', 37 PublicFinance, 269-278.

Pencavel, John H. (1979), 'A Note on Income Tax Evasion, Labor Supply, and NonlinearTax Schedules', 12 Journal of Public Economics, 115-124.

Persson, Mats and Wissen, Pehr (1984), 'Redistributional Aspects of Tax Evasion', 86Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 131-149.

Persson, Mats and Wissen, Pehr (1985), 'Redistributional Aspects of Tax Evasion', inForsund, Finn R. and Honkapohja, Seppo (eds.), Limits and Problems of Taxation, NewYork, St. Martin's Press, 33-51.

Pestieau, Pierre and Possen, Uri M. (1991), 'Tax Evasion and Occupational Choice', 45Journal of Public Economics, 107-125.

Pestieau, Pierre, Possen, Uri M. and Slutsky, Steve (1994), 'Optimal Differential Taxes andPenalties', 49(Suppl) Public Finance, 15-27.

Pestieau, Pierre, Possen, Uri M. and Slutsky, Steven M. (1994), The Penalty for Tax EvasionWhen Taxes are Set Optimally, Universite Catholique de Louvain CORE DiscussionPaper, No. 9416.

Peters, B. Guy (1991), The Politics of Taxation: A Comparative Perspective, Oxford,Blackwell, 338 p.

Pitt, Mark M. and Slemrod, Joel (1989), 'The Compliance Cost of Itemizing Deductions:Evidence from Individual Tax Returns', 79 American Economic Review, 1224-1232.

Plumley, Alan H. (1992), 'Deterrence and Alienation Effects of IRS Enforcement: AnAnalysis of Survey Data: Commentary', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes:Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 286-290.

Png, Ivan Paak-Liang (1987), 'Litigation, Liability, and Incentives for Care', 34 Journal ofPublic Economics, 61-85.

Pommerehne, Werner W. (1983), 'Steuerhinterziehung und Schwarzarbeit als Grenzen derStaatstatigkeit (Tax Evasion and Underground Activities as Limits of Government'sGrowth)', 119 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik, 261-284.

Pommerehne, Werner W. and Zweifel, Peter (1991), 'Success of a Tax Amnesty: At thePolls, for the FISC?', 72 Public Choice, 131-165.

Pommerehne, Werner W., Hart, Albert and Frey, Bruno S. (1994), 'Tax Morale, TaxEvasion and the Choice of Policy Instruments in Different Political Systems',49(Suppl) Public Finance, 52-69.

Pope, Jeff (1994), 'Compliance Costs of Taxation: Policy Implications', 11 Australian TaxForum, 85-121.

Pope, Jeff and Fayle, Richard (1991), 'The Compliance Costs of Public Companies' IncomeTaxation in Australia 1986/87: Empirical Results', 8 Australian Tax Forum, 485-538.

Porcano, Thomas M. (1988), 'Correlates of Tax Evasion', 9 Journal of EconomicPsychology, 47-67.

Porter, Richard D. and Bayer, Amanda S. (1989), 'Monetary Perspective on UndergroundEconomic Activity in the United States', in Feige, Edgar L. (ed.), The UndergroundEconomies: Tax Evasion and Information Distortion, Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress, 129-157.

Poterba, James M. (1987), 'Tax Evasion and Capital Gains Taxation', 77 AmericanEconomic Review, 234-239.

Prebble, Mark (1990), 'Tax Compliance and the Use of Tax Information', 7 Australian TaxForum, 207-216.

Pyle, D. J. (1991), 'The Economics of Taxpayer Compliance', 5 Journal of EconomicSurveys, 163-198.

Pyle, D. J. (1992), 'The Economics of Taxpayer Compliance', in Jackson, Peter M. (ed.),Current issues in public sector economics, New York, St. Martin's Press, 58-93.

Pyle, David J. (1989), Tax Evasion and the Black Economy, New York, St. Martin's Press,212 p.

Raikhy, P. S. and Gill, Sucha Singh (1988), Resource Mobilisation and EconomicDevelopment: A Regional Perspective, Amritsar, India, Guru Nanak Dev University,Punjab School of Economics, 227 p.

Rao, J. Mohan (1987), 'Class Relations in an 'Asiatic' Regime', 11 Cambridge Journal ofEconomics, 229-250.

Reckers, Philip M. J., Sanders, Debra L. and Roark, Stephen J. (1994), 'The Influence ofEthical Attitudes on Taxpayer Compliance', 47 National Tax Journal, 825-836.

Reinganum, Jennifer F. (1984), Sequential Equilibrium Detection and Reporting Policiesin a Model of Tax Evasion, Caltech Social Science Working Paper, No. 525.

Reinganum, Jennifer F. and Wilde, Louis L. (1985), 'Income Tax Compliance in aPrincipal-Agent Framework', 26 Journal of Public Economics, 1-18.

Reinganum, Jennifer F. and Wilde, Louis L. (1986), 'Equilibrium Verification and ReportingPolicies in a Model of Tax Compliance', International Economic Review, 739-760.

Reinganum, Jennifer F. and Wilde, Louis L. (1991), 'Equilibrium Enforcement andCompliance in the Presence of Tax Practitioners', 7 Journal of Law, Economics, andOrganization, 163-181.

Rice, Eric M. (1990), Skirting the Law: Essays on Corporate Tax Evasion and Avoidance,Harvard University, Ph.D..

Rice, Eric M. (1992), 'The Corporate Tax Gap: Evidence on Tax Compliance by SmallCorporations', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance andEnforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 125-161.

Richupan, Somchai (1984), 'Measuring Tax Evasion', 21(4) Finance and Development,38-40.

Rickard, J. A., Russell, A. M. and Howroyd, T.D. (1982), 'A Tax Evasion Model withAllowance for Retroactive Penalties', 58 Economic Record, 379-385.

Ricketts, Martin (1984), 'On the Simple Macroeconomics of Tax Evasion: An Elaborationof the Peacock-Shaw Approach', 39 Public Finance, 420-424.

Robben, Henry S. J. and others (1989), 'A Cross-National Comparison of Attitudes,Personality, Behaviour, and Social Comparison in Tax Evasion Experiments', inGrunert,-Klaus-G. and Olander,-Folke (eds.), Understanding Economic Behaviour.Theory and Decision Library Series A: Philosophy and Methodology of the SocialSciences, vol. 11, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 121-134.

Robben, Henry S. J. et al. (1990), 'Decision Frame and Opportunity as Determinants of TaxCheating: An International Experimental Study', 11 Journal of Economic Psychology,341-364.

Robben, Henry S. J. et. al. (1990), 'Decision Frames, Opportunity and Tax Evasion: AnExperimental Approach', 14 Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,353-361.

Roberts, Michael L. and Englebrecht, Ted D. (1992), 'Potential Application of Civil TaxPenalties for Undervaluation of Assets: Evidence and Policy Analysis', in Stern, JerroldJ. (ed.), Advances in Taxation. Volume 4, Greenwich (CT), JAI Press, 211-223.

Roth, J., Scholtz, J. and Witt A. (1989), Taxpayer compliance: An agenda for research. Vol.1, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Roubini, Nouriel and Sala i Martin, Xavier (1995), 'A Growth Model of Inflation, TaxEvasion, and Financial Repression', 35 Journal of Monetary Economics, 275-301.

Ruesca, Santos M. (1982), 'La Economía Irregular en el Mercado de Trabajo (IrregularEconomy in the Labour Market)', 587 Información Comercial Española, 91-102.

Ruesca, Santos M. (1986), 'Economía Oculta: de la Definición y los Métodos de Estimación(Underground Economy: Definition and Estimation Methods)', in X (ed.), Problemasestadísiticos de la economía sumergida, Madrid, Instituto Nacional de Estadística,25-48.

Ruesca, Santos M. (1987), 'La Economía Sumergida en España (Underground Economy inSpain)', Revista del Instituto de Estudios Económicos.

Russell, A.M. and Rickard, J.A. (1987), 'A Model of Tax Evasion Incorporating IncomeVariation and Retroactive Penalities', 26 Australian Economic Papers, 254-264.

Saltzman, L., Paternoster, R., Waldo, G. and Chiricos, T. (1982), 'Deterrent andExperiental Effects: the Problem of Causal Order in Percepual Deterrence Research',19 Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 172-189.

Samuelson, Paul A. (1954), 'The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure', 36 Review ofEconomic Statistics, 387-389.

Sanchez, Isabel (1990), 'Evasión Fiscal, Regulación y Mecanismos Óptimos de Inspección(Tax Evasion, Regulation, and Optimal Auditing Mechanisms)', 2 CuadernosEconómicos de ICE, 45 ff.

Sanchez, Isabel (1993), 'Hierarchical Design and Enforcement of Income Tax Policies', 50Journal of Public Economics, 345-369.

Sanchez, Isabel (1994), Determinantes Individuales de la Evasión Fiscal: un EnfoqueExperimental (Individual Determinants of Tax Evasion: an Experimental Approach),monografía, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.

Sanchez, Isabel (1995), 'Unraveling the Puzzle of Tax Compliance Using ExperimentalMethods', 48 Kyklos, 3-18.

Sanchez, Isabel (1995), 'Experimental Analysis of Individuals' Tax Compliance Rate', in deJuan, A. (ed.), Frontiers in Economic Psychology, proceedings of the IAREPConference, Agosto.

Sanchez, Isabel and Sobel, Joel (1993), 'Hierarchical Design and Enforcement of Income TaxPolicies', 50(3) Journal of Public Economics, 345-369.

Sandford, Cedric T. (1973), Hidden Costs of Taxation, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.

Sandford, Cedric T. (1994), 'International Comparisons of Administrative and ComplianceCosts of Taxation', 11 Australian Tax Forum, 291-309.

Sandford, Cedric T. (ed.) (1995), Tax Compliance Costs: Measurement and Policy, Bath,U.K., Fiscal Publications, 413 p.

Sandford, Cedric T. (1995), More Key Issues in Tax Reform, Bath, U.K., Fiscal Publications,214 p.

Sandmo, Agnar (1981), 'Income Tax Evasion, Labour Supply, and the Equity-EfficiencyTradeoff', 16 Journal of Public Economics, 265-288.

Sanford, C., Goodwin, M. and Hardwick, P. (1989), Administrative and Compliance Costsof Taxation, Fiscal Publications, Bath, U.K..

Sanford, C., Goodwin, M., Hardwick, P. and Butterworth, M. (1981), Costs and Benefits ofVAT, Heinemann Educational Books, London.

Sansing, Richard C. (1993), 'Information Acquisition in a Tax Compliance Game', 68Accounting Review, 874-884.

Sawyer, Adrian J. (1994), 'New Zealand: Raising the Threshold for Taxpayer Compliance:A New Era of Compliance Standards and Penalties', 48 Bulletin for International FiscalDocumentation, 655-664.

Sawyer, Adrian J. (1995), 'Taxpayer Compliance Standards and Penalties: Version II SignifiesProgress: New Zealand', 49 Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 510-521.

Sawyer, Adrian J. (1996), 'Taxpayer Compliance, Penalties and Disputes Resolution Bill: AnUpdate: New Zealand', 50 Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 72-78.

Schenk, Karl-Ernst (1983), 'Second Economy und Wirtschaftsordnung - Einsystemübergreifender, transaktionsökonomischer Erklärungsansatz (Second Economyand Economic Constitution. An Explanation Approach Encompassing DifferentSystems on the Basis of Transaction Economics mit A. Wass von Czege)', in Hedtkamp,G. (ed.), Beiträge zum Problem der Schattenwirtschaft, Schriften des Vereins fürSocialpolitik N.F., Bd. 132, Berlin, 33-51.

Schjelderup, Guttorm (1993), 'Optimal Taxation, Capital Mobility and Tax Evasion', 95Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 377-386.

Schmidtchen, Dieter (1994), 'Vom nichtmarginalen Charakter der Steuermoral (On theNon-marginal Character or Tax Morals)', in Chr. Smekal/E. Theurl (ed.), Stand undEntwicklung der Finanzpsychologie, Baden-Baden, 185-211.

Schulze, Gunther G. (1994), 'Misinvoicing Imports: The Interdependence of Tax and TariffEvasion', 22 Public Finance Quarterly, 335-365.

Schweizer, Urs (1984), 'Welfare Analysis of Excise Tax Evasion', 140 Journal ofInstitutional and Theoretical Economics, 247-258.

Scotchmer, Suzanne (1987), 'Audit Classes and Tax Enforcment Policy', 77 AmericanEconomic Review, 229-233.

Scotchmer, Suzanne (1989), 'Who Profits fromTaxpayer Confusion?', 29(1) EconomicLetters, 49-55.

Scotchmer, Suzanne (1992), 'The Regressive Bias in Tax Enforcement', 47(Suppl) PublicFinance, 366-371.

Scotchmer, Suzanne and Slemrod, Joel (1989), 'Randomness in Tax Enforcement', 38Journal of Public Economics, 17-32.

Scott, W. and Grasmick, H. (1981), 'Deterrence and Income Tax Cheating: TestingInteraction Hypotheses in Utilitarian Theories', 17 Journal of Applied BehavioralScience, 395-408.

Sen, Tapas Kumar (1990), 'Sales Tax Evasion in India: Some Issues', 44 Bulletin forInternational Fiscal Documentation, 605-608.

Sengupta, Partha (1991), Essays on the Theory of Tax Evasion, Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University, Ph.D..

Shea, Jia Dong and Wu, Jy Wen (1994), 'Tax Evasion, Anti-monitoring Activities and theImpacts of Government Policies (In Chinese. With English summary.)', 22(1) AcademiaEconomic Papers, 81-100.

Sheffrin, Steven M. and Triest, Robert K. (1992), 'Can Brute Deterrence Backfire?Perceptions and Attitudes in Taxpayer Compliance', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why PeoplePay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of MichiganPress, 193-218.

Siebert, Horst (ed.) (1990), Reforming Capital Income Taxation, Tübingen, Mohr, 298 p.

Silvani, Carlos and Vehorn, Charles L. (1991), 'Invoices, Books of Account, and Tax ReturnForms for VAT', in Tait, Alan A. (ed.), Value added tax: Administrative and policyissues. Occasional Paper, no. 88, Washington, International Monetary Fund, 40-48.

Simon, V. O. and Rao, D.N. (1993), 'Estimation of Leakages in Sales Tax Revenue of Delhi',25(2) Margin, 178-215.

Skinner, Jonathan and Slemrod, Joel (1985), 'An Economic Perspective on Tax Evasion',38 National Tax Journal, 345-353.

Slemrod, Joel (1985), The Return to Tax Simplification: An Econometric Analysis, NationalBureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 1756.

Slemrod, Joel (1989), 'Are Estimated Tax Elasticities Really Just Tax Evasion Elasticities?The Case of Charitable Contributions', 71 Review of Economics and Statistics, 517-522.

Slemrod, Joel (1989), Optimal Taxation and Optimal Tax Systems, National Bureau ofEconomic Research Working Paper, No. 3038.

Slemrod, Joel (1992), 'Why People Pay Taxes: Introduction', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), WhyPeople Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University ofMichigan Press, 1-8.

Slemrod, Joel (1992), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, AnnArbor, University of Michigan Press, 361 p.

Slemrod, Joel and Yitzhaki, Shlomo (1998), 'Tax Avoidance, Evasion and Administration(forthc.)', in Auerbach, Alan and Feldstein, Martin (eds.), Handbook in PublicEconomics, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

Slemrod, Joel B. (1985), 'An Empirical Test for Tax Evasion', 67 Review of Economics andStatistics, 232-238.

Slemrod, Joel B. (1989), 'Complexity, Compliance Costs, and Tax Evasion', in Roth, JeffreyA. and Scholz, John T. (eds.), Taxpayer Compliance, Philadelphia, University ofPennsylvania Press.

Smith, Andrew M. C. (1991), 'The Implications of the Commissioner's Statement on Section99: New Zealand', 45 Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 60-66.

Smith, Kent W. (1992), 'Reciprocity and Fairness: Positive Incentives for Tax Compliance',in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, AnnArbor, University of Michigan Press, 223-250.

Smith, Rodney T. (1976), 'The Legal and Illegal Markets for Taxed Goods: Pure Theory andApplication to State Governement Taxation of Distilled Spirits', 19 Journal of Law andEconomics, 393-429.

Snavely, Keith (1990), 'Governmental Policies to Reduce Tax Evasion: Coerced Behaviorversus Services and Values Development', 23 Policy Sciences, 57-72.

Soldatos, Gerasimos T. (1994), 'An Analysis of the Conflict between Underground Economyand Tax Evasion', 213 Jahrbuch für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 292-304.

Sommerhalder, Ruud A. and Elffers, Henk (1994), 'Compliance Effects of Some EuropeanTax Reforms', 11 Australian Tax Forum, 185-202.

Son, Gwang Lag (1991), A Model of Tax Compliance with Endogenous Probability of Audit,University of Washington, Ph.D.

Spicer, M. W. and Lundstedt, S. B. (1976), 'Understanding Tax Evasion', 31 Public Finance,295-305.

Spicer, Michael W. (1986), 'Civilization at a Discount: The Problem of Tax Evasion', 39National Tax Journal, 13-20.

Spicer, Michael W. (1987), 'The Effect of Tax Evasion on Tax Rates under Leviathan', 40National Tax Journal, 625-628.

Spicer, Michael W. (1990), 'On the Desirability of Tax Evasion: Conventional versusConstitutional Economic Perspectives', 45 Public Finance, 119-127.

Spicer, Michael W. and Becker, Lee A. (1980), 'Fiscal Inequity and Tax Evasion: AnExperimental Approach', 33(2) National Tax Journal, 171-175.

Spicer, Michael W. and Hero, Rodney E. (1985), 'Tax Evasion and Heuristics: A ResearchNote', 26 Journal of Public Economics, 263-267.

Spiro, Peter S. (1994), 'The Underground Economy: Toward a More Balanced View ofAlternative Methodologies', 2 Canadian Business Economics, 18-21.

Sproule, Robert A. (1985), 'Tax Evasion and Labor Supply under Imperfect Informationabout Individual Parameters of the Tax System', 40 Public Finance, 441-456.

Sproule, Robert, Komus, David and Tsang, Eric (1980), 'Optimal Tax Evasion: Risk-neutralBehaviour under a Negative Income Tax', 35 Public Finance, 309-317.

Srinivasan, T. N. (1973), 'Tax Evasion: A Model', 2 Journal of Public Economics, 339-346.

Steenbergen, Marco R., McGraw, Kathleen M. and Scholz, John T. (1992), 'TaxpayerAdaptation to the 1986 Tax Reform Act: Do New Tax Laws Affect the Way TaxpayersThink about Taxes?', in Slemrod, Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Complianceand Enforcement, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 9-37.

Stella, Peter (1991), 'An Economic Analysis of Tax Amnesties', 46 Journal of PublicEconomics, 383-400.

Stella, Peter (1993), 'Tax Farming: A Radical Solution for Developing Country TaxProblems?', International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 217 ff.

Stern, Jerrold J. (1993), Advances in taxation. Volume 5. A Research Annual, Greenwood,JAI Press, 272 p.

Steuerle, C. Eugene (1992), 'Taxpayer Adaptation to the 1986 Tax Reform Act: Do NewTax Laws Affect the Way Taxpayers Think about Taxes? Commentary', in Slemrod,Joel (ed.), Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement, Ann Arbor,University of Michigan Press, 38-41.

Stroope, John C. (1988), An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of ERTA and TEFRA on TaxCompliance, Pennsylvania Economic Association. Proceedings of the Third AnnualMeeting, May 27 and 28, 1988. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.

Stroope, John C. (1991), 'Changing Perceptions of Taxation and the Impact of Recent TaxLegislation on Tax Compliance and Budget Deficits', in Long, Stanley G. ( ed.),Pennsylvania Economic Association: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting, May23-25, 1991, Johnstown, University of Pittsburgh, 178-186.

Tanzi, V. (1991), Public finance in developing countries, Aldershot, Edward Elgar.

Tanzi, Vito and Shome, Parthasarathi (1994), 'International: A Primer on Tax Evasion', 48Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 328-337.

Tauchen, Helen V., Witte, Ann Dryden and Beron, Kurt J. (1989), Tax Compliance: AnInvestigation Using Individual TCMP Data, National Bureau of Economic ResearchWorking Paper, No. 3078.

Thalmann, Philippe (1992), 'Factor Taxes and Evasion in General Equilibrium', 22 RegionalScience and Urban Economics, 259-283.

Thomas, J. (1992), Informal Economic Activity, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.

Thurman, Quint C. (1991), 'Taxpayer Noncompliance and General Prevention: AnExpansion of the Deterrence Model', 46 Public Finance, 289-298.

Tillmann, Georg (1992), Tax Evasion in an Open Economy, Universitat BonnSonderforschungsbereich 303 Discussion Paper, No. A-377.

Toma, Eugenia Froedge and Toma, Mark (1992), 'Tax Collection with Agency Costs:Private Contracting or Government Bureaucrats?', 59 Economica, 107-120.

Tomasic, Roman and Pentony, Brendan (1991), 'Tax Compliance and the Rule of Law:From Legalism to Administrative Procedure?', 8 Australian Tax Forum, 85-116.

Tower, Edward (1989), 'Excise Tax Evasion: Comment', 44 Public Finance, 506-509.

Trandel, Gregory (1992), Essays on Commodity Taxation: Evasion, Tax Competition, andthe Form of the Tax, Princeton University, Ph.D. 1992.

Trandel, Gregory A. (1992), 'Evading the Use Tax on Cross-Border Sales: Pricing andWelfare Effects', 49 Journal of Public Economics, 313-331.

Troup, Edward (1992), 'Unacceptable Discretion: Countering Tax Avoidance and Preservingthe Rights of the Individual', 13(4) Fiscal Studies, 128-138.

Udell, Michael A. (1995), Essays in Applied Economics: New Techniques in Aggregate DataAnalysis, California Institute of Technology, Ph.D.

Urbiztondo, Santiago (1993), 'Un sistema de incentivos para mejorar la recaudacionimpositiva. (An Incentive System to Improve the Impositive Collecting. With EnglishSummary.)', 39 Economica (National University of La Plata), 141-162.

Usher, Dan (1986), 'Tax Evasion and the Marginal Cost of Public Funds', 24 EconomicInquiry, 563-586.

Van Raaij, W. Fred, van Veldhoven, Gery M. and Warneryd, Karl Erik (1988), Handbookof economic psychology, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 683 p.

Viren, Matti (1992), 'Financial Innovations and Currency Demand: Some New Evidence', 17Empirical Economics, 451-461.

Virmani, Arvind (1989), 'Indirect Tax Evasion and Production Efficiency', 39 Journal ofPublic Economics, 223-237.

Vogel, Kenneth R. (1974), 'Taxation and Public Opinion in Sweden: An Interpretation ofRecent Survey Data', 27(4) National Tax Journal, 499-513.

von Zameck, Walburga (1989), 'Tax Evasion and Tax Revenue Loss: Another Elaborationof the Peacock-Shaw Approach', 44 Public Finance, 308-315.

Wadhawan, Satish C. (1992), 'Evasion, Partial Detection and Optimal Tax Policy',47(Suppl) Public Finance, 372-383.

Wahlund, Richard (1992), 'Tax Changes and Economic Behavior: The Case of Tax Evasion',13 Journal of Economic Psychology, 657-677.

Wallschutzky, Ian (1991), 'Reforming a Tax System to Reduce Opportunities for TaxEvasion: Australia', 45 Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, 165-175.

Wallschutzky, Ian G. and Gibson, Brian (1993), 'Small Business Cost of Tax Compliance',10 Australian Tax Forum, 511-543.

Wang, Leonard F. S. (1990), 'Tax Evasion and Monopoly Output Decisions withEndogenous Probability of Detection', 18 Public Finance Quarterly, 480-487.

Wang, Leonard F. S. and Conant, John L. (1988), 'Corporate Tax Evasion and OutputDecisions of the Uncertain Monopolis t', 41 National Tax Journal, 579-581.

Wang, Xuejun (1995), 'Equilibrium Models of Asset Pricing with Progressive Taxation andTax Evasion', 2 Applied Economics Letters, 440-443.

Watson, Harry (1985), 'Tax Evasion and Labor Markets', 27 Journal of Public Economics,231-246.

Waud, Roger N. (1985), 'Tax Aversion, Deficits and the Tax Rate - Tax RevenueRelationship', National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper.

Waud, Roger N. (1988), 'Tax Aversion, Optimal Tax Rates, and Indexation', 43 PublicFinance, 310-325.

Webley, Paul, Cowell, Frank A., Long, Susan B. and Swingen, Judyth A.. (1991), Taxevasion: An experimental approach. European Monographs in Social Psychology,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Webley, Paul, Robben, Henry and Morris, Ira (1988), 'Social Comparison and Tax Evasionin a Shop Simulation', in Maital, Shlomo (ed.), Applied behavioural economics Volume2, New York, New York University Press, 553-561.

Weck-Hannemann, Hannelore and Pommerehne, Werner W. (1989),'Einkommenssteuerhinterziehung in der Schweiz. Eine empirische Analyse (An EmpiricalAnalysis of Income Tax Evasion in Switzerland)', 125(4) Schweizerische Zeitschrift fürVolkswirtschaft und Statistik, 515-556.

Westat, Inc. (1980), Individual Income Tax Compliance Factors Study: QualitativeResearch Results, Prepared for the Internal Revenue Service, Rockville, Md..

White, Michelle J. (1990), Why are Taxes So Complex and Who Benefits?, University ofMichigan Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory Working Paper, No.90-7.

Wickerson, John (1994), 'Measuring Taxpayer Compliance: Issues and Challenges FacingTax Administrations', 11 Australian Tax Forum, 1-44.

Wiegand, Bruce (1993), 'Petty Smuggling as "Social Justice": Research Findings from theBelize-Mexico Border', 42 Social and Economic Studies, 171-193.

Wirth, Andrew (1994), 'Changing Taxpayer Compliance: The Impact of Business Auditorsas Service Providers', 11 Australian Tax Forum, 63-84.

Witte, Ann Dryden and Woodbury, Diane F. (1985), 'The Effect of Tax Laws and TaxAdministration on Tax Compliance: The Case of the U.S. Individual Income Tax', 38National Tax Journal, 1-13.

Wolf, Holger, C. (1993), Anti-Tax Revolutions and Symbolic Prosecutions, National Bureauof Economic Research Working Paper, No. 4337.

Wrede, Matthias (1995), 'Tax Evasion and Risk Taking: Is Tax Evasion Desirable?', 50(2)Public Finance, 303-316.

Wrede, Matthias (1995), 'Tax Evasion and Growth', 8(2) Finnish Economic Papers, 82-90.

Yamada, Masatoshi (1990), 'An Analysis of Optimal Taxation with Tax Evasion', 45 PublicFinance, 470-490.

Yaniv, Gideon (1986), 'Fraudulent Collection of Unemployment Benefits: A TheoreticalAnalysis with Reference to Income Tax Evasion', 30 Journal of Public Economics,369-383.

Yaniv, Gideon (1988), 'Withholding and Non-withheld Tax Evasion', 35 Journal of PublicEconomics, 183-204.

Yaniv, Gideon (1990), 'On the Interpretation of the Income Effect in Tax Evasion Models',45 Public Finance, 235-239.

Yaniv, Gideon (1990), 'Tax Evasion under Differential Taxation: The Economics of IncomeSource Misreporting', 43 Journal of Public Economics, 327-337.

Yaniv, Gideon (1994), 'Tax Evasion and the Income Tax Rate: A TheoreticalReexamination', 49 Public Finance, 107-112.

Yaniv, Gideon (1995), 'A Note on the Tax-Evading Firm', 48 National Tax Journal,113-120.

Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. (1984), 'Taxpayer Attitudes Study: Final Report. Publicopinion survey prepared for the Public Affairs Division', Internal Revenue Service, NewYork.

Yitzhaki, Shlomo (1974), 'A Note on Income Tax Evasion: A Theoretical Analysis', 3Journal of Public Economics, 201-202.

Yitzhaki, Shlomo (1987), 'On the Excess Burden of Tax Evasion', 15 Public FinanceQuarterly, 123-137.

Yitzhaki, Shlomo and Vakneen, Yitzhak (1989), 'On the Shadow Price of a Tax Inspector',44 Public Finance, 492-505.

Zheng, Kangbin (1992), Four Essays on Linear Tax Evasion Games, Georgetown University,Ph.D. 1992.

Other References

Beccaria, Cesare (1764), 'An Attempt at an Analysis of Smuggling (Tentativo analitico suicontrabbandi)', Il Caffè, Brescia, Italy, 118-199, in Baumol, William J. and Goldfeld, S.(eds.), Precursors in Mathematical Economics: An Anthology, London, London Schoolof Economics and Political Science.

Border, K. and Sobel, J. (1987), 'Samurai Accountant: A Theory of Auditing and Plunder',54(4) Review of Economic Studies, 525-540.

Chander, P. and Wilde, L. (1998), 'A General Characterization of Optimal Income TaxEnforcement', 65 Review of Economic Studies, 165-183.

Elfers, H., Weigel, R. and Hessing, D. (1987), 'The Consequences of Different StrategiesMeasuring Tax Evasion Behavior', 8 Journal of Economic Psychology, 311-337.

Mookherjee, D. and Png, I. (1995), 'Corruptible Law Enforcers: How Should They BeCompensated?', 105(428) Economic Journal, 145-159.

Roth, J. and Scholtz, J. (eds.) (1989), Taxpayer Compliance, Vol. 2: Social SciencePerspectives, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Saltzman, L., Paternoster, R., Waldo, G. and Chiricos, T. (1982), 'Deterrent andExperiental Effects: The Problem of Causal Order in Perceptual Deterrence Research',19 Journal of Reseatch on Crime and Delinquency, 172-189.

Scotchmer, Suzanne (1987), 'Audit Classes and Tax Enforcement Policy', 77(2) AmericanEconomic Review, 229-233.

Scotchmer, Suzanne (1989), 'The Effect of Tax Advisors on Tax Compliance' in Roth, J.and Scholtz, J. (eds.), Taxpayer Compliance, Vol.2, University of Pennsylvania Press,Philadelphia.

Slemrod, Joel and Yitzhaki, Shlomo (1987), 'The Optimal Size of a Tax Collection Agency',89(2) Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 183-192.

Thomas, J. (1992), Informal Economic Activity, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.

© Copyright 1998 Luigi Alberto Franzoni