Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:18 am
Time: 2:18 am
Results for tax fraud
6 results foundAuthor: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa Title: Illicit Financial Flow Summary: The 4th Joint African Union Commission/United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (AUC/ECA) Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning and Economic Development was held in 2011. This Conference mandated ECA to establish the High Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa. Underlying this decision was the determination to ensure Africa's accelerated and sustained development, relying as much as possible on its own resources. The decision was immediately informed by concern that many of our countries would fail to meet the Millennium Development Goals during the target period ending in 2015. There was also concern that our continent had to take all possible measures to ensure respect for the development priorities it had set itself, as reflected for instance in the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Progress on this agenda could not be guaranteed if Africa remained over-dependent on resources supplied by development partners. In the light of this analysis, it became clear that Africa was a net creditor to the rest of the world, even though, despite the inflow of official development assistance, the continent had suffered and was continuing to suffer from a crisis of insufficient resources for development. Very correctly, these considerations led to the decision to focus on the matter of illicit financial outflows from Africa, and specifically on the steps that must be taken to radically reduce these outflows to ensure that these development resources remain within the continent. The importance of this decision is emphasized by the fact that our continent is annually losing more than $50 billion through illicit financial outflows. Details: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: The Commission, 2015. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 4, 2015 at: http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/publications/iff_main_report_english.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Africa URL: http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/publications/iff_main_report_english.pdf Shelf Number: 134532 Keywords: Financial Crimes (Africa)Money LaunderingTax FraudTerrorism FinancingWhite Collar Crime |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Identity Theft and Tax Fraud: Enhanced Authentication Could Combat Refund Fraud, but IRS Lacks an Estimate of Costs, Benefits and Risks Summary: Why GAO Did This Study IRS estimated it prevented $24.2 billion in fraudulent identity theft (IDT) refunds in 2013, but paid $5.8 billion later determined to be fraud. Because of the difficulties in knowing the amount of undetected fraud, the actual amount could differ from these point estimates. IDT refund fraud occurs when an identity thief uses a legitimate taxpayer's identifying information to file a fraudulent tax return and claims a refund. GAO was asked to review IRS's efforts to combat IDT refund fraud. This report, the second in a series, assesses (1) the quality of IRS's IDT refund fraud cost estimates, and (2) IRS's progress in developing processes to enhance taxpayer authentication. GAO compared IRS's IDT estimate methodology to GAO Cost Guide best practices (fraud is a cost to taxpayers). To assess IRS's progress enhancing authentication, GAO reviewed IRS documentation and interviewed IRS officials, other government officials, and associations representing software companies, return preparers, and financial institutions. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends IRS improve its fraud estimates by (1) reporting the inherent imprecision and uncertainty of estimates, and (2) documenting the underlying analysis justifying cost-influencing assumptions. In addition, IRS should estimate and document the economic costs, benefits and risks of possible options for taxpayer authentication. IRS agreed with GAO's recommendations and provided technical comments that GAO incorporated, as appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-119: Accessed May 6, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667965.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667965.pdf Shelf Number: 135527 Keywords: Financial CrimesIdentity Theft (U.S.)Tax Fraud |
Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Tackling tax fraud: how HMRC responds to tax evasion, the hidden economy and criminal attacks Summary: According to a report by the National Audit Office published today, HMRC estimates that losses to tax fraud amount to $16 billion each year. This is nearly half of HMRC's estimate of the tax gap ($34 billion): the difference between the amount of tax HMRC should collect each year and the amount it actually collects. Today's report is the first in a series of reports which will evaluate how effectively HMRC tackles different aspects of tax fraud, a longstanding problem not only for HMRC but for tax administrations around the world. Reducing the amount of tax that is lost due to tax fraud is a high priority for HMRC. To do this it will need to make better use of its data and develop its analysis. In 2014/15 HMRC reported $26.6 billion[1] additional revenue from all its compliance work, including work to tackle tax fraud but also work to tackle other parts of the tax gap like error and tax avoidance. HMRC has only partial data on how much of the total yield is derived from its work to counter tax fraud. For example it has more complete information on its work to tackle organised crime than tax evasion. We estimate that between 30% and 40% of total compliance yield is generated by HMRC's activities to tackle tax fraud, but this is an estimate based on partial evidence. HMRC assesses that two groups, smaller businesses and criminals, are responsible for 17 of the 21 biggest tax fraud risks. Of these, 8 relate to organised crime and 9 involve medium-sized, small or micro-businesses. HMRC believes these businesses are responsible for tax losses of $17 billion, almost half of the total tax gap, but does not consider its internal estimate of how much of this is the result of tax fraud robust enough for publication. HMRC has assessed that using its powers to investigate by civil means is usually the best way to recover missing tax at the lowest cost. It pursues criminal prosecution for cases where it believes it needs to send a strong deterrent message or when, given the severity of the fraud, it considers prosecution the only appropriate action. HMRC met its target to increase prosecutions by 1,000 a year by 2014-15, but recognises that it needs to better prioritise the cases it selects for criminal investigation. Although HMRC cannot demonstrate that this was the right number, the target had the effect of prompting the department to change its processes and make its investigations more efficient. This led it to focus on less complex cases, in particular a large number of prosecutions for people who had evaded income tax, VAT and tobacco duty. HMRC has recognised that it needs to prosecute cases that more closely correspond with its analysis of tax fraud risks. HMRC has more to do to understand what benefits it has achieved by increasing the number of prosecutions. In 2014-15, HMRC claimed $295 million in yield from the deterrent effect of its additional 1,000 prosecutions. However, in 2015 HMRC evaluated the deterrent effect of these prosecutions and found that it could not verify their monetary value. HMRC research found increased awareness of prosecutions but could not find evidence they led to changes in behaviour or increases in tax revenues. HMRC is now taking a broader look at its strategy by, for example, starting to shift the balance of its work, placing more emphasis on measures to prevent losses rather than relying so much on investigating them afterwards. It has also improved its assessment of risk, including what risks might occur in the future. It is also working to improve the quality and amount of data it uses as part of an ambitious long-term strategy to transform its business. [1] A significant element of the yield calculation relies on estimates of current and future benefits and is not the amount of cash generated each year from HMRC's enforcement and compliance activities Details: London: NAO, 2016. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 610, Session 2015-16: Accessed March 2, 2016 at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Tackling-tax-fraud-how-HMRC-responds-to-tax-evasion-the-hidden-economy-and-criminal-attacks.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Tackling-tax-fraud-how-HMRC-responds-to-tax-evasion-the-hidden-economy-and-criminal-attacks.pdf Shelf Number: 138024 Keywords: Financial CrimesTax EvasionTax FraudWhite Collar Crime |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Identity Theft: Improved Collaboration Could Increase Success of IRS Initiatives to Prevent Refund Fraud Summary: Why GAO Did This Study IRS estimates that fraudsters attempted at least $14.5 billion in IDT tax refund fraud in tax year 2015. Since 2015, GAO's High-Risk List has included IRS's efforts to address IDT refund fraud. Starting with its March 2015 Security Summit, IRS has partnered with state tax administrators and tax preparation companies, among others, on initiatives aimed at better preventing and detecting IDT refund fraud. GAO was asked to examine IRS's efforts to collaborate with these partners. This report, among other things, (1) describes actions taken to implement the ISAC and RRT, (2) evaluates the extent to which the ISAC pilot aligns with leading practices for pilot design, and (3) identifies actions, if any, that IRS could take to improve the ISAC pilot. GAO reviewed planning and other documents on the initiatives. It interviewed IRS and state officials and industry and trade organization representatives, among others involved in the ISAC and RRT. GAO also conducted four non-generalizable focus groups with state and industry partners. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends IRS ensure (1) the ISAC better aligns with leading practices for effective pilot design, and (2) the ISAC Partnership develops an outreach plan to expand membership and improve understanding of the ISAC's benefits. IRS and the ISAC Board state and industry co-chairs agreed with the recommendations Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2017. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-20: accessed November 29, 2017 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688612.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688612.pdf Shelf Number: 148532 Keywords: Consumer Fraud Fraud Identity Theft Tax Fraud |
Author: Bangpan, Mukdarut Title: Fraud and error in financial, welfare and revenue services: A Systematic Map of the empirical research evidence with particular reference to 'notification of changes of circumstances' Summary: The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) recognises that, in order to meet its strategic objectives, it is crucial to pay the right amount of benefit to the right person at the right time. During 2008/09, the DWP spent approximately L135.6 billion on benefits, of which it is estimated that about two per cent (L2.7 billion) was overpaid due to fraud and error. Recent estimates suggest that there were about L550 million of over-payments of Income Support (IS) and Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) (about five per cent of total spending on this type of benefit), L770 million on Housing Benefit (HB) (about 4.5 per cent of the total) and L340 million on Pension Credit (about 4.6 per cent of the total). Despite the increased measures undertaken to reduce fraud and error in the benefit system, the DWP acknowledges that new strategies for improving correctness of benefit payments are a priority. In the light of this official commitment to reducing overpayments, there is considerable interest in the process of notifying a 'change of circumstances (CoCs)' and in potential strategies to reduce fraud and error. This project aimed to identify and describe existing research literature on issues within related fields of financial products/services, welfare provision, taxation, and tax credit systems. This review is part of a wider programme of systematic review work commissioned by the DWP and carried out by the EPPI-Centre. Methodology The review described in this report is a 'systematic map' of the research evidence. The map does not aim to provide an answer to a specific policy question. Instead, the aim is to answer a question about the scope, nature and content of empirical research that has been carried out on a particular topic. This means that the question is broad, searching is extensive, and the results are presented in the form of a descriptive analysis of the research literature in the field. The mapping exercise followed a standardised systematic review process designed to minimise bias in the identification, selection and coding of primary studies. The results of this systematic map are derived from studies that explored people's attitudes towards financial products/services, welfare provision, and/or taxation/tax credit systems, and studies that investigated intervention programmes or initiatives aiming to reduce fraud and error. Details: Leeds: Corporate Document Services, 2011. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Department for Work and Pensions Working Paper 97: Accessed August 3, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214394/WP97.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214394/WP97.pdf Shelf Number: 151017 Keywords: Financial CrimeFraudTax FraudWelfare Fraud |
Author: Global Financial Integrity Title: South Africa: Potential Revenue Losses Associated with Trade Misinvoicing Summary: Executive Summary This report analyzes South Africa's bilateral trade statistics for 2010 - 2014 (the most recent years for which sufficient data are available) which are published by the United Nations (Comtrade). The detailed breakdown of bilateral South African trade flows allowed for the computation of trade value gaps that are the basis for trade misinvoicing estimates. Import gaps represent the difference between the value of goods South Africa reports having imported from its partner countries and the corresponding export reports by South Africa's trade partners. Export gaps represent the difference in value between what South Africa reports as having exported and what its partners report as imported. Analysis of trade misinvoicing in South Africa from 2010-2014 shows that the potential loss of revenue to the government is $7.4 billion annually or, a total of $37 billion during the period. The average portion of revenue lost due to import misinvoicing each year is $4.8 billion. This amount can be further divided into its component parts: uncollected VAT tax ($2.1 billion), customs duties ($596 million), and corporate income tax ($2.1 billion). Lost revenue due to misinvoiced exports was $2.6 billion on average each year which is related to lower than expected corporate income and royalties. The study also examined trade data from the South African Revenue Service in order to conduct an in-depth examination of import under-invoicing. This process analyzed approximately 7.4 million trade transactions which included more than 8,200 commodity types for the period 2010-2015. A key conclusion is that goods categories with a preponderance of under-invoicing tend to be associated with higher effective tax rates than other classes of imports. The data show that the top five categories for potential revenue loss related to import under-invoicing are machinery, knitted apparel, electrical machinery, non-knitted apparel, and vehicles. Three of these commodities (machinery, electrical machinery, and vehicles) are among the most commonly imported goods into South Africa. Trade misinvoicing occurs in four ways: under-invoicing of imports or exports, and over-invoicing of imports or exports. In the case of import under-invoicing fewer VAT taxes and customs duties are collected due to the lower valuation of goods. When import over-invoicing occurs (i.e. when companies pay more than would normally be expected for a product), corporate revenues are lower and therefore less income tax is paid. In export under-invoicing the exporting company collects less revenue than would be anticipated and therefore reports lower income. Thus, it pays less income tax. Corporate royalties are also lower. Total misinvoicing gaps related to imports can be broken down by under-invoicing ($16.3 billion) and over-invoicing ($9.8 billion). It should be noted that these figures represent the estimated value of the gap between what was reported by South Africa and its trading partners. The loss in government revenue is a subset of these amounts and is based on VAT tax rates (12.9 percent), 2 Global Financial Integrity customs duties (3.7 percent), corporate income taxes (21.7 percent), and royalties (1 percent) which are then applied to the value gap. Export misinvoicing gaps were $11.6 billion for export under-invoicing and $8.6 billion for export over-invoicing. Lost corporate income taxes and royalties are then applied to export under-invoicing amounts to calculate lost government revenue. The practice of trade misinvoicing has become normalized in many categories of international trade. It is a major contributor to poverty, inequality, and insecurity in emerging market and developing economies. The social cost attendant to trade misinvoicing undermines sustainable growth in living standards and exacerbates inequities and social divisions, issues which are critical in South Africa today. Details: Washington, DC: Global Financial Integrity, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8. 2019 at: https://www.gfintegrity.org/report/south-africa-potential-revenue-losses-associated-with-trade-misinvoicing/ Year: 2018 Country: South Africa URL: https://www.gfintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/South-Africa-Report-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 154289 Keywords: Custom DutiesFinancial CrimesFinancial FraudRevenue LossesSouth AfricaTax FraudTrade MisinvoicingUnderinvoicing |