Benford’s Law: an instrument for selecting tax audit targets?

Original Paper

Abstract

We consider whether Benford’s Law can be used to improve target selection prior to the start of on-site tax audits, thus increasing effectiveness and efficiency of fiscal enforcement. Laboratory experiments are conducted to obtain manipulated data and compare these to data which are known to be unmanipulated. We find that Benford’s Law can be used as a tool for audit selection, but that auditors must be cautious to ensure that Benford’s Law can be expected to apply to unmanipulated data of the prospective audit target. We also find that subjects cannot adapt sufficiently to Benford’s Law during tax fraud activity.

Keywords

Audit target selection Experiments Benford’s Law Tax audit Noncompliance 

JEL

H26 C91 

References

  1. Benford F (1938) The law of anomalous numbers. Proc Am Philos Soc 78(4):551–572Google Scholar
  2. Boniface DR (1995) Experiment design and statistical methods. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyle J (1994) An application of Fourier series to the most significant digit problem. Am Math Mon 101(9):879–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks C (2001) Introductory econometrics for finance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Busta B, Sundheim R (1992) Detecting manipulated tax returns with the use of Benford’s law, Working Paper, St Cloud State University, St CloudGoogle Scholar
  6. Busta B, Weinberg R (1998) Using Benford’s law and neural networks as a review procedure. Manag Audit J 13(6):356–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carslaw CAPN (1988) Anomalies in income numbers: Evidence of goal oriented behavior. Account Rev 63(2):321–327Google Scholar
  8. Diaconis P, Freedman D (1979) On rounding percentages. J Am Stat Assoc 74(366):359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedman D, Alessandra C (2004) Economics lab. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Guan L, He D, Yang D (2006) Auditing, integral approach to quarterly reporting, and cosmetic earnings management. Manag Audit J 21(6):569–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamming RW (1970) On the distribution of numbers. Bell Syst Tech J 49(8):1609–1625Google Scholar
  12. Hill TP (1988) Random-number guessing and the first digit phenomenon. Psychol Rep 62(1):967–971Google Scholar
  13. Hill TP (1995a) A statistical derivation of the significant-digit law. Stat Sci 10(4):354–363Google Scholar
  14. Hill TP (1995b) Base-invariance implies Benford’s law. Proc Am Philos Soc 123(3):887–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karim KE, Siegel PH (1998) A signal detection theory approach to analyzing the efficiency and effectiveness of auditing to detect management fraud. Manag Audit J 13(6): 367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerlinger FN, Lee HB (2000) Foundations of behavioral research. Thomson Learning, StamfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Kinnunen J, Koskela M (2003) Who is miss world in cosmetic earnings management? J Int Account Res 2(1):39–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knechel RW (1986) A simulation study of the relative effectiveness of alternative analytical review procedures. Decis Sci 17(Summer):376–294Google Scholar
  19. Knechel RW (1988) The effectiveness of statistical analytical review as a substantive auditing procedure: a simulation analysis. Account Rev 63(1):74–95Google Scholar
  20. Leemis LM, Schmeiser BW, Evans DL (2000) Survival distributions satisfying Benford’s law. Am Stat 54(4):236–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neuringer A (1986) Can people behave “Randomly”?: the role of feedback. J Exp Psychol Gen 115(1):62–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newcomb S (1881) Note on the frequency of use of the different digits in natural numbers. Am J Math 4(1/4):39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nigrini MJ (1992) The detection of income tax evasion through an analysis of digital distribution. University of Cincinnati, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  24. Nigrini MJ (1994) Using digital frequencies to detect fraud. Fraud Magazine/The White Paper Index 8(2):3–6Google Scholar
  25. Nigrini MJ (1996) A taxpayer compliance application of Benford’s law. J Am Tax Assoc 18(1):72–91Google Scholar
  26. Nigrini MJ (2000) Digital analysis using Benford’s law. Global Audit Publications, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  27. Nigrini MJ, Miller SJ (2007) Benford’s law applied to hydrology data—results and relevance to other geophysical data. Math Geol 39(5):469–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Niskanen J, Keloharju M (2000) Earnings cosmetics in a tax-driven accounting environment: evidence from Finnish public firms. Eur Account Rev 9(3):443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pinkham RS (1961) Distribution of first significant digits. Ann Math Stat 32(4):1223–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quick R, Wolz M (2003) Benford’s law in Deutschen Rechnungslegungsdaten. Betrieb Forsch Prax 6(2):208–224Google Scholar
  31. Raimi RA (1976) The first digit problem. Am Math Mon 83(7):521–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rejesus RM, Little BB, Jaramillo M (2006) Is there manipulation of self-reported yield data in crop insurance? An application of Benford’s law. J Forensic Account 7(1):495–512Google Scholar
  33. Rodriguez RJ (2004a) First significant digit patterns from mixtures of uniform distributions. Am Stat 58(1):64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodriguez RJ (2004b) Reducing false alarms in the detection of human influence on data. J Account Audit Finance 19(2):141–158Google Scholar
  35. Rosch E (1975) Cognitive reference points. Cognit Psychol 7(4):532–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schatte P (1988) On mantissa distributions in computing and Benford’s law. J Inf Process Cybern 24(9):443–455Google Scholar
  37. Scott SM, Barnard PJ (2001) Specifying executive representations and processes in number generation tasks. Q J Exp Psychol 54A(3):641–664Google Scholar
  38. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  39. Skousen CJ, Guan L, Wetzel TS (2004) Anomalies and unusual patterns in reported earnings: Japanese managers round earnings. J Int Manag Account 15(3):212–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Starmer C, Sugden R (1991) Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. Am Econ Rev 81(4):971–978Google Scholar
  41. Thomas JK (1989) Unusual patterns in reported earnings. Account Rev 64(4):773–787Google Scholar
  42. van Caneghem T (2002) Earnings management induced by cognitive reference points. Br Account Rev 34(2):167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Caneghem T (2004) The impact of audit quality on earnings rounding-up behaviour: some UK evidence. Eur Account Rev 13(4):771–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Watrin
    • 1
  • Ralf Struffert
    • 1
  • Robert Ullmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Accounting and Taxation at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations