Economics of Governance

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 165–178

Modeling tax evasion with genetic algorithms

  • Geoffrey Warner
  • Sanith Wijesinghe
  • Uma Marques
  • Osama Badar
  • Jacob Rosen
  • Erik Hemberg
  • Una-May O’Reilly
Original Paper

Abstract

The U.S. tax gap is estimated to exceed $450 billion, most of which arises from non-compliance on the part of individual taxpayers (GAO 2012; IRS 2006). Much is hidden in innovative tax shelters combining multiple business structures such as partnerships, trusts, and S-corporations into complex transaction networks designed to reduce and obscure the true tax liabilities of their individual shareholders. One known gambit employed by these shelters is to offset real gains in one part of a portfolio by creating artificial capital losses elsewhere through the mechanism of “inflated basis” (TaxAnalysts 2005), a process made easier by the relatively flexible set of rules surrounding “pass-through” entities such as partnerships (IRS 2009). The ability to anticipate the likely forms of emerging evasion schemes would help auditors develop more efficient methods of reducing the tax gap. To this end, we have developed a prototype evolutionary algorithm designed to generate potential schemes of the inflated basis type described above. The algorithm takes as inputs a collection of asset types and tax entities, together with a rule-set governing asset exchanges between these entities. The schemes produced by the algorithm consist of sequences of transactions within an ownership network of tax entities. Schemes are ranked according to a “fitness function” (Goldberg in Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1989); the very best schemes are those that afford the highest reduction in tax liability while incurring the lowest expected penalty.

Keywords

Tax evasion Genetic algorithms Agent-based modeling 

JEL classification

K340 C630 C730 

References

  1. Allingham MG, Sandmo A (1972) Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis. J Public Econ 1:323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrei AL, Comer K, Koehler M (2013) An agent-based model of network effects on tax compliance and evasion. J Econ Psychol 40:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloomquist KM (2006) A comparison of agent-based models of income tax evasion. Social Sci Comput Rev 24:411–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brabazon A, O’Neill M (2010) Biologically inspired algorithms for financial modeling. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  5. The CPA Journal (2005) http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/205/essentials/p50.htm. Accessed 28 November 2013
  6. Davis JS, Hecht G, Perkins JD (2003) Social behaviors, enforcement, and tax compliance dynamics. Account Rev 78:39–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. GAO-10-968 (2010) http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10968. Accessed 28 November 2013
  8. GAO-12-651T (2012) http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590215. Accessed 28 November 2013
  9. GAO-14-453 (2014) http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663185. Accessed 26 June 2014
  10. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamersley M (2004) Interview comments on PBS Frontline documentary “Tax Me if You Can” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/schemes/kpmg.html. Accessed 19 June 2014
  12. Hokamp S, Pickhardt M (2010) Income tax evasion in a society of heterogeneous agents—evidence from an agent-based model. Int Econ J 24:541–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IRS (2006) http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-The-Tax-Gap. Accessed 28 November 2013
  14. IRS (2009) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3744. Accessed 28 November 2013
  15. IRS (2013) http://www.irs.gov/publications/p556/index.html. Accessed 28 November 2013
  16. Robertson JF, Quinn T, Carr R (2010) Codification of the economic substance doctrine. J Bus Adm Online 9(2):1–7Google Scholar
  17. Wright D (2013) Financial Alchemy: how tax shelter promoters use financial products to bedevil the IRS (and How the IRS Helps Them), Valparaiso University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13–3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Warner
    • 1
  • Sanith Wijesinghe
    • 1
  • Uma Marques
    • 1
  • Osama Badar
    • 2
  • Jacob Rosen
    • 2
  • Erik Hemberg
    • 2
  • Una-May O’Reilly
    • 2
  1. 1.The MITRE CorporationMcLeanUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations