Skip to main content

Detecting tax evasion: a co-evolutionary approach

Abstract

We present an algorithm that can anticipate tax evasion by modeling the co-evolution of tax schemes with auditing policies. Malicious tax non-compliance, or evasion, accounts for billions of lost revenue each year. Unfortunately when tax administrators change the tax laws or auditing procedures to eliminate known fraudulent schemes another potentially more profitable scheme takes it place. Modeling both the tax schemes and auditing policies within a single framework can therefore provide major advantages. In particular we can explore the likely forms of tax schemes in response to changes in audit policies. This can serve as an early warning system to help focus enforcement efforts. In addition, the audit policies can be fine tuned to help improve tax scheme detection. We demonstrate our approach using the iBOB tax scheme and show it can capture the co-evolution between tax evasion and audit policy. Our experiments shows the expected oscillatory behavior of a biological co-evolving system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.irs.gov/uac/Form-1065,-U.S.-Return-of-Partnership-Income.

References

  1. Accountancy JO (2015) http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2015/oct/partnership-audit-and-adjustment-rules-201513294.html

  2. Allingham MG, Sandmo A (1972) Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis. J Public Econ 1(3–4):323–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andrei AL, Comer K, Koehler M (2013) An agent-based model of network effects on tax compliance and evasion. J Econ Psychol 40:119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andreoni J, Erard B, Feinstein J (1998) Tax compliance. J Econ Lit 36:818–860

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aubert S, Müller JP (2013) Incorporating institutions, norms and territories in a generic model to simulate the management of renewable resources. Artif Intell Law 21(1):47–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bench-Capon T, Araszkiewicz M, Ashley K, Atkinson K, Bex F, Borges F, Bourcier D, Bourgine P, Conrad JG, Francesconi E et al (2012) A history of ai and law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on ai and law. Artif Intell Law 20(3):215–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bloomquist K (2011) Tax compliance as an evolutionary coordination game: an agent-based approach. Public Finance Rev 39(1):25–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bloomquist KM (2006) A comparison of agent-based models of income tax evasion. Soc Sci Comput Rev 24(4):411–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boer A, van Engers T (2013) Agile: a problem-based model of regulatory policy making. Artif Intell Law 21(4):399–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonchi F, Giannotti F, Mainetto G, Pedreschi D (1999) A classification-based methodology for planning audit strategies in fraud detection. In: Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, pp 175–184

  11. Buchanan BG, Headrick TE (1970) Some speculation about artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Stanford Law Review, pp 40–62

  12. Davis JS, Hecht G, Perkins JD (2003) Social behaviors, enforcement, and tax compliance dynamics. Account Rev 78(1):39–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DeBarr D, Eyler-Walker Z (2006) Closing the gap: automated screening of tax returns to identify egregious tax shelters. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 8(1):11–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dechesne F, Di Tosto G, Dignum V, Dignum F (2013) No smoking here: values, norms and culture in multi-agent systems. Artif Intell Law 21(1):79–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Jong ED, Stanley KO, Wiegand RP (2007) Introductory tutorial on coevolution. In: GECCO (Companion), pp 3133–3157

  16. Ficici SG, Bucci A (2007) Advanced tutorial on coevolution. In: GECCO (Companion), pp 3172–3204

  17. GAO (2013) Gao-14-453. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8VDUStvxMY

  18. GAO (2014a) http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663185.pdf

  19. GAO (2014b) http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661772.pdf

  20. Goldberg D (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-wesley, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Hemberg E, Rosen J, Warner G, Wijesinghe S, O’Reilly UM (2015) Tax non-compliance detection using co-evolution of tax evasion risk and audit likelihood. In: ICAIL

  22. Hokamp S, Pickhardt M (2010) Income tax evasion in a society of heterogeneous agents-evidence from an agent-based model. Int Econ J 24(4):541–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hokamp S, Seibold G (2014) How much rationality tolerates the shadow economy?—an agent-based econophysics approach. In: Advances in social simulation. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–128

  24. IRS (2006) The tax gap. http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-The-Tax-Gap

  25. IRS (2014a) Irs audits. http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/IRS-Audits

  26. IRS (2014b) Sales and trades of investment property. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html

  27. Jaideep KWHNP, Bjorklund SGTE (2009) Data mining based tax audit selection: a case study from minnesota department of revenue. In: Proceedings of the third international workshop on data mining case studies. ACM, pp 23–35

  28. Kallio M, Back B (2011) The self-organizing map in selecting companies for tax audit. In: Emerging Themes in information systems and organization studies. Physica-Verlag HD, pp 347–358

  29. Katz DM, Bommarito MJ II (2014) Measuring the complexity of the law: the united states code. Artif Intell Law 22(4):337–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kingston J, Schafer B, Vandenberghe W (2004) Towards a financial fraud ontology: a legal modelling approach. Artif Intell Law 12(4):419–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Korobow A, Johnson C, Axtell R (2007) An agent–based model of tax compliance with social networks. National Tax J, pp 589–610

  32. Li WP, Azar P, Larochelle D, Hill P, Lo AW (2015) Law is code: a software engineering approach to analyzing the united states code. J Bus Technol Law 10:297

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lipatov V (2003) Evolution of tax evasion. Technical report, University Library of Munich, Germany

  34. Lotzmann U, Möhring M, Troitzsch KG (2013) Simulating the emergence of norms in different scenarios. Artif Intell Law 21(1):109–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. May LR (2012) Using link analysis to identify indirect and multi-tiered ownership structures. In: SOI Tax Stats—2012 IRS-TPC research conference

  36. McCarty LT (1977) Reflections on“ taxman”: an experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Harvard Law Review pp 837–893

  37. Mittone L, Patelli P (2000) Imitative behaviour in tax evasion. In: Economic simulations in swarm: agent-based modelling and object oriented programming. Springer, US, pp 133–158

  38. Ngai E, Hu Y, Wong Y, Chen Y, Sun X (2011) The application of data mining techniques in financial fraud detection: a classification framework and an academic review of literature. Decis Support Syst 50(3):559–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Oard DW, Webber W (2013) Information retrieval for e-discovery. Inf Retr 7(2–3):99–237

    Google Scholar 

  40. O’Neill M, Ryan C (2003) Grammatical evolution: evolutionary automatic programming in an arbitrary language, vol 4. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Pickhardt M, Prinz A (2014) Behavioral dynamics of tax evasion-a survey. J Econ Psychol 40:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pickhardt M, Seibold G (2014) Income tax evasion dynamics: evidence from an agent-based econophysics model. J Econ Psychol 40:147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rosen J, Hemberg E, Warner G, Wijesinghe S, O’Reilly UM (2015) Computer aided tax evasion policy analysis: directed search using autonomous agents. In: AAMAS

  44. Rostain T, Regan MC (2014) Confidence games: lawyers, accountants, and the tax shelter industry, vol 1. MIT Press, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sartor G, Rotolo A (2013) AI and law. In: Agreement technologies. Springer, Netherlands, pp 199–207

  46. Stanley KO, Miikkulainen R (2004) Competitive coevolution through evolutionary complexification. J Artif Intell Res JAIR 21:63–100

    Google Scholar 

  47. Surden H (2014) Machine learning and law. Wash L Rev 89:87–217

    Google Scholar 

  48. Van V et al (1973) A new evolutionary law. Evol Theory 1:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  49. Warner G, Wijesinghe S, Marques U, Badar O, Rosen J, Hemberg E, O’Reilly UM (2014) Modeling tax evasion with genetic algorithms. Econ Gov. doi:10.1007/s10101-014-0152-7

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wiegand RP, Potter MA (2006) Robustness in cooperative coevolution. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 369–376

  51. Wright Jr D (2013) Financial alchemy: how tax shelter promoters use financial products to bedevil the irs (and how the irs helps them). Ariz State Law J 45(2)

  52. Zaklan G, Lima FW, Westerhoff F (2008) Controlling tax evasion fluctuations. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 387(23):5857–5861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zaklan G, Westerhoff F, Stauffer D (2009) Analysing tax evasion dynamics via the ising model. J Econ Interact Coord 4(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanith Wijesinghe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hemberg, E., Rosen, J., Warner, G. et al. Detecting tax evasion: a co-evolutionary approach. Artif Intell Law 24, 149–182 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9181-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Tax evasion
  • Co-evolution
  • Grammatical evolution
  • Genetic algorithms
  • Auditing policy
  • Partnership tax