Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 59, Issue 6, pp 441–456 | Cite as

A Blockchain-Based Approach Towards Overcoming Financial Fraud in Public Sector Services

Research Paper

Abstract

In financial markets it is common for companies and individuals to invest into foreign companies. To avoid the double taxation of investors on dividend payment – both in the country where the profit is generated as well as the country of residence – most governments have entered into bilateral double taxation treaties, whereby investors can claim a tax refund in the country where the profit is generated. Due to easily forgeable documents and insufficient international exchange of information between tax authorities, investors illegitimately apply for these tax returns causing an estimated damage of 1.8 billion USD, for example, in Denmark alone. This paper assesses the potential of a blockchain database to provide a feasible solution for overcoming this problem against the backdrop of recent advances in the public sector and the unique set of blockchain capacities. Towards this end, we develop and evaluate a blockchain-based prototype system aimed at eliminating this type of tax fraud and increasing transparency regarding the flow of dividends. While the prototype is based on the specific context of the Danish tax authority, we discuss how it can be generalized for tracking international and interorganizational transactions.

Keywords

Blockchain Public services sector Taxation Double spending Double taxation treaties Design science 

References

  1. Aitzhan NZ, Davor S (2016) Security and privacy in decentralized energy trading through multi-signatures, blockchain and anonymous Mmssaging streams. IEEE Trans Dependable Secur ComputGoogle Scholar
  2. Avital M, Roman B, John LK, Matti R, Robin T (2016) Jumping on the blockchain bandwagon: lessons of the past and outlook to the future. In: Proceedings of the 37th international conference on information systems, DublinGoogle Scholar
  3. Bank of International Settlements (2017) Distributed ledger technology in payment, clearing and settlement: an analytical framework. Bank of International SettlementsGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck R, Müller-Bloch C (2017) Blockchain as radical innovation: a framework for engaging with distributed ledgers. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Waikoloa VillageGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck R, Czepluch JS, Lollike N, Malone S (2016) Blockchain – the gateway to trust-free cryptographic transactions. In: Proceedings of the 24th European conference on information systems, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett K (1995) Legacy systems: coping with success. IEEE Softw 12(1):19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buntinx J-P (2015) Pro’s and con’s on bitcoin block pruning. https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning/. Accessed 28 Apr 2017
  8. Carlström V (2016) Central Bank of Denmark is considering an e-krone based on blockchain – but tech is the least of the problems involved. http://nordic.businessinsider.com/the-danish-central-bank-is-considering-an-ekrona-based-on-blockchain---but-privacy-could-be-a-problem-2016-12/. Accessed 28 Apr 2017
  9. Department for Work and Pensions (2013) Fraud and error in the benefit system. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system. Accessed 25 Dec 2016
  10. Epstein J (2015) Can blockchain technology reduce third-world poverty? A better way to keep track of who owns what land. http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/30/bitfury-desoto-blockchain-land-registry. Accessed 25 Dec 2016
  11. Ethplorer (2017) Top 50 Ethereum tokens for 90 days. https://ethplorer.io/top. Accessed 21 Jul 2017
  12. Eureporter.co (2013) Fight against fraud: study confirms billions lost in ’VAT gap’. www.eureporter.co/economy/2013/09/20/fight-against-fraud-study-confirms-billions-lost-in-vat-gap/. Accessed 25 Dec 2016
  13. Fabian B, Ermakova T, Sander U (2016) Anonymity in bitcoin? The users’ perspective. In: Proceedings of the 24th European conference on information systems, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  14. Gervais A, Karame GO, Wüst K, Glykantzis V, Ritzdorf H, Capkun S (2016) On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, ACM, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  15. Glaser F (2017) Pervasive decentralisation of digital infrastructures: a framework for blockchain enabled system and use case analysis. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences; Waikoloa VillageGoogle Scholar
  16. Government Office for Science (2016) Distributed ledger technology: beyond block chain. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2016
  17. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Juels A, Kosba A, Shi E (2016) The ring of Gyges: investigating the future of criminal smart contracts. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, ACM, pp 283–295Google Scholar
  19. Kaminsky D (2011) Black ops of TCP/IP 2011. https://dankaminsky.com/2011/08/05/bo2k11/. Accessed 28 Apr 2017
  20. Karame GO, Androulaki E, Capkun S (2012) Double-spending fast payments in bitcoin. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on computer and communications security, ACM, pp 906–917Google Scholar
  21. Korpela K, Hallikas J, Dahlberg T (2017) Digital supply chain transformation toward blockchain integration. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  22. Kosba A, Miller A, Shi E, Wen Z, Papamanthou C (2016) Hawk: the blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts. In: 2016 IEEE symposium on security and privacy, IEEE, pp 839–858Google Scholar
  23. LeBeau Z (2017) What’s the difference between an ’ICO’ and a tToken launch’? https://medium.com/@SingularDTV/whats-the-difference-between-an-ico-and-a-token-launch-7105edbb2112. Accessed 18 Jul 2017
  24. Matussek K (2016) Prosecutors open dividend-tax probe after Commerzbank report. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-09/prosecutors-open-dividend-tax-probe-after-commerzbank-reports. Accessed 28 Apr 2017
  25. Mettler M (2016) Blockchain technology in healthcare: the revolution starts here. In: IEEE 18th international conference on e-health networking, applications and services, IEEE, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  26. Moody DL (2003) The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: Proceedings of the 11th European conference on information systems, NaplesGoogle Scholar
  27. Nakamoto S (2008) Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Accessed 16 Oct 2017
  28. Natoli C, Gramoli V (2016) The blockchain anomaly. In: 15th International symposium on network computing and applications, IEEE, pp 310–317Google Scholar
  29. Nofer M, Gomber P, Hinz O, Schiereck D (2017) Blockchain. Bus Inf Syst Eng 59(3):183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Offermann P, Blom S, Schönherr M, Bub U (2010) Artifact types in information systems design science – a literature review. In: International conference on design science research in information systems, Springer, New York, pp 77–92Google Scholar
  31. Ølnes S (2016) Beyond bitcoin enabling smart government using blockchain technology. In: International conference on electronic government and the information systems perspective, Springer, New York, pp 253–264Google Scholar
  32. Peffers K, Rothenberger M, Tuunanen T, Vaezi R (2012) Design science research evaluation. In: International conference on design science research in information systems, Springer, New York, pp 398–410Google Scholar
  33. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manag Inf Syst 24(3):45–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pilkington M (2016) Blockchain technology: principles and applications. In: Olleros FX, Zhegu M (eds), Research handbook on digital transformations. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  35. PWC (2015) International tax news, edn 28, June 2015. http://download.pwc.com/ie/pubs/2015-pwc-ireland-international-tax-news-june-2015.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2016
  36. PWC (2016) Denmark–foreign tax relief and tax treaties. http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/uk/taxsummaries/wwts.nsf/ID/Denmark-Individual-Foreign-tax-relief-and-tax-treaties. Accessed 25 Dec 2016
  37. Rosenfeld M (2014) Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.2009
  38. Saldaña J (2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SageGoogle Scholar
  39. Skatteministeriet (2016) Endelig Opgørelse fra SKAT om Formodet Svindel med Udbytteskat. http://www.skm.dk/aktuelt/presse/pressemeddelelser/2016/august/endelig-opgoerelse-fra-skat-om-formodet-svindel-med-udbytteskat. Accessed 25 Dec 2016
  40. Sompolinsky Y, Aviv Z (2015) Secure high-rate transaction processing in bitcoin. In: International conference on financial cryptography and data security, Springer, New York, pp 507–527Google Scholar
  41. Tschorsch F, Scheuermann B (2015) Bitcoin and beyond: a technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 18(3):2084–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Venable J, Pries-Heje J, Baskerville R (2016) FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur J Inf Syst 25(1):77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams-Grut O (2016) Estonia is using the technology behind bitcoin to secure 1 million health records. http://www.businessinsider.de/guardtime-estonian-health-records-industrial-blockchain-bitcoin-2016-3. Accessed 25 Dec 2016
  44. Wörner D, Von Bomhard T, Schreier Y-P, Bilgeri D (2016) The bitcoin ecosystem: disruption beyond financial services? In: Proceedings of the 24th European conference on information systems, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  45. Yli-Huumo J, Ko D, Choi S, Park S, Smolander K (2016) Where is current research on blockchain technology? A systematic review. PLoS One 11(10):e0163477CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business ITIT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.College of Business and Behavioral ScienceClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  3. 3.Brainbot Technologies AGMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations