<DOC> [109 Senate Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:30601.wais] S. Hrg. 109-973 DECONSTRUCTING THE TAX CODE: UNCOLLECTED TAXES AND ISSUES OF TRANSPARENCY ======================================================================= HEARING before the FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE of the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 __________ Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 30-601 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2006 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800 DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia Michael L. Alexander, Minority Staff Director Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska THOMAS CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah MARK DAYTON, Minnesota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MARK PRYOR, Arkansas Katy French, Staff Director Sheila Murphy, Minority Staff Director John Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director Liz Scranton, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Coburn............................................... 1 Senator Akaka................................................ 3 Senator Carper............................................... 4 Prepared statement: Senator Levin................................................ 41 WITNESSES Tuesday, September 26, 2006 Hon. Mark Everson,, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service....... 8 Hon. J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), Department of the Treasury............. 17 Nina E. Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate........................ 19 Jay A. Soled, Professor of Taxation, Rutgers University.......... 21 Stephen J. Entin, President and Executive Director, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation.......................... 28 Jason Furman, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Visiting Scholar, New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service....................... 31 Neal Boortz, Co-Author, ``The FairTax Box''...................... 33 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Boortz, Neal Testimony.................................................... 33 Prepared statement........................................... 162 Entin, Stephen J.: Testimony.................................................... 28 Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 131 Everson, Hon. Mark: Testimony.................................................... 8 Prepared statement........................................... 45 Furman, Jason: Testimony.................................................... 31 Prepared statement........................................... 156 George, Hon. J. Russell: Testimony.................................................... 17 Prepared statement........................................... 62 Olson, Nina E.: Testimony.................................................... 19 Prepared statement........................................... 90 Soled, Jay A.: Testimony.................................................... 21 Prepared statement........................................... 126 APPENDIX Chart submitted by Senator Coburn................................ 44 DECONSTRUCTING THE TAX CODE: UNCOLLECTED TAXES AND ISSUES OF TRANSPARENCY ---------- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Coburn, Carper, and Akaka. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN Senator Coburn. The Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will come to order. I want to first take a moment--we delayed, waiting for Senator Carper to be here. I understand he will be here shortly. I want to thank each of our panel participants today for participating in this, and I have a complete statement that I will put into the record. We had our first hearing some months back on the tax gap, and it is to Senator Carper's credit that we continue to follow this. It is not just about controlling spending, but it is also about collecting the revenue that is due. And we are going to have a wide view of positions put forth today, both on tax expenditures--which I do not know how we ever coined that word because the assumption behind a tax expenditure is the government should have all the money and what they do not take is a tax expenditure. We are going to talk about that. We are going to talk about the IRS' plans on the tax gap, as well as Senator Bayh's bill on terms of reporting capital gains, which I support and have co-signed as a cosponsor on, which I think as a minimum needs to be done. I am pleased with what we have heard in the testimony. I have read all the testimonies and seen the summaries. I think there are a lot of ideas. There is no question that in our country one of our biggest problems in creating the tax gap is not intentional non- compliance but the complexity of our Tax Code. And at some point in the future, the American people are going to demand that we make it simpler, fairer, and more easily transparent so that you can fulfill your obligation as a citizen of this country and participate in funding the real obligations of our country. President Bush called our tax program a ``complicated mess.'' I think if you look at anybody out there who has any other than one source of income and that can do a simple, straight-line form, everybody would agree with that, whether you are on the side of preparing it--and I will never forget the study that was done when I was in the House where we took 10 different accounting firms to 10 different locations with 10 different IRS locations, and everybody came up with a different answer on exactly the same facts, which proves the point. So I will not belabor my point. I am extremely thankful for Senator Carper and his insistence, and also Senator Lautenberg, as we look at tax expenditures because there are loopholes or intended expenditures that are not necessarily in sunshine, in sunlight, that the American people ought to know about. And they ought to know where we are not taxing and what the intended benefit with that should be. [The prepared statement of Senator Coburn follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN As anyone knows who has ever barely made it to the post office in time on April 15, the tax code can be a nightmare. President Bush has called it ``a complicated mess.'' Riddled with exceptions, credits and deductions, the United States has the most complex tax system in the world. In many ways, the tax code is designed to strengthen our economy by its incentives such as encouraging small businesses to thrive by raising expensing limitations, and helping those who have decided to return to school through education tax credits. In other ways, however, because of its inherent complexity, the tax code is difficult for Americans to understand. We have a whole industry of professionals for hire to help you file your returns. Some people have used this complexity to their advantage and cheated the system. Others--which I believe make up the majority of taxpayers--are trying to do the right thing but may fail to accurately file a return and what deductions or credits they are eligible or ineligible to claim. Today we are here to talk about several important issues relating to the transparency of our tax system. Increased transparency means better data, recordkeeping and reporting about uncollected taxes. You cannot treat a disease until you diagnose it. The gap between revenues that should have been collected and those that actually were is known as the ``tax gap.'' According to the Internal Revenue Service's most recent estimate, the tax gap was $345 billion for tax year 2001. Everyone wants the tax gap closed--we can't afford it with a $550 billion deficit--we are mortgaging our children's future. If we closed it today, we would eliminate the deficit in less than two years. We don't know the size of, scope of, and reasons for the problem. Either the IRS must find a way to develop a more precise picture of where money is being lost; or Congress better get moving on fundamentally revamping the tax code. I believe the biggest rate limiting step here is uncovering motive. IRS can't distinguish who is intentionally evading paying taxes versus those who unintentionally underreport or misreport their taxes. The ``fix'' we invest in is entirely dependent upon knowing how much of our problem is intentional--that is an enforcement problem--, and how much is unintentional, where the solution is education and simplification. One proposed solution is to require securities brokerage firms or mutual finds to track and report the adjusted basis a taxpayer has in his or her stock, bond, and mutual find investments to both the IRS and the taxpayer. Some have suggested this could save as much as $25 billion a year; IRS estimates it could save around $8 billion annually. Some argue it's too burdensome on industry, but others say many firms already have this information, and reporting it to the IRS wouldn't be too hard. I'm eager to discuss the idea more with our witnesses. Last October, IRS reported before this Subcommittee that it had estimated the tax gap to be somewhere within the range of $311 and $353 billion for the 2001 tax year. Unfortunately, last October, 4-year old data was the most recent data we had. Today, revised four-year old data is the most recent we have. In 2006, IRS came out with its revised estimate, which put a price tag on the 2001 tax year to be $345 billion. Until this morning, the IRS had no plan to regularly measure compliance. The IRS hopes to eventually recover $55 billion in late payments and taxes, bringing the net tax gap down to $290 billion for tax year 2001, but the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) questioned this figure. The IG says that because IRS currently does not correlate either type of payment to the applicable tax year, IRS will be unable to determine whether the $55 billion is ever collected. How can we insure that $55 billion will be collected against the 2001 tax gap if we don't assign money as it comes in to its applicable tax year? The IRS balances its approach to tax gap reduction by focusing on both prevention--that is, improving taxpayer services--and enforcement after the fact. I am not convinced that this is as thorough a plan as a $345 billion tax gap deserves. At our last hearing we learned that there are no official long-term compliance goals driving IRS' efforts, other than to continue to serve taxpayers and enforce the tax ode through audits and examinations. There has been ample pressure by Congress on the IRS to make a plan to close the tax gap, yet there is still no clear plan. While tax reform may be on the horizon, we still must be good stewards of our existing resources under our existing tax regime, as oppressive as it might be. I am encouraged that the IRS has taken Congress' oversight seriously and is planning a strategic approach to reducing the tax gap, including plans to regularly measure compliance. I am even more pleased that the Treasury Department is studying the report of the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform and is considering options for simplification of the tax system. Another issue we are here to discuss today is the transparency of tax preferences. As we go forward to make more information public on the categories and amounts of tax deductions benefiting certain types of filers, we need to obey important privacy laws. We have a lot to cover today, so I think you all ahead of time for your patience. I want to thank our witnesses for their time and preparation, and thank Senator Carper and Senator Lautenberg for their help in pushing for this hearing. Senator Coburn. So, with that, I will turn to Senator Akaka for hisopening statement, and we will proceed. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's hearing. It is a very important hearing. We are joined today by several panels of distinguished witnesses, which includes Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Everson and the National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, who has been a tireless advocate for taxpayers' rights. The tax gap is even more important than ever because of the need to shrink our deficit. I have long been concerned about the reduction in taxpayer services provided by the IRS. Helping taxpayers who want assistance in filing their taxes correctly will help reduce this tax gap. In fiscal year 2003, according to data from the Wage and Investment Operating Division, the IRS prepared 665,868 returns. However, the IRS has reduced the number of prepared returns each year. Plans for fiscal year 2006 indicate that only 305,000 returns will be prepared by the IRS. This is a reduction of more than 50 percent in 3 years. In my home State of Hawaii, I have seen the effects of the reduction. For years, the IRS and Hawaii State Department of Taxation had made it an annual practice to help prepare returns on the island of Molokai. They typically help more than 100 taxpayers within 2 days. This service has been extremely helpful because there has been only one individual that provides paid tax preparation on the entire island. Then a few years ago, the IRS ended its participation in the partnership. AARP stepped in to help out for a year, and thankfully, the IRS again took part in the program this past filing season. However, it is uncertain whether the IRS will help out Molokai taxpayers for the upcoming filing season. In addition, the Hawaii Taxpayer Advocate's Office has seen a significant increase in the number of people seeking help with their tax questions because they have been unable to get the answers or assistance that they need from the IRS. Due to the complex nature of the Tax Code and the importance of voluntary compliance in helping reduce the tax gap, we must make sure that the IRS has the resources to provide assistance to those that seek out help. Reducing these services may result in a larger tax gap. Mr. Chairman, I am also disappointed by the often poor quality of paid tax preparation services. Errors made by paid tax preparers contribute to this tax gap, too. Senator Bingaman and I have been advocates of legislate to regulate tax preparers for many years. I appreciated the contributions to this issue from Senators Grassley and Baucus, and I remember hopeful that one day we will be able to pass the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Provisions found in the Finance Committee-approved Telephone Excise Tax Repeal and the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2006. This bill would also expand access to free tax preparation services for low-income taxpayers. In addition, the legislation includes the Free Internet Filing Act, which will empower individual taxpayers to file their taxes electronically through the IRS website without the use of an intermediary or with the use of an intermediary with which the IRS contracts to provide free universal access. If taxpayers take the time necessary to prepare their own returns, they must be provided with the option of electronically filing directly with the IRS. As the National Taxpayer Advocate has stated, nearly 45 million returns prepared using software are mailed in rather than electronically filed. With universal access to free e- file, this number could be substantially reduced. Electronic returns help taxpayers receive their refunds faster. This would also save the IRS resources and reduce possible errors that can occur when mailed-in returns are transcribed. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a thorough discussion of these issues as part of today's hearing on the tax gap, and I thank the witnesses for appearing this afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Coburn. Thank you, Senator Akaka, and publicly to acknowledge your victory this past week, we congratulate you. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. I want to join in that congratulations. I am happy for you, happy for the folks of Hawaii, at least thus far, and really happy for us. Congratulations. I realize there is another election to come, and we wish you well there as well. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been looking forward to this day. I understand some of our friends on another committee have written to us to remind us of their jurisdiction on legislative issues on tax matters, and we appreciate that. Senator Coburn. Let me just interrupt. Federal financial management is unlimited when it comes to either receiving dollars or spending dollars, and we are not going to limit our inquiry into waste, fraud, abuse, or inefficiency. Senator Carper. Good. I could not have said it better myself. As we all know, each year the amount of money that is paid into the Treasury is a good deal less than what is owed. I have a statement I am going to enter for the record, but I think in February this year, the IRS estimated there was about $345 billion that was due from last year, and after money came in, we ended up with still about $290 billion less than what we should have had. That is, I think, actually more than the projected deficit for the current fiscal year. Our goal ought to be to collect as much of these owed tax revenues as possible without unduly burdening those taxpayers who are doing their dead level best to comply with the law, which I believe is really the vast majority of taxpayers of our country. I was with a group of people yesterday and said, ``How many are paying your taxes?'' Most people raised their hand. And I said, ``I do not know about you, but it frustrates me that for those of us who actually pay what we are supposed to pay to know that a lot of people are not.'' And that is up to about $300 billion, and that is really the size of the deficit. I think people were ``enraged'' is probably not too mild a word to use or too strong a word to use. However, for any number of reasons--the complexity of the Tax Code, which is a problem, haphazard record keeping, math errors--some taxpayers unintentionally make mistakes when completing their tax returns. We have probably all done that at one time or the other. But, on the other hand, some taxpayers knowingly cut corners, and I hope to be able to ask our Commissioner in a couple of minutes to what extent the IRS can separate these folks, the tax evaders, from those who make honest mistakes. That information would allow for even better targeting of what had been limited enforcement resources, at least until lately. The Chairman and I agree that what we need to do is a better job of collecting the tax dollars that are owed to the Federal Government, the same way that we agree on the importance of reducing the number and amount of improper payments. I think we have had two hearings, Mr. Chairman, in this Subcommittee to examine the fact that Federal agencies are making about $45 billion each year in improper payments. I think that is a net number. We learned from these hearings that about $45 billion likely is just the tip of the iceberg. I think what we have heard is that the Department of Defense's financial systems are in such disarray that we do not even know what the improper payments are. And my guess is there are some overpayments included among them. But like improper payments, then we are probably pretty far from knowing everything we ought to know about the extent of the tax gap in this country. In all likelihood, that gap may actually be larger than $345 billion. While we may not know the exact size of the tax gap, we do know the impact of not better managing our country's finances. We know that every dollar wasted on erroneous or fraudulent payments means there is one more dollar we will not have that we will have to borrow from China or South Korea or Japan or Great Britain or someplace else. And the same holds true with uncollected taxes. Every dollar owed to the Treasury that goes uncollected is being replaced by a dollar from somewhere else, whether it is a borrowed dollar or a new tax dollar that is levied on a family or small business in my State or your State or in Hawaii or some other place. I am pleased that Commissioner Everson is here with us today, and I commend him for the attention I know he has provided to this tax gap issue. Your acknowledgment of the importance of this issue and your commitment to doing something about it is both necessary and important, and we applaud you for that. But to achieve our goal of collecting every dollar that reasonably can be collected, we are going to need a comprehensive plan for success, a plan that serves as a tax gap road map to this and future Administrations and Congress. Having a plan like that helped us in Delaware when I was privileged to be the governor of our State, and my team and I set out to turn around a State Division of Revenue that just was not getting the job done in some areas. I need to offer that the work was begun before our Administration, and I think we took it to the next level. But after years of hard work that included the Administration of my predecessor, Mike Castle, and the DuPont administration before that, we succeeded in bringing collections of delinquent taxes up to record highs. I love to tell this story, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief. We have a quality award every year in Delaware, and we honor a business that--it is like a miniature version of the national quality awards. It is named in honor of a guy named Bill Gore who started WL Gore company, Gore-Tex, and a lot of other projects. And given their commitment to quality, we named it after him. One year it could be this company, another company next, or maybe a non-profit, an occasional non-profit. I think it was my last year as governor or the year after I left, the winner of the quality award that year was the Delaware Division of Revenue, and their job performance and their customer satisfaction numbers were in the 80s. The idea that the tax collector would win the quality award and have that kind of customer approval was really pretty amazing. And what we would like to someday be able to--for Commissioner Everson, and the folks that he leads, for you guys to win the national quality award and take on at the national scale what we were able to do on a small scale in our little State. But while Delaware's budget is only a fraction of the Federal budget, I am concerned that some of what we did there and much of what is being done in other States to identify problems, to fix them, to improve collections and customer satisfaction at this same time could be replicated, at least in part, at the Federal level. We want to help you to do that. Thank you very much for coming today, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to hearing from you and all of our other witnesses. Thanks a lot. [The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. Welcome to our witnesses. Each year, the amount of tax that is paid voluntarily and on a timely basis does not match the amount of tax owed by taxpayers for that year. The difference between these two amounts is referred to as the ``tax gap.'' In February of this year, the IRS estimated that the tax gap was a gross $345 billion and a net $290 billion in Tax Year 2001, an amount larger than the projected deficit for the current fiscal year. Our goal should be to collect as much of these owed tax revenues as possible without unduly burdening those taxpayers who are doing their level-best to comply with the law, which, I believe is the vast majority of taxpayers in this country. However, for any numbers of reasons--the complexity of the tax code, haphazard recordkeeping, math errors--some taxpayers unintentionally make mistakes when completing their tax returns. On the other hand, some taxpayers are knowingly cutting corners. I hope to ask the commissioner in a few minutes to what extent the IRS can separate those folks--the tax evaders--from those who make honest mistakes. That information would allow for even better targeting of what have been limited enforcement resources. The Chairman and I agree that we need to do a better job of collecting the tax dollars that are owed the Federal Government, the same way that we agree on the importance of reducing the number and amount of improper payments. We've had two hearings in this Subcommittee to examine the fact that Federal agencies are making about $45 billion each year in improper payments each year. We learned in those hearings that the $45 billion figure is likely just the tip of the iceberg. Like with improper payments, then, we're probably pretty far from truly knowing everything we should know about the extent of the tax gap in this country. In all likelihood, the tax gap is larger than $345 billion. While we may not know the exact size of the tax gap, we do know the impact of not better managing our country's finances. We know that every dollar wasted on erroneous or fraudulent payments means there's one more dollar we will have to borrow from China or Japan or Great Britain. The same holds true with uncollected taxes. Every dollar owed to the Treasury that goes uncollected is being replaced by a dollar from somewhere else whether it's a borrowed dollar or a new tax dollar that's levied on a family or a small business in Delaware or Oklahoma. I'm pleased that Commissioner Everson is here with us today and I commend him for the attention he has paid to the tax gap issue. Your acknowledgement of the importance of this issue and your commitment to doing something about it are necessary and important steps toward the greater goal. But, to achieve our goal of collecting every dollar that reasonably can be collected, we're going to need a comprehensive plan for success, a plan that serves as a tax gap roadmap to this and future administrations and Congress. Having a plan helped us in Delaware. When I was Governor of Delaware, my team and I set out to turn around a State Division of Revenue that just wasn't getting the job done in some areas. After years of hard work, we succeeded in bringing the collection of delinquent taxes up to record highs. While Delaware's budget is only a fraction of the Federal budget. I'm certain that some of what we did there and much of what's being done in other States to identify problems, fix them, and improve collections and customer satisfaction at the same time could be replicated at least in part at the Federal level. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for focusing our attention on this issue. Sentor Coburn. Thanks you, Senator Carper. Our first panel is Commissioner Mark Everson. He is the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Prior to his time at the IRS, he was Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget, where he provided governmentwide leadership to Executive Branch agencies to strengthen Federal financial management and improve program enforcement. Commissioner Everson, first of all, let me thank you for your service to our country. You could do something else at a higher salary, and we appreciate it. Too often it is not recognized. The floor is yours. TESTIMONY OF HON. MARK EVERSON,\1\ COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Mr. Everson. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, Senator Akaka. I am pleased to be before your Subcommittee once again to discuss our efforts to increase taxpayer compliance and reduce the tax gap. I very much appreciate the continuing interest of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in our work. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the efforts of this Subcommittee to bring greater transparency and accountability to government. As you know, as you indicated, that was central to what we tried to do in my OMB days, and I know that Clay Johnson, my successor, is doing that and working with you now. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Everson appears in the Appendix on page 45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am also deeply appreciative of the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, also a part of this Committee, led by Senators Coleman and Levin, which has been instrumental in our efforts to strengthen enforcement of the tax laws. Before making several points on today's subject, please indulge me as I make my regular plea for adequate resources for the IRS. As you may know, the House has cut the President's funding request for the IRS for fiscal year 2007, which begins next week, by over $100 million. Action to date in the Senate has been more favorable, a little bit above the President's request, although the bill has not yet gone to the floor. I ask once again for your strong support for this vital funding. We will put the money to good use. Concerning today's subject, I would like to make two points before taking your questions: First, a comment or two on our operations for the fiscal year ending this week; and, second, brief remarks on the summary administration plan to reduce the tax gap, which was forwarded earlier today to the Finance Committee by the Treasury Department. We have delivered an excellent operational year for 2006, both on the services side and in our enforcement activities. We have also made significant strides in modernizing the IRS. We had an excellent filing season, maintaining levels of telephone service and, again, improving the accuracy of our responses in both accounts and tax law. The number of individual returns filed electronically has again increased, as has the number of returns processed by volunteers in partnership with the IRS. That is the program Senator Akaka was talking about, which has replaced a lot of the reduction in our preparation of returns. It has gone over the last few years from 1.1 million returns prepared by VITA volunteers up to over 2.2 million. In terms of enforcement, although I, of course, do not yet have the final numbers, we project that enforcement revenue-- and that is the money that comes in from our collections activities, our document matching, and our examinations--will exceed $49 billion as against $47.3 billion last year. You can see this growth over the last several years is quite significant. This, as I was indicating to the Chairman before we started, is only the direct result of our activities. It does not capture the indirect effect of the fact that when we audit, Dr. Coburn, Senator Carper and Senator Akaka play it maybe a little straighter, if you will indulge my example. In terms of modernization, we have had several successes. Our new system for updating the individual master file has processed almost 8 million returns and generated over $3 billion in refunds. But perhaps our most significant achievement this year is the successful launch of our initiative mandating electronic filing of returns by large corporations and not-for-profit institutions. Electronic filing of large corporate returns will significantly speed the audit process and allow us to use improved analytics to better target our enforcement activities. Compliant taxpayers will benefit from prompter resolution of uncertainties, and the government will benefit by identifying and addressing compliance problems at an earlier date. This morning, the Treasury Department delivered to the Finance Committee an outline of the Administration's strategy for addressing the tax gap. The strategy builds on efforts that the Treasury Department and the IRS have taken over the last several years to improve compliance. It focuses on seven areas: Legislative proposals for reducing evasion opportunities follow on existing proposals made in the 2007 budget; a commitment to research; further improvement in information technology; strengthened enforcement programs; enhanced services to taxpayers; reform and simplification of the tax law--the point you made, Mr. Chairman--and partnership with practitioners and other stakeholder groups. The document is intended to provide a broad base on which to build. More detailed steps are being developed as part of the 2008 budget to be delivered to Congress next February. I know that the need to reduce the tax gap is well understood and supported both by my boss, Secretary Paulson, and OMB Director Robert Portman. I think that the strategy delivered today is an important step forward. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Thank you. Let me ask you, would you outline for us this new strategy for the tax gap? I am a big believer in transparency and results and accountability, and what you cannot measure you cannot manage. And it is my understanding that some of this new program is to put into place key metrics so you can know what the problem is. Mr. Everson. Yes, sir. I agree, first of all, entirely with your assessment that you need to measure your progress and see how you are doing. This particularly comes into play in the research area. It is something we talked about last October when we were talking about the tax gap research at the time before it was finalized. What we are going to be doing here is definitely giving a sharper focus on research. We want to update as an example the 2001 study to which Senator Carper referred. We are currently working on 1120S returns, but we want to circle back and do more work on individuals and look at not just the enforcement issues, but also what was referenced in terms of the impact on service delivery channels. So part of that effort over the coming months is to return the targets that would be associated with each of these seven areas, and they cover a broad range of topics. Some of these are difficult to quantify--the impact of new systems, as you can imagine, what are you going to get for those, just updating the infrastructure. But we are going to do our level best wherever we can to have hard and set goals. What I would ask you, to the Senate and to the House, though, is that clearly we are helped in defining reasonable goals if there is stability in the system. All the constant changes to the system make it very hard to neutralize the effects of the moving parts and to understand what is really happening. So the degree to which we can calm down the Tax Code, that would help. Senator Coburn. One of the questions as you go forward and looking at this and re-looking at--and having the measurement of the tax gap is this idea that you cannot attribute what you collected to past years in terms of the tax gap. Why can't we? If the tax gap is $348 billion and you are going to collect $52 billion, but you do not know if that was for 2001 or for 2000 or 1999 or 1998, why can't we have a metric that applies that so that you can actually eventually measure what you are doing? In other words, the application of collected monies against the tax gap, why can't you apply those in the year in which they were a gap rather than against the year that you see the gap? Mr. Everson. If I understand your question, I think we do that. What we said with the study was that there was a gross gap of $345 billion for tax year 2001, and that over time we expected, based on that study and other things that we knew, to get back $55 billion. Now, if you would put that chart back up \1\--there are two ways we are going to get after this problem, sir. We are going to bring down that gross number through better compliance up front, and then we are also going to be bringing up the reduction number. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 48. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have already done that to a certain degree because through better collections and more examinations, that $55 billion number, if you took that on a steady state year after year, would already have increased because of this piece. Because there are two components in the $55 billion: There is our enforcement efforts, and then there is the money that just comes in over time because you strike an arrangement with us for payment over time or you just paid late. Senator Coburn. OK. My key point is that of that $49 billion enforcement revenue, how much of it was due this year, in 2005's returns, versus how much was due in 2000 versus---- Mr. Everson. Yes, you have to spread that out. We would have to analyze that for you. Senator Coburn. But my point is if you are ever going to measure performance against the tax gap, here is the gross tax gap, here is what we are doing against it, if you do not do it against the year in which it was supposedly owed, you are not going to have an adequate metric. Mr. Everson. I agree with that. Senator Coburn. All right. What percentage of individual returns now are filed electronically? Mr. Everson. This year, it is in excess of 50--about 54- point-something percent. Senator Coburn. Fifty-four percent. Mr. Everson. Yes. Senator Coburn. And do you foresee that is going to grow? Mr. Everson. That I believe will continue to grow, yes, sir. Now, there was a mandate to bring that up to 80 percent. It was, I think most observers would suggest, rather arbitrary when it was set. I think it had a very beneficial impact, though, on the whole system because the organization and others have pushed towards that. We are a champion of electronic filing. I think that obviously it is better for the system, better for the government, and certainly better for individuals as well. Senator Coburn. So one other point that you made was that if we keep changing the Tax Code, that makes enforcement even more difficult, both in terms of your ability to measure and institute the changes on the enforcement side, but also for those that inadvertently file wrong because the law has been changed. Mr. Everson. I think that is absolutely true. It goes hand in hand with complexity. When I talked with the tax reform panel, which was referenced earlier, back in March of last year, they asked me what were the areas you could work on if you just took an incremental approach. Look at all the credits you get for education and things like that. There is just so many different overlapping kinds of programs. It is very hard to know what to do if you are an individual. As was indicated, the practitioners see things slightly differently, depending on the fact circumstances. Simplification would help both the taxpayer and the government, sir. Senator Coburn. OK. We are going to have in one of our panels, we are going to be talking about tax expenditures today, both at my request and the request of Senator Lautenberg. How big of a problem do you see that one? How much does it complicate your job? The largest tax expenditure, by the way, is for health care in this country, and several others that most people would agree are socially good investments to create certain behaviors. How much of a difficulty is that? And how much of this is large versus how much of it is small? How much of it is very small in terms of both the numbers and the impact that have been written into the Tax Code as tax expenditures? And what kind of problems does that cause you? Mr. Everson. I think what you are getting into tax policy questions, really, as to how the Code is constructed and what our Nation chooses to subsidize. There can be enforcement ramifications on this. An example is we testified and wrote quite clearly that the manufacturing provisions in the Jobs Act were going to cause us great enforcement issues. So it gets down largely to this question of complexity, and that word over there, your first word, ``transparency.'' If things are not transparent, then any expenditure or any policy choice is just an awful lot harder for us to deal with. Senator Coburn. All right. Thank you. Senator Carper. Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. One of the things we worked on in Delaware--and I am sure other States did, too--at the State level was to figure out what we could do to make sure that folks who had an obligation to the State of Delaware, a tax obligation, whether it was personal, corporate, or otherwise, that they met their obligation. And we would do that through our own employees within the Division of Revenue, and occasionally we would contract with a private form to do that work for us. We tried to be sensitive to the needs for protection of confidential information and to make sure that we did not simply ignore the needs of having State employees do the work within the Division of Revenue and to train them and give them the resources, technical and otherwise, that they needed. My recollection is that about 10 years ago there was an effort at the Federal level to use private sector resources for debt collection by the IRS. My recollection is it did not go well, and I know that the IRS is trying it again, trying to do it this time, but differently, to operate on the lessons that we learned from the misadventures of a decade ago. I would like for you to talk a bit about that, what we learned and what we are doing differently. I understand that the firms that you hired to do this work, get to keep anywhere from 21 to 24 cents out of a dollar. I understand that about 25 cents out of a dollar that they collect comes back to the IRS that you can use to hire more people to do the work, to have better technology to enable your folks, to empower your employees to do the work. And I want to make sure that 25 cents actually does come back through to the IRS and that you are able to increase your resources and improve your ability to collect taxes. Just talk a little bit about that whole thing, if you would. Mr. Everson. Sure. Certainly, sir. We have commenced with that program. Earlier this month, we sent forward about 11,500 cases to the contractors. Already we have received in, I am told, over half a million dollars in cash thus far from 250- some-odd taxpayers. These are cases that we would not be working. For 4 years, we have not received the funding that we have asked for from the Congress. The budget scoring rules, you would be throwing money at us if projecting an increase in our appropriated resources would also show an increase on the revenue side from the enforcement revenue and the indirect effect we get. So I have freely acknowledged, sir, that it is more costly, because of this percentage that the contractors would keep, than it would be were we to do this work ourselves. I would say to you, though, that even if you gave me more money to allocate within the IRS, I would not necessarily use it all on collections. We have to run a balanced program. That includes our work on charity and a host of things. Turning to the substance of what happened in 1996 versus now, you are entirely correct; I do not think that program was well run. We were not, as I would say, deliberate in our case selection to make sure that we were giving the contractors cases with a reasonable prospect of collection. We have been pretty careful there this time. We are working very--we have had, as you can imagine, some start-up issues, but we are very closely monitoring what they are doing, making sure that they are following the law and that they protect taxpayer privacy and rights. And thus far I think it is off to a good start. So we are going to monitor it. I know you will hear from Mr. George afterwards. He is the Inspector General. He is all over this, and we are very accountable, I would say to you, on this program. But I am cautiously optimistic that it is going to supplement and bring in more money and help us. But if there are any warts or problems with it, we are going to be very transparent about it and make whatever adjustments we have to do. Senator Carper. Good. It is important to me--I cannot speak for the Subcommittee, but it is certainly important to me that the 25 cents out of that dollar that we are talking about that comes back to the IRS is--that we know how you are spending it. Mr. Everson. Yes, I neglected to mention that, but this will be good for us in terms of building our infrastructure and making sure that we are addressing the collection issues. I want to mention one thing. We actually did get an award, Senator. We got Points of Light Foundation Award. Senator Carper. Was it the Delaware quality award? Mr. Everson. No, it was not, but we got the Points of Light Foundation Award, the first time a government agency got that award, a year or two ago for this volunteer program, the partnership we have. Our partnership organization works with others to get support for our activities. So we are not totally in the doghouse on this. Senator Carper. We want to make sure you earn some more awards as well. Well, let's stay in touch on this, and we will see how it goes. I want to talk a little bit about the capital gains tax gap, and we are going to have a witness or two later on to explore that with. The Chairman and I have been working a little on it with Senator Evan Bayh. Mr. Everson. Yes. Senator Carper. He has championed legislation, along with some others, to try to make sure that the tax gap that exists with respect to capital gains is somehow narrowed. Any idea what that capital gains tax gap might be these days? Mr. Everson. The number that I recall is something more than $10 billion for 2001, which 2001 might have been a difficult--you have got to go back and say what year are you measuring, and if you recall, the markets reached a peak in 2000, so maybe that is hard to know at any one time whether that is a good number or a bad number. As a general rule, if you will indulge me for a second, where we have visibility as to data or facts, compliance is very high. Wage reporting, the non-compliance on wages is about 1 percent. You are not going to cheat on how much money you make as a Senator. We know that. Senator Carper. You do? Mr. Everson. Yes. If you are going to--despite the rumor, there is some cooperation between the Executive and Legislative Branches, and you send over that material to us. But if you look at wage reporting, there is no problem on that. We know what wage earners make. If, on the other hand, where there is little or no information reporting, non-compliance is much more dramatic. This gets back into that component of the tax gap map we talked about last year, where underreported business income for small businesses is 50 percent. Senator Carper. Fifty percent. Mr. Everson. Now, we have made some proposals in the 2007 budget, one of which is a modest but, I think, important proposal, to get credit card reporting on gross receipts. That is a starting point. We have one of our five legislative proposals enacted earlier this year. It actually reflects the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the hearings we have had on contractors, Federal contractors. We will look at the proposal you are referencing. It is just the kind of thing we are looking at now as one of the issues that I mentioned in terms of the legislative proposals to address non-compliance. So that is in the hopper. What I really would counsel you is if the Congress could make a downpayment by getting that credit card reporting proposal done, it would really show that there is a stomach to do some of these tough things. Because anytime you do one of these, you very much find that out of the woodwork come a lot of people who say we do not want to do something like that. Senator Carper. OK, good. My time has expired. Are we going to have another round here? Senator Coburn. Yes. Senator Carper. Great. Thanks. Senator Coburn. A couple of things. First of all, in terms of capital gain reporting, every brokerage firm I know right now has to report a Form 1099 on dividends, has to report a Form 1099 on interest. Correct? Mr. Everson. Yes. Senator Coburn. And they have the data on capital gains. And if they do not have the data, they can put zero, and so the gain is the total thing, and it is up to the taxpayer to prove what their basis is. Mr. Everson. Let me respond to that. People change brokerage accounts, and the basis needs to shift over. I think that, clearly, going forward you could establish this on a going-forward basis. I am somewhat sympathetic to the complexity going back with splits and everything else and changes of accounts. It would just take a while to get it fully---- Senator Coburn. Yes. I am not sympathetic at all. I have to do it every year for my taxes, and if it was split I have to figure it out. And the fact is that the onus is on the taxpayer to report their basis. Mr. Everson. Yes. Senator Coburn. The onus is not on the IRS to prove their basis. And so I think what Senator Bayh is on is great. It will not require significant equipment. It is one other slip for each account based on capital gains, and I think it is something we should do, and I think that we are going to have testimony that is, at a minimum, $25 billion, not $10 billion. I want to go back to the tax gap for a minute because we are going to have testimony from your own IG that suggests that this tax gap is larger than what we are reporting. Why do you think they think that? Mr. Everson. Well, there is growth in the economy. I think we did a good job of updating and estimating the gap for the individuals. We did not look at the underreporting gap as to corporations. That is the principal area. Now, I say that knowing that is a very hard thing to get because of the nature of the population, and the blunt reality is I would not allocate more resources into that corporate--the box there with the $30 billion. I have said maybe it was understated by a factor of half--I would not be allocating more resources into that than what I was already doing within the range of resources that I was getting. Again, we have given very high priority to high-income individuals where we have doubled the number of audits over the last several years, and we have brought back the corporate work, very much so. I think we are seeing some positive effects on that. So, to me, the real importance of the study is to get the update and make the allocation decisions, to use it to make the sensible decisions on what lines you are looking at on the return. Senator Coburn. Where do you get the greatest return for your investment in assets? Mr. Everson. Well, right now it is right over in individual, and if we go to the chart, the detail on the visibility, that shows some $68 billion based on that study, that is the underreporting of income by individuals and it is unincorporated businesses. So, clearly, I think we have made some headway on high-income individuals, and we have made some headway on--this just shows that out of that--remember the chart that showed the $110 billion where you had low visibility? This just analyzes that and says you have $68 billion on Schedule C income. That is an individual who has a business that they are running and they are not incorporated. That means we are understating that income. So, clearly, there is a lot of money to go after there. We would be strengthening our oversight in that area, I would say is one of the first things we would be doing. Senator Coburn. Senator Carper. Senator Carper. If I may, I want to go back to the legislation that Senator Bayh has introduced and we have cosponsored. I think it is called the SMART Act. If you would, give us some of your thoughts on the proposal to the extent that you are familiar with it. I just would like to hear more about how you feel about it. Mr. Everson. Again, I think that we were accused of being rather too modest in the five proposals we put forth in the 2007 budget. But I can only tell you the storm of criticism we got, particularly from the small business community, as to the additional burden we seemed to be creating. I believe that what we have done is we have tried to be very targeted so that we do not increase burden. As an example, I am not proposing additional withholding. The Administration is not going there. Some have suggested that. So what we do want to do is craft proposals that can be dealt with, with the least amount of burden. I agree with the Chairman that the big companies who are handling these brokerage outfits are much better able to make that kind of an adjustment. So we are actively looking at that proposal. We are working with OMB, the Treasury, and the IRS. We have a group that is refining our proposals now. That is why the plan, the outline of the plan that we sent up to the Finance Committee today does not have all the details yet, because they are part of the budget process, both as to the funding of our IT and enforcement activities and, very importantly, the legislative proposals. What you have there, what you are championing is under active consideration, and I will carry back your support for it. Senator Carper. Good, thanks. One more question. I understand you said before that the IRS could close the tax gap by an additional $100 billion without unduly burdening taxpayers. And you talked a little bit about this today, but, generally speaking, what kind of things need to be done to bring in that $100 billion? And what kind of burdensome measures do you think would be needed to go beyond that $100 billion figure? Feel free to repeat some things, reinforce some things you have already said, but add anything else to that that you wish. Mr. Everson. Sure. The remark that I made earlier this year was that I believe from the starting point of 2001, that $345 billion versus $290 billion, that you could close $50 to $100 billion through a combination of measures--and I think those measures are largely reflected in the document we sent forward today. They include more enforcement. They include legislative solutions with more reporting, a more efficient IRS through a better infrastructure--a whole series of things that would not fundamentally alter the relationship between the government and the taxpayer. I think they would address this issue of confusion. Simplification would be in there, all the things that we point to in that seven-point proposal. What I do get concerned about is sometimes people will throw around the idea that, well, you can just close this tax gap and then the deficit is gone and we can all be happy campers. I do believe there gets to be a point--I am not sure where that is. Senator Coburn. Diminishing returns. Mr. Everson. Diminishing returns, where you are really adding a lot of burden. That is one reason right at this stage I am not proposing more withholding. Withholding works. We have wage withholding. But I hesitate to ask for that. I would like to see us get that $50 to $100 billion first and assess as we go, do as the Chairman suggested, get more research to get a better fix on an ongoing basis of the progress we are making. I have my Director of Research here. If you would nod and say, ``Amen,'' it would be useful for me. I am pressing him to get regular updates, not just these big projects every 4 or 5 years. I would like to answer that question in probably more detail a few years down the road once we have already captured the $50 or $100 billion. Senator Carper. OK. I would just observe, before closing here, Mr. Chairman, if we could collect even half of the $300 billion, the tax gap, and if we could just reduce the improper payments or overpayments by about half, that would be another $25 billion, put them together and that is $175 billion. And that is certainly a bit more than the operating deficit we are going to face this year. As we look forward to the coming decade as the boomers, our generation--I think it is our generation--start to---- Senator Coburn. You are a lot older than I am, Senator. [Laughter.] Senator Carper. When they start to retire and we know what impact, potential impact that is going to have on the Treasury with Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, we are going to need all the help that we can get if we are going to avoid piling on that debt on our kids and grandchildren. So this is important stuff. I just want to say to you, Mr. Commissioner, and to your team that you lead, all the way to the rank-and-file folks that you lead, the work that you are doing is real important. We appreciate the efforts that are going on, on the part of everybody, including the people that work in our States and your offices in our States as well. Mr. Everson. Thank you. Senator Coburn. I would echo Senator Carper's comments, and I would also note that this Subcommittee has found in excess of $100 billion in fraud--$100 billion in fraud--and that is looking at less than 40 percent of the Federal Government. So if you took half the tax gap, half the improper payments, and half of the fraud, we could have the Chinese borrowing from us rather than us borrowing from them. Thank you, Commissioner. Senator Coburn. Our next panel, first is Russell George. He is the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration where he has served for 2 years. Prior to this time, Mr. George served as Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service. With him also is Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, where she serves as an advocate for taxpayers to the IRS and Congress. And Jay Soled is Professor of Taxation at Rutgers University and practices law at the firm of Pfizer and Soled. Welcome to you all. Inspector General George, you are recognized. TESTIMONY OF HON. J. RUSSELL GEORGE,\1\ TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION (TIGTA), DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Mr. George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. George appears in the Appendix on page 62. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Coburn, Ranking Member Carper, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the tax gap and opportunities for closing it. In 2006, the IRS updated its estimate of the tax gap based on data from the 2001 tax year. The updated information on individuals is a significant improvement because individuals comprise the largest segment of the tax gap. However, there is no new information about employment, corporate, and other taxpayer segments. With no firm plans to update the study of these segments, we will be left with an incomplete picture of both the tax gap and the current voluntary compliance rate. Senator Coburn. Could you suspend for just a minute? Is anybody still here from the IRS? OK. I just would like for one of them to hear what the Inspector General has to say. Mr. George. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Go ahead. Mr. George. Although we cannot be certain about the size of the tax gap, we do know that the three primary sources of it are underreporting, non-payment, and non-filing. Underreporting--which is estimated at $285 billion--is by far the largest portion and greatest challenge in closing the tax gap. Yet TIGTA concluded that even this estimate may not be complete because substantial amounts are not included in the tax gap projections. For example, the IRS tax gap projections describe the non-filing estimate as reasonable, despite the missing segments of corporate income, employment, and excise taxes. The IRS does not have definite plans to update the estate tax segment or to estimate the corporate, employment, and excise tax non-filed segments, suggesting that the non- filer estimate is incomplete, and likely inaccurate. One recommendation that could significantly address the underreporting and non-filing segments of the tax gap involves third-party reporting. The IRS has estimated that compliance rates are as high as 96 percent when third-party reporting is involved. In contrast, self-employed individuals are estimated to report only about 68 percent of their income. Even more alarming, self-employed individuals operating on a cash basis report just 19 percent of their income. Three years ago, TIGTA recommended that the IRS initiate a proposal for a legislative change to mandate withholding on non-employee compensation payments. Implementing such a provision could reduce the tax gap by billions of dollars. In addition, other actions should be taken to improve compliance among independent contractors. For example, improvement is needed to address inaccurate reporting of taxpayer identification numbers for independent contractors. For tax years 1995 through 1998, the IRS received about 9.6 million statements for recipients of miscellaneous income--reporting approximately $204 billion in non-employee compensation that either did not contain a taxpayer identification number or it had a number that did not match the IRS' records. Withholding could be mandated for independent contractors who fail to furnish a taxpayer identification number. Implementing mandated withholding for this segment of independent contractors could result in an estimated $2.2 billion in increased revenue each year. IRS compliance efforts are also limited by the lack of available information on the basis of investments, which could be used to verify investment gains or losses, as we discussed earlier. Such information reporting would allow the IRS to better focus its enforcement resources on non-compliant taxpayers. Although individual wage earners receive a wage and tax statement--the W-2 Form--have their wages verified through a matching program, a similar comprehensive matching program for business documents received by the IRS does not exist. TIGTA has recommended that the IRS evaluate all types of business documents it receives to determine whether this information can be used to improve business compliance. An IRS study, based on TIGTA commission, found that in fiscal year 2000, business information documents report $697 billion in potential taxable income. Last, investments made abroad by U.S. residents have nearly tripled in recent years, growing from $2.6 trillion in 1999 to $7.2 trillion in 2003. To address the tax compliance challenges presented by these investments, TIGTA has recommended that the IRS make better use of foreign-source income information received from tax treaty countries. In summary, it is unlikely that a massive change involuntary compliance can be achieved without significant changes to the tax system. Strategies have been identified to decrease the tax gap and improvements can be realized. However, the IRS faces formidable challenges in accurately estimating the tax gap and finding effective ways to increase compliance. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carper, I appreciate the opportunity to share my views on the tax gap and the work TIGTA has done in this area. I would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. Senator Coburn. Thank you, General George. Ms. Olson. TESTIMONY OF NINA E. OLSON,\1\ NATIONAL TAXPAYER ADVOCATE Ms. Olson. Mr. Chairman and Senator Carper, thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the causes of possible legislative and administrative solutions. At the outset let me suggest that the ultimate question we should be focused on is not how can we reduce the tax gap but, rather, how can we increase voluntary compliance. This is so because voluntary compliance, as opposed to enforced compliance, creates taxpayers who are willing to work with the tax system rather than taxpayers who hide from the tax system. Moreover, in the long run, voluntary compliance is the most cost-effective way to achieve lasting compliance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Olson appears in the Appendix on page 90. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To determine how to allocate its resources most effectively to increase voluntary compliance, the IRS needs to do a better job of understanding the reasons why the tax gap exists. At the risk of oversimplifying matters, let me suggest that we consider three types of taxpayers: First, taxpayers who will go to great lengths to comply with whatever requirements exist; second, taxpayers who view taxes as one of many burdens they face in everyday life and who will comply only if doing so is straightforward and not time-consuming; and, third, taxpayers who will willfully seek to evade their tax obligations. What percentage of taxpayers fall into each of these categories? It is impossible to know with precision, but available data suggests that the majority of taxpayer errors are attributable to inadvertent error rather than intentional non-compliance. When IRS auditors conducted approximately 46,000 of individual taxpayers for purposes of the National Research Program, the auditors were asked for each issue they identified to characterize the reason for non-compliance. The results were striking. Among issues IRS auditors examined that resulted in a change in tax liability, the auditors listed 67 percent as inadvertent mistakes, 27 percent as computational errors, or errors that flowed automatically, and only 3 percent of errors as intentional. A recent GAO study on capital gains misreporting also suggests that deliberate cheating is responsible for significantly less than half of all reporting inaccuracies. We need to keep these data in mind as we craft our compliance strategies. Equally important, these data suggest the need for more refined research because classifying errors as either intentional or inadvertent does not get us very far. Consider, for example, a taxpayer who cannot determine the cost basis of a stock or mutual fund holding he sold during the year and who intentionally reports a number that he believes represents a good-faith estimate but is likely to be wrong. That sort of intentional error is very different and calls for a very different compliance response as compared with the taxpayer who deliberately underreports his income. In the next phase of the National Research Program, the IRS should seek to refine its determinations of the sources of non- compliance to enable it to develop a more refined and cost- effective compliance strategy. I remain concerned that the IRS is proceeding on a course that emphasizes stepped-up enforcement over stepped-up taxpayer service. It should not be a question of service or enforcement. The IRS should integrate taxpayer service within its enforcement activities. Particularly in light of its limited resources, the IRS should focus its enforcement activities not merely on collecting unpaid past due taxes, but on trying to bring taxpayers into compliance prospectively. The IRS could also do a better job of going where the money is, and that means the cash economy. The NRP data indicate that where taxable payments are reported to the IRS by third parties, reporting compliance comes to roughly 96 percent of the tax due. But where taxable payments are not reported to the IRS by third parties, reporting compliance drops below 50 percent. In my annual reports to Congress and in previous congressional testimony, I have offered numerous proposals to help the IRS to do a better job at combating the cash economy portion of the tax gap. Some of those proposals are summarized in the appendices at the end of my written statement, and I am not afraid to propose withholding, as some others are. Even though the IRS can do more to improve voluntary compliance, I do believe the compliance rate will not raise dramatically unless Congress passes legislation to make it easier for the IRS to detect non-compliance, primarily through expanded third-party information reporting or withholding. And I do want to call your attention to a recommendation in my annual report to Congress about expanding reporting for-- requiring brokers to track the cost basis of stock and to make it easier for taxpayers who are self-employed to make estimated tax payments, improving the offer in compromise program, and strengthening standards in the tax return preparation industry. In addition, tax simplification would help enormously. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Thank you, Ms. Olson. Mr. Soled. TESTIMONY OF JAY A. SOLED,\1\ PROFESSOR OF TAXATION, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY Mr. Soled. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Chairman, my name is Jay Soled. I am a tax professor at Rutgers University. I have written several papers on the issue of the capital gains tax gap. Thank you for inviting me to testify in favor of closing the capital gains tax gap and passage of the Simplification Through Additional Reporting Tax Act, aka the START Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Soled appears in the Appendix on page 126. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before detailing the problem of the capital gains tax gap, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight several salient points that were and were not made by the GAO in a report it issued earlier this year entitled ``Capital Gains Tax Gap.'' First, what the GAO report stated is that for tax year 2001, an estimated 38 percent of individual taxpayers who had securities transactions failed to accurately report their capital gains or losses from these transactions. What the GAO report did not say is that if security ownership continues to expand is left unchecked, almost four out of every ten American taxpayers will submit income tax returns that are incorrect. Second, the GAO report stated that these mistakes cost the government over $11 billion annually. What the GAO report did not emphasize, however, is that this $11 billion figure relates to individual income tax returns. As such, it probably grossly understates the magnitude of the problem. If the GAO were to have expanded the scope of its investigation to include corporate and other taxpayers such as trusts and estates, the estimated revenue loss to the government could easily exceed $25 billion annually. Third, the GAO report stated that the IRS is virtually powerless to close the capital gains tax gap. Without trying to paint too bleak of a picture, what the GAO report was really trying to say is that even if the IRS could audit the tax return of every single American--pity that thought--the problem of the capital gains tax gap would remain largely intact. This is because most Americans lack accurate records and the ability to track the tax basis they have in their investments. Why is the problem of the capital gains tax gap so prevalent? Let me offer three of the most compelling reasons. Reason number one: Taxpayers are notoriously lax record keepers. When it comes to record keeping, few taxpayers would deserve Oscars for their efforts. Reason number two: Computation of an investment's tax basis can be extraordinarily complex. Consider, for example, the plight of 18 tea shareholders who, after a series of split- offs, mergers, and reverse stock splits, each now own stock in 11 different companies, each with its own independent tax basis. Reason number three: When it comes to third-party information returns, there is no tax basis reporting to the IRS. Prior studies indicate, however, that in the absence of information returns, taxpayers compliance plummets. The START Act offers hope to taxpayers and the government that tax basis misidentifications will be a problem of the past and that the capital gains tax gap will narrow. If enacted, the START Act would require that mutual fund companies and brokerage firms track the tax basis of their clients' investments, and upon the triggering of a reporting event, such as a sale or other disposition, the mutual fund company or brokerage firm would, in addition to reporting the amount realized, also report the investment's tax basis. Passage of the START Act would be a boon to taxpayers, the government, and even mutual fund companies and brokerage firms. Taxpayers would have easy access to critical tax basis information. Put slightly differently, every April 15 there would likely be far fewer shoe boxes that taxpayers would have to dust off to bring to their accountants. The most identifiable government benefit is that it could, over a 10-year scoring period, collect up to an additional quarter of a trillion dollars of revenue. That number bears repetition. That is a quarter of a trillion dollars' worth of tax revenue without increasing taxes. Insofar as mutual fund companies and brokerage firms are concerned, around tax season no longer would their employees who staff telephone and offices be besieged by clients who call or stop by to make tax basis inquiries. My biggest complaint with the START Act is that it does not go far enough. More comprehensive reforms such as tax basis simplification measures are probably required to narrow the capital gains tax gap even further. So, from my perspective, the START Act is just that: A starting point that should immediately be put into place. In closing, Senators, before you ask me any questions, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask a question of each of you. Do you know the tax basis you have in each of your investments? Assuming you do not, then you should recognize the importance of the START Act and the need for its immediate passage. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Mr. Soled, to answer your question, the answer is yes, I do. Mr. Soled. Very impressive. Senator Coburn. I happened to be an accountant before I was a doctor. [Laughter.] So it made a big difference. I want to ask all of you to respond to this and just give me a--does everybody agree that one of the ways to increase compliances is simplification? Mr. George. Most definitely. Ms. Olson. Yes. Senator Coburn. And do you, Mr. Soled? Mr. Soled. Absolutely. Senator Coburn. And would you agree that there is almost a linear relationship between the more we simplify, the more compliance we get? Mr. George. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Olson. Ah, yes. Senator Coburn. That was a quasi yes. Mr. Soled. Mr. Soled. No hesitation in my voice. Yes. Senator Coburn. The simpler we make it. Are there things in your mind---- Ms. Olson. Sir, could I clarify? I mean, you could simplify things by telling everyone they have to pay a flat 50-percent tax, and you might end up with increased non-compliance because you have made it simple. Senator Coburn. I agree. But for the Code that we have---- Ms. Olson. Right, yes. Senator Coburn. Each of you have testified on things that you think need to change. What I would like to just say, based on we have what is highly probable, a $450 billion tax gap rather than a $350 billion tax gap. In order of priority, what are the first three things that should change? Mr. George. Well, third-party reporting, there is no question about it. I cited the figures of individuals, 90-plus- percentage, versus those operating on a cash basis who do not have third-party reporting, I mean under 20 percent. The lack of tax compliance data, the NRP was a good first step on the part of the IRS, but it was only a first step. There is so much more information, as I noted in both my oral and written testimony, that is needed in terms of the corporate and other aspects of it. And then, lastly, unreported income, I mean literally if we were able to institute the withholding, especially for the independent contractors, that would make such a difference. Senator Coburn. OK. And you do have communication with the researchers at IRS? They do read your reports? Mr. George. We hope so. Senator Coburn. Well, but I am asking, do you have one-on- one communication with the gentleman that Mr. Everson referred to in terms of working with them---- Mr. George. Yes. Senator Coburn [continuing]. And trying to massage what can we do here in terms of measuring so we can manage? Mr. George. Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman. Senator Coburn. OK. Ms. Olson. Ms. Olson. I would have to say that if I would go to the cash economy first and look at expanded information reporting. The proposals that I have made about estimated taxes, making them easier, like a monthly payment coming automatically out of accounts so people who want to comply but cannot quite save to pay in those estimated taxes quarterly. And then instituting some kind of a back-up withholding requirement on independent contractors who have been---- Senator Coburn. Proven to be non-compliant? Ms. Olson. Proven non-compliance, exactly, so that you have 2 or 3 years where they have not been able to pay. And the whole idea of that would be you get their attention and then you say to them, OK, now go into this estimated tax payment on a monthly basis, map it out a year in advance so we know you are going to make payments and, go and sin no more, and now we will work on your back liability. So sort of changing behavior. On simplification, I believe Congress has to act on AMT, which is not just a current problem right now, but as you go to 2010 and 2012 and you see 33 million taxpayers being pulled into the system, that is going to increase non-compliance among a group of taxpayers who are currently compliant. Senator Coburn. It is also going to be the very wedge pressure that we have to get simplification. Ms. Olson. Tax reform, exactly. And the third point would be additional research. We have to understand what causes taxpayer behavior. I am sponsoring a research thing right now, a study right now, to look into taxpayer behavior, and one of the things we are looking at is why taxpayers--for example, looking at not just taxpayers, but why people stopped smoking, the non-smoking campaign. Why were we able to change behavior of the public over a period of time? And how can we change behavior about compliance with taxes over time? Senator Coburn. Mr. Soled. Mr. Soled. Three ideas, and these are akin to what you just heard. First, we might look to expand information returns. Here is an idea that you might also consider. Second, the promotion of credit cards and debit cards so that we could have people, in lieu of using cash to pay their plumbers and pay their painters, they would turn to using credit cards and debit cards, and we could almost think of perhaps a government program that would offer a rewards program akin to frequent flyer miles for people who use their credit cards and the like. I know that might strike some as being radical and strange, but countries like Mexico, I understand, are instituting such a program. And third, another thing that we might consider that I understand other countries have done that would be interesting is perhaps every 5 years to change over our currency so that people like Mr. George was referring to who have investments overseas, all of a sudden they have to be forthcoming, or less they might risk losing their currency. So, some different angles that other countries--we might want to look at what some other countries have done to close their tax gaps, and maybe in some instances where they have been very successful, use that as a model. Senator Coburn. OK. Mr. George, have you looked yet at the utilization by the IRS of the private collections, and have you started looking at that and watching that? What are your comments on that? Mr. George. Well, we are in the process of reviewing that, Mr. Chairman. Just as background, over 10 years ago I was the Staff Director for Congressman Steven Horn of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, who took a very strong interest in this subject matter, pushed the Ways and Means Committee to develop that pilot that, as he stated publicly, was set up to fail. It did fail, and it cost more than the amount it generated in revenue, in collections. So when I first started this position, I indicated to my staff, as well as to the Secretary and others, this would be a top priority for me. So we have been very engaged in terms of working with the Internal Revenue Service and their preparation to establish this program, and it is too early for us to give a complete assessment as to its benefits. Senator Coburn. OK. Senator Carper. Senator Carper. I am just sitting here thinking what a good hearing this is, Mr. Chairman, and we welcome each of you. Thank you for coming, for testifying, and really it is kind of like keying off of one another and reinforcing what others are saying. One of the witnesses--I do not recall who, but one of the witnesses--maybe it was Professor Soled who said--I think you talked about what other countries have done and show how they are narrowing their own tax gap. Who said that? Who mentioned that? Mr. Soled. I just did. Senator Carper. Yes, OK. Take just a minute and let's just focus on that, what are some other countries that could be held out as best models in terms of reducing their own tax gap? And the second half of my question is the States, the 50 laboratories of democracy? Some of them do a pretty good job on their own tax gap. But what are some States, if you are aware of any States, that have done a particularly good job? And what can we learn from them? Ms. Olson. Sir, in the United Kingdom, I went over and did some consulting with the United Kingdom last spring and their tax system, and one of the proposals--one of the programs that they have that they instituted with the construction industry, which is notorious for cash economy, is that they have had something for the last 30 years called a ``Compliance Certificate,'' and they have told that individuals who are self-employed in the construction industry, the employers or the contractors will have to withhold a particular percentage on their independent contractors unless they get a Compliance Certificate from the tax authority that says to the contractor this person is compliant with their taxes, whether it is an installment agreement or whatever, and you do not have to withhold. And I really like that proposal because it puts the incentives in the right place. It makes the contractor want to--it is easier for them to hire compliant taxpayers as subs rather than people who are hiding out from the IRS. And it helps--it gets them working with the tax authority to get these people in compliance. Senator Carper. That is good. Ms. Olson. So I have recommended that procedure. What I have recommended to the IRS about working with the States is that the States have an enormous amount of information, if you just keep working on the cash economy through State business licenses, where people who are contractors or hairdressers or lawn care people, they have to get a business license. And States and localities really enforce that because it really is their revenue stream. The people have to give their Social Security numbers and their employer identification numbers in order to get that, and if we could work out arrangements with the States to just do data matching, does this person who has a construction license show up in our tax system, or are they truly in the cash economy? Then maybe we should go pay that person a visit or at least send them a letter, and do it jointly with the States. Senator Carper. Good. Other thoughts? Those were excellent. Mr. George. Senator Carper, I would just note that, first of all, I have to be careful because of the restriction on addressing tax policy, too, as the Secretary has delegated that authority within the Department to the Tax Policy Division. That stated, there is no question that a good example would be what California and a few other States recently did with tax shelters and extending the amount of time that tax revenue entities had to review those, which some perceive to be abusive. They have a longer time frame than does the Federal Government in terms of the ability to go back and to examine it. And when you consider the complicated nature of many of these schemes, to put it diplomatically, a lot of time is needed, and in many instances, the Federal Government just does not have the resources with which to do it on a timely basis. Senator Carper. Good. Professor Soled, what are some countries or maybe some States that we might hold out as models? We have heard a couple good ideas here. Mr. Soled. I cannot point to any particular States, but I just want to emphasize, if I could, the importance of your Subcommittee and what it is doing, because when people focus on the issue of the tax gap, what I think they fail to understand is that so many States piggyback off the Federal Government and what shows up on a Form 1040 and a Form 1120, they seem to forget that whatever you guys do and the importance of your work, that effect carries over onto State income tax returns. So whatever the tax gap is and the magnitude--and we are all fearful of what it might be--it is that there are billions of dollars that go uncollected because the Federal Government is not doing its job in terms of its collection. So I think you can add, by a factor of about 20 percent to the Federal tax gap what the State tax gaps are, just because the work that--like I said, this piggyback effect. So I cannot point to any particular States, but I will say this: That, in general, States do some--are fairly effective in what they do in terms of getting people out there and doing perhaps more face-to-face audits. That has just been my experience, at least in New Jersey. Senator Carper. The Chairman asked a question a bit earlier. I think he asked you to give him your top three sort of like suggestions, and let me just ask you the reverse of that question or the inverse of that question, maybe two or three things that we ought not to do, not just we as two Senators, but as a Congress. What would be wise to avoid doing? Mr. George. Well, there is no question that if certain policies were adopted that requires complete disclosure of every financial interaction--or transaction, rather, that one engaged in, you could in theory ensure the IRS the ability to collect or at least know what it needs to collect from taxpayers. But given the burden that would place on the taxpayers, I do not think anyone would advocate making that type of drastic policy. Ms. Olson. I think that we should not plow forward on the assumption that enforcement of a one-size-fits-all type approach--I talked in my testimony about unintentional versus deliberate errors, and I believe that those two buckets are much too clunky, that we need to even refine that even more. You have people who make errors because the procedures are just too burdensome. You have people who make errors because they do not understand what we are asking them to do. Those are two different things. We have people who make errors because their preparers have suggested that it is OK to do this or are acting as facilitators. And then you have the truly asocial taxpayers who are making not errors but are actively evading. And each one of those types of non-compliance require a different approach. And if you take the wrong approach, if you just use the same audit or the same collection action for each one of those people, you are going to run the risk of converting people who are really trying to comply into angry taxpayers who are going to say, ``The IRS treated me badly, and I am now going to do everything I can to not comply.'' And you will have really done something terrible there. I really want the IRS to be more nuanced and not just sort of plow ahead. Mr. Soled. I would be careful about giving taxpayers too many options, and let me just give you the example with respect to reporting of tax basis. Right now taxpayers can use several different methods to report their tax basis. They can use the specific identification method. They can use first-in, first- out. They can use averaging. I mean, you give too many taxpayers too many options, and it becomes very complex both to taxpayers and, as complex as it is to taxpayers, it becomes that much complexity to the IRS to monitor compliance. So I would just be careful about trying to be too nice to taxpayers. I do not mean this in a harsh way to taxpayers, but in trying to be too kind to taxpayers, you may overdo a good thing. Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe that a couple of our friends, John Breaux and Connie Mack, were asked by the President to lead a review of our Tax Code and give us their thoughts, along with, I guess, the Commission that they led, as to what we might want to do differently. And they floated their ideas, and I do not think much has happened with respect to those ideas. Obviously nothing is going to happen this year. We are going to have in the next couple of years a lot of focus on folks running for President, people wanting to lead the country, and they are going to be talking about what they would do differently, better or worse. And I think we will have an opportunity probably during the course of a Presidential campaign to consider changes we might want to make in our Tax Code. And I think what we are hearing today, keep it simple would be a good principle to underlie that. But somebody is going to be elected President--I don't know if we are going to do major tax reform in the next 2 years, but somebody is going to be elected President in 2008, and then they will have an opportunity to lead us in a new direction. I do not know that we will have an opportunity in the next year or two to do as much as we might want to do on this front. But to the extent that we can tie the debate on tax reform, which I think will flow from a Presidential campaign, into the kind of efforts that we are discussing here, we will do our country, I think, a big favor, a big service. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Thank you. One of the reasons you have not heard much, I think, on that Tax Commission is they filtered it with politics instead of policy, and they said not what was possible, but they said what might be politically possible, rather than how do you fix the problem and then go sell it to the American public. And when you do that, the American public gets shortchanged. I want to thank each of you for your service. Professor, thank you for coming. And this panel is dismissed. Thank you very much. Panel three consists of Stephen J. Entin. He is President and Executive Director at the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, an economic public policy research organization based in Washington, DC. He served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Department of the Treasury during the Reagan Administration. Prior to his time at the Treasury, he served as staff economist with the Joint Economic Committee. Also with us is Jason Furman, Visiting Scholar, New York University. He is also a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He previously served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in the Clinton Administration. And, finally, Neal Boortz, co-author of ``The FairTax Book'' and nationally syndicated talk-show host. Welcome to each of you. Mr. Entin. TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN J. ENTIN,\1\ PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON THE ECONOMICS OF TAXATION Mr. Entin. Chairman Coburn and Ranking Member Carper, thank you for inviting me to testify on the issues of the tax expenditure database and its relationship to the issue of tax transparency. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Entin with an attachment appears in the Appendix on page 131. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is tax transparency? Tax transparency is an attribute of the tax system. It does not mean publishing everyone's tax returns. People should not be afraid of that. Transparency means adopting a tax system based on sensible principles that are widely agreed upon. It would measure income correctly and have simple, clear calculations of tax liabilities and would treat all income and all taxpayers alike. Clarity and simplicity would put to rest suspicions that some people were not paying what they should due to deficiencies in the Tax Code as opposed to enforcement problems. Each taxpayer would have to apply that set of tax rules to his or her income and pay the resulting tax liability. The tax returns and tax payments, however, would not be made public. The tax law and tax rules would be transparent to everyone, not the incomes, business arrangements, and tax payments of the taxpayers. Section 6103 of the U.S. Code requires that the IRS protect taxpayer privacy, and the IRS has very strict policies to enforce that legal mandate. The raw information in the master tax file is available only to employees of the IRS and the Treasury's Office of Tax Policy and to employees of the Joint Tax Committee. Tax file data that is shared with other Federal agencies or the public is shared only in a form that has been organized in large enough subgroups to protect the identities of the taxpayers. Would a tax expenditure database, akin to the earmark database, improve tax transparency? I do not think so. A list of tax expenditures, numbers of users, and dollar amounts are already published by the Treasury, the Joint Tax Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee in print and on the Web. The Treasury tables are also presented in the Federal budget. The estimates are obtained from the master tax file by means of a sample of about 200,000 returns out of about 130 million individual returns and 20 million business returns. Creating a tax expenditure database by examining all 150 million returns would be difficult and expensive. A more detailed presentation would run into serious privacy concerns, could thereby damage voluntary compliance by taxpayers, and would involve greatly expanded reporting requirements for individuals and businesses. The aim of a database would be to highlight tax provisions that are clearly unwarranted favoritism toward a small group of taxpayers. Under informal Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee rules, such ``rifle shot'' tax breaks are currently supposed to be identified and disallowed by the Committee Chairmen before the bills are voted upon. Once enacted, it is difficult for the IRS to determine which taxpayers are using the provisions. It really is the responsibility of Congress to avoid creating such provisions in the first place. A more basic question is: What is a tax expenditure? It is defined in the law as ``revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of liability.'' That is easy to say, sort of, but hard in practice to deal with. What is or is not a tax expenditure depends critically on what is regarded as regular treatment under the tax system. The Analytical Perspectives section in the Federal budget reports tax expenditures under two income tax baselines. And since the fiscal year 2004 budget, it has also provided a list of tax expenditures measured against a neutral or consumed-income tax concept. In the pure Haig-Simons income tax, there would be no double taxation of corporate income. Anything now listed as a corporate-related tax expenditure would disappear, and the corporate tax itself would be a ``negative'' tax expenditure. Capital gains and the imputed income from owner-occupied housing would be taxed as accrued. Deferral of the tax on capital gains would be considered a tax expenditure. However, failure to adjust for inflation, as in the current system, would result in ``negative'' tax expenditures on the inflation component of capital gains, interest income, and depreciation, and a tax subsidy on interest deductions. The current income tax does not follow the Haig-Simons definition of ``income.'' They report tax expenditures under the ``normal tax baseline'' and the ``reference tax law baseline.'' Each accepts the corporate income tax and the deferral on unrealized gains as normal, and not as a negative or a positive tax expenditure. The reduced tax rates on dividends and capital gains that currently offset some of the double taxation of corporate income are not considered tax expenditures by the Treasury and have not been since 2005. The normal baseline counts the lower than maximum corporate tax rates and accelerated depreciation and the tax exemption of cash welfare payments and the deferral of foreign-source income as a tax expenditure while the reference baseline does not. The personal exemption and the standard deduction are considered normal. The exclusion of income from owner-occupied housing is not considered a tax expenditure. The exclusion of health care premiums on employer-provided health insurance is considered a tax expenditure. The arbitrary nature of these rules is obvious. The differences are greater versus a neutral or consumption-based tax. Pension arrangements and IRAs are considered tax expenditures under the income tax, but would be normal tax treatment under a neutral tax system. The extra tax on ordinary saving under the income tax today would be regarded as a negative tax expenditure, or punitive tax. Investment would be expensed. Even accelerated depreciation would be a negative tax expenditure. Treasury reports other differences under these concepts. It also reports in this section in the budget that there are many measurement issues, timing issues, behavior issues involved, and the numbers cannot simply be added because we are feeling one set of provisions would affect the revenue estimates on others. They give a lot of warnings in that chapter. It is a good one to read. In conclusion, let me say that tax expenditures are generally fairly broadly available and accessible at the initiative of the taxpayer, much like entitlements on the spending side of the budget. They are not typically the ``rifle shot'' special interest benefits that would be comparable to earmarks on the spending side of the budget that have been inserted by Members of Congress. I do not support rifle-shot provisions, but generally tax expenditures are not rifle-shot provisions. Tax expenditures are often deliberate and well-crafted offsets to the relatively heavy tax burden imposed by the income tax on income from capital. They are partial steps toward a consumption base. There is nothing wrong with moving in that direction. In fact, the income base is so detrimental to capital formation, productivity, and wages that many economists regard the neutral tax base alternatives as clearly superior. Some tax expenditures are bad tax policy. Some are intended as social policy. Listing all tax expenditures by beneficiary, even if it were possible to do so, would offer no guidance as to which ones ought to be repealed. Tax expenditure provisions are part of the Tax Code. Using them is not tax evasion. The provisions are not part of the tax gap from non-compliance. A tax expenditure database akin to the earmark and grant database is not a sound concept, nor a workable idea. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Thank you. Mr. Furman. TESTIMONY OF JASON FURMAN,\1\ NON-RESIDENT SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, AND VISITING SCHOLAR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY WAGNER GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE Mr. Furman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to address you today, and thank you very much for your legislation adding transparency to Federal spending. I would like to see the Subcommittee consider taking the next step and moving that transparency to tax expenditures. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Furman appears in the Appendix on page 156. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the GAO recently warned, although tax expenditures are substantial in size, little progress has been made in the Executive Branch to increase the transparency and accountability for tax expenditures. In particular, I would suggest that the Subcommittee consider three recommendations: First, requiring government agencies to provide more detail about tax expenditures, including their magnitude and distribution across States, incomes, industries, and budgetary functions. Second, subjecting tax expenditures to the same performance and evaluation processes as spending proposals, including procedural reviews that apply to outlay programs. And, third, extending the searchable Internet database established by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to cover more tax expenditures, going beyond the Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation's current practice of listing major entities that directly benefit from targeted tax expenditures. I will provide more motivation and detail for these recommendations, and then my written statement provides even more. As you well know, the government allocates hundreds of billions of dollars annually through tax expenditures. If the government wants to allocate resources towards, for example, the production of $1 billion worth of tanks, it could appropriate the money and pay a weapons supplier $1 billion in exchange for the tanks, or it could enact a $1 billion weapons supplier tax credit. Although our government accounting system treats the spending provisions differently from a targeted tax cut, they are essentially the same. The same could be said if we converted the child tax credit into an entitlement program that gave $1,000 per child or, conversely, converted Social Security into a refundable tax credit, the government accounting system would record substantial changes. In terms of the reality of our society and our fiscal system, there would be no difference at all. In recognition of this parallelism, the United States has adopted a statutory definition of ``tax expenditures'' which is widely accepted among economists and other policy analysts. In the last budget, the Treasury listed a total of $911 billion, nearly as much as what we spend on discretionary spending or mandatory entitlements. If the government approves a $1 billion spending project, it must either raise taxes or cut other spending to pay for the project. The financing choices for--or borrow money, which postpones but does not alter those choices. The financing choices for a tax expenditure are exactly the same: The government will have to raise taxes on everyone who is not specially favored by the tax expenditure or cut other spending. It is identical in terms of its fiscal impact. Tax expenditures also raise additional concerns for fiscal policy. They create the perception or reality of unfairness, add complexity to the Code, encourage inefficient policies, reduce fiscal flexibility, and, importantly, they disguise the true size of government. The proper measure of the size of government is the degree to which it allocates and redistributes resources. Tax expenditures allocate and redistribute substantial amounts of resources, yet they are accounted for as reductions in government revenues rather than increases in government outlays. As a result, although tax expenditures increase the government's intervention in the market economy, in some cases warranted and in some cases unwarranted, the most common measure of the size of government records them as a reduction in the size of government. For these reasons, tax expenditures should receive the same scrutiny as government outlays. Under current law, they receive substantially less scrutiny than spending. Tax expenditures are not incorporated into the main budgetary tables prepared by OMB and CBO. They are not subject to annual reviews, periodic reauthorizations, or other tools of budgetary evaluations. But as you are thinking about increasing transparency and accountability for tax expenditures, you should be mindful of concerns about privacy and other issues not faced in constructing a database for government outlays. Americans are compelled to file tax forms. They are not compelled to apply for government grants. Thus, there is an asymmetry between disclosing information about tax expenditures and information about grants. But this asymmetry should not be exaggerated. Spending also faces important privacy concerns that were successfully addressed in the Federal Funding Accountability and Transportation Act of 2006 by exempting individual recipients of Federal assistance and government employees. A similar approach could be applied to taxes. For example, entity-level reporting could be limited to business tax expenditures. This reporting could be further limited to provisions that target benefits to narrowly defined classes of entities or only entities that exceed a specific dollar amount from the tax expenditure, like $100,000, or, say, the top 25 entities benefiting from a specific provision. It should be stressed, though, that disclosing individual tax expenditures like medical deductions or mortgage interest deductions would be a gross violation of privacy and contrary to the public interest. In conclusion, as you move forward in your work to think about taxes, I think the most important principle to be guided by is parallelism to the greatest degree possible. When you tighten up the rules on spending, it creates the incentive to shift things over from the spending side of the ledger to the tax side of the ledger. That could undo a little bit of the good work that you have done, and so plugging that second set of holes I think will form an important complement to the steps Congress has already taken. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Thank you. I assure you we are going to tighten both. Mr. Boortz. TESTIMONY OF NEAL BOORTZ,\1\ CO-AUTHOR, ``THE FAIRTAX BOOK`` Mr. Boortz. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Vice Chairman, I am not adept at the language of Washington. I am a reformed lawyer and a radio talk-show host. But sitting here listening to much of this testimony, I can tell you that you can work until the cows come home, and you are never going to make the American people understand even the concept of a tax expenditure. If your goal here is to make our Tax Code more transparent and to simplify it, there are, I think, some certain ways that you can go. The Tax Code today is anything but transparent. I will give you a few ideas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Boortz appears in the Appendix on page 162. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tax Day, if you were to ask almost any co-worker or almost any friend, ``How much did you have to pay in taxes this year?'' the response you are going to get is: ``I did not have to pay anything. I am getting some back.'' Likewise, if you ask a co-worker, ``How much do you make?'' the most common response you are going to get is, ``None of your business.'' But those who do choose to answer are going to say, ``Well, I take home . . . '' and they will plug in a figure. People do not know what they pay in taxes. They do not even know what they earn, thanks to the magic of withholding. Now, if you are an obnoxious radio talk-show host, such as myself, you can just say, ``Look, pal, I did not ask you how much you took home. I asked you how much you made.'' But the message is clear here. Due to the intricacies of our current Tax Code and the withholding system, most wage earners do not have any idea where they stand in this arena. If the path to true tax transparency is the real goal here, then the solution already exists in the form of S. 25, H.R. 25. It is called the FairTax Act. Saxby Chambliss introduced it into the Senate, John Linder into the House of Representatives. It has been in the Congress for 6 years now. Under the FairTax, personal and corporate income taxes would be eliminated. Capital gains taxes, estate taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, taxes on dividends, they are gone. And in the place of all of these taxes, we have one embedded national sales tax at the rate of 23 percent, which is revenue neutral for businesses, for the taxpayers, and for the government. We do not have to talk about credit card net receipts reporting. We do not have to talk about withholding on independent contractors. Those concepts become just completely unnecessary. Now, let's be clear here that this does not mean that the cost of goods and services in the marketplace go up by 23 percent. We already have--and extensive research has shown this--an embedded tax on virtually everything that we buy in the marketplace in the form of goods and services of about 22 percent, some items higher, some items lower. The embedded taxes through the competitive aspects of the marketplace, they disappear. They are replaced by the national retail sales tax. Now, if it is tax transparency we want, consider this: Under this FairTax proposal, you go buy a $100 toaster, the receipt you receive at the store says ``Toaster, $77. FairTax, $23.'' Now, that is tax transparency. The person walks out of the store knowing exactly what they have paid. No longer would American workers lack that understanding of the effect on the Tax Code on them. Now, when we talk about the FairTax, people say, oh, my goodness, this would be just onerous on the poor. To mention that the FairTax bill, however, has a system of rebates where no household in this country ever has to pay this national retail sales tax on the basic necessities of life, as measured right up to the Tax Code. Now, there is a lot more in my prepared statement, but I want to mention this: The FairTax drives voters to the polls. In three counties in Georgia during the recent primary, the FairTax was on the ballot versus the flat tax. Which way would you like to reform our tax system? The national retail sales tax took 85 percent of the vote in every one of those instances. I received letters and comments from people that said, ``I would not even have voted in that primary if it had not been for the fact the FairTax was on the ballot.'' One man wrote me to tell me that his wife had just had four wisdom teeth removed that morning. She was not feeling very good. She was on the painkillers. But she heard me on the radio say, ``The FairTax is on the ballot in your county.'' She told her husband, ``We are not going home. We are going by the precinct. We are going to vote on this issue before I go home.'' I think there are a lot of people in Congress, Senate and House both, that would love to see an issue that would drive people to the polls like that, and the FairTax will do it. So one more thing, very quickly, because I am 6 seconds over my time. Since I co-wrote ``The FairTax Book'' with John Linder, which debuted No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list--and I think that is worth noting. A book on taxes debuting No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list? I have noticed that there is a lot of burgeoning opposition to the FairTax idea, and in my customary fairness, I will say that people have a very difficult time raising objections to it unless they first rewrite it, as the President's Tax Reform Commission did, or they just flat out lie about it. So I would just ask in your deliberations that the Members of this Subcommittee give a quick look to S. 35 and perhaps some close attention to the letters I am sure you are getting from your constituents on this issue. Thank you very much. Senator Coburn. Thank you, Mr. Boortz. I want to spend just a minute talking about this idea of tax expenditure. How did we ever get to where we used that nomenclature? The assumption to use the idea of a tax expenditure assumes that all wealth should belong to the government and that if we incentivize certain behaviors through tax credits or rifle shots, as Mr. Entin said, we are giving something back. What is the history of that nomenclature, Mr. Entin? Mr. Entin. I think it began with Stanley Surrey, who was a professor of law at Harvard. He became Assistant Secretary of the Treasury-Tax Policy during the Kennedy Administration, and he wanted to create a method that would reveal the sort of spending nature of some tax provisions. Treasury worked on that issue through the Johnson Administration, and by the end of that, they reported out their findings. And I believe that is when the term ``tax expenditures'' came to be. Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr presented the results at a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee a few days before President Nixon's inauguration. That is the hearing which is best remembered for Mr. Barr's disclosure that 21 people earned more than $1 million in 1967 without paying any Federal income tax due to tax preferences. This is what ultimately resulted, I think, in the alternative minimum tax, which is a whole different issue. But I think that is the origin of the term. Senator Coburn. I take it from the testimony we have heard from all of you, even you, Mr. Furman, that we really need to be clear about our language, and simplification--and I am really going toward simplification. Your whole goal for having transparency on ``tax expenditures'' is so we can have the transparency required to get the changes we need to eliminate those that are egregious. Mr. Furman. That is right. Mr. Furman. Certainly one should not get too hung up on the semantics. I prefer the term ``tax expenditure'' as it is the statutory term. Also, among economists, tax lawyers, and among a number of others, there are important conceptual parallels between them. But you do not have to accept that term or that concept to accept the idea that we should be more transparent about this. Ones that work well we should do more of or the same, and ones that do not work well we should get rid of or modify. Senator Coburn. OK. Do we have a lot--and, again, the focus of our hearing really is not this, but do we have a lot of rifle-shot tax expenditures? Mr. Furman. We have a number of them. In my testimony, I listed, for example, the Jobs Act of 2005 included a provision that ``extended placed in service date for bonus depreciation for certain aircraft . . . '' If that was not enough, it limited it to ``excluding aircraft used in the transportation industry,'' and only for things ``properly placed in service after September 10, 2001.'' Senator Coburn. So that obviously was for one company's benefit that made one airplane? Mr. Furman. Correct. That is reportedly the case. You could not look in the tax law and know what company it was that received it, and that was an estimated $247 million. You could not look in the tax law and see that, and you could not look at any Federal database and find out the identity of that company. Senator Coburn. So if we had the Fair Act, we would not have any of that. Mr. Furman. That raises a number of other tax policy issues. It does not require changing the tax base. An income tax base, a consumption tax base, a retail tax base--all of those can be simple or complicated. Those are two different dimensions, the choices of base versus the degree of complication. Senator Coburn. But the whole idea is to simplify it and make it transparent. That is like our previous panel. They all wanted to simplify it, make it more transparent. Mr. Furman. I agree with that, and I would even go one step further and say, in general, the government should be less involved in the economy at the level of tax expenditures in terms of picking and choosing winners and losers and desirable activities and undesirable activities. I think that is a measure of the growth of government, and it grows in a way that is invisible to people who focus just on the total amount of spending. Senator Coburn. That is a very good point. Any other comments? Mr. Entin. Mr. Entin. Many of the rifle-shot provisions, such as that one, expired. In looking at the area in which it occurred, it had something to do with expensing. Under a consumed income or sales tax, you would have expensing of capital assets rather than depreciation. You need to decide on what your appropriate tax base is before you can decide whether you want to get rid of the rifle shot giving the expensing to one airplane company or expand it to all investment for all companies and all small businesses. As an economist, I prefer having the expensing and go to the sales or--excuse me, not the sales, the saving consumption neutral base rather than the income base. The broader question of what do you do all across the spectrum with something like that is one that needs to be addressed in the fundamental issue of tax reform. Until then, I would agree, we should stop the rifle-shot approach, and supposedly the Committee Chairmen are not doing that anymore since 1986. But, clearly, occasionally one of these things still slips through. Senator Coburn. It is interesting that we penalize savings but incentivize borrowing by our Tax Code, because we charge income tax on interest earned, but we give you a deduction for interest paid. Mr. Entin. I have no quarrel with giving a deduction for interest paid when the recipient has to pay tax on it. More fundamentally, the income tax says to you, if you save your money, we do not count the cost of foregone consumption as a cost to you. We sort of say we are going to tax the money before you save it, and we are going to tax the returns. But if you spend it, we have taxed it before you spent it, but we then do not tax again what you spent it on. Now, when I eat the sandwich or watch the television, that is what I bought with my money. When I put my money into the bond, I bought the interest. I bought the future income stream. I bought the dividends. I am taxed on those again, but I am not taxed again on the sandwich or the television, except where you have a few selective excise taxes. That is the problem with the income tax. It hits income used for saving more heavily than income used for consumption--on top of which you put on the corporate tax, which we then overstate by not having expensing instead of these depreciation allowances that do not reflect the full value of the outlay. And then, of course, there is the death tax on top of that. That whole structure needs to be reformed in one of the neutral manners. The FairTax is one. The flat tax is another. The consumed income tax, the old Nunn-Domenici tax, the VAT-- all of these are neutral taxes. Until you know which tax base you want, many of these provisions cannot be identified as a tax expenditure or not a tax expenditure. Senator Coburn. OK. Thank you. Mr. Boortz. Mr. Boortz. I was just thinking, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comment, very closely to the adage you get more of the behavior you punish, you get less of the behavior you reward. And our current tax system punishes the very behavior we seek more of out of the American people, rewards the behavior of free spending that perhaps we do not want in some instances. And I would just say--and I hope that this is taken in the spirit, Mr. Entin, in which I say it, but if I could play for my listeners that excerpt we just heard about sandwiches and televisions and let them hear how taxing their labor is discussed in Washington, I would certainly win a lot more converts to my side of this argument. Senator Coburn. Mr. Furman. Mr. Furman. If I could just add one thing, and it is repeating what I said before, which is that people who think about tax reform think about two separate issues. You could have a consumption tax, exactly the type that Mr. Entin might like, and then Congress could monkey around with it and add rifle shots and it could then add really large tax expenditures along the form of tax entitlements. Similarly, you could have an income tax and keep it really pristine and really pure. So these are really two very different issues, what you want in terms of your tax base and your tax system--it is a very important issue--what you want in terms of simplicity and complexity. And for the most part you can move sort of in either direction within either set of bases. Senator Coburn. All right. Thank you. Senator Carper. Senator Carper. The last time I recall the Congress and the President attacking with some success tax simplification may have been legislation that was adopted in 1986 when Ronald Reagan was our President and I believe Dan Rostenkowski chaired the House Ways and Means Committee. I am not sure who chaired the Senate Finance Committee. It might have been Bob Dole. It may have been Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In any event, it was a divided government. But they were able to come to agreement on what I think will be a pretty tough issue to find consensus on. Thinking back, some of you might actually be old enough to remember that, and just recall with us, if you will, the elements that enabled us to make what I think most of us would say was a little progress toward tax simplification. Think back to the elements that were in place to enable us to make a little progress. If you do not agree we have made any, then that is another issue. But how might we go about replicating that progress in the next couple of years? Mr. Boortz. Senator, if I might say, that 1986 simplification of our Tax Code has been modified to date nearly 10,000 times by the Congress of the United States. That hardly fits my definition of ``tax simplification.'' You talk about rifle shots. We even have a specific tax exemption in there for one manufacturer of ceiling fans. Senator Carper. No, excuse me. I want you to answer my question, if you will. My question was--somehow in 1986, in a divided government, I think we took at least some measured steps toward tax simplification. It has been, I think arguably, undone to a great extent---- Mr. Boortz. Absolutely. Senator Carper [continuing]. Over the last 20 years. But what existed then in 1986, and how might we replicate that, even if we do not go to the extent of some of the reforms that you all are talking about? Mr. Furman. All right. Thank you. First of all, I would not exaggerate the degree to which it has been undone. The top marginal rate was 50 percent prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The top marginal rate is well below that right now, and we are raising the same or more revenues as a share of GDP, in addition to the fact that we have added the child tax credit and a number of provisions that are very broadly supported. So I think our tax system is in greater shape today than it was in 1985, thanks to the effort of this body. That being said, it is not in great shape, and this body really needs to return to it, and I think on a bipartisan basis is the only way, both as a practical matter and as a substantive matter that you can get it done. Basically, any tax reform creates winners and it creates losers if it is revenue neutral, and the losers in our political system tend to be angrier than the winners. Senator Carper. I noticed. [Laughter.] Mr. Furman. There are two ways to deal with that. One is to pretend there are no losers, and some have taken that approach. They have taken a free-lunch approach, and they pretend they have a magical elixir that will cut everyone's taxes, make everyone richer, and have no trade-offs whatsoever. Every serious analyst who has ever looked at one of those free-lunch proposals has said that is not the case. It will substantially raise taxes on some people and cut them on others. That is not an argument against it. That is not an argument for it. That is a fact we need to face in reality in evaluating proposals and a political fact. That is why the two parties working together is the best recipe, because then you may not demonize the other party for some of the losers they create and they will not demonize your party for some of the losers you create, and you all hold hands and jump together, and that is what I would like to see happen. Senator Carper. Mr. Entin. Mr. Entin. I was at Treasury during that period. Senator Carper. What were you doing there? Mr. Entin. I was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy. Senator Carper. OK. Mr. Entin. My Assistant Secretary was discussing with the Secretary how the Treasury proposals ought to go, but, of course, the tax people did not want the economic people butting in. So let me say that the 1986 proposals that came over from the Treasury were not conducive to capital formation. They came from a career staff that was raised on the income tax and Stanley Surrey's definition of ``tax expenditures.'' The hybrid tax system, which is partway between income and consumption bases now, and was to some extent then, had been pulled a little further toward the consumption base by the 1981 tax changes, which were gradually eroded in 1982 and 1984, and the career people were bound and determined that they be further eroded in 1986. We raised taxes on capital substantially to lower the individual tax rates. The stock market crashed the next year, and it paved the way for the 1990 recession after two payroll tax hikes followed. We curtailed access to IRAs. We lengthened asset lives, and had initially asked that they be indexed for inflation, the depreciation write-offs. But the Senate Finance Committee decided not to do that because it wanted a few dollars to have some rifle-shot things for some friends. So it raised the cost of buying plant and equipment instead of lowering it and turned the bill into an anti-growth bill instead of a pro-growth bill. I would not call it reform. I would call it an anti-reform. On the international side, it took something that was miserably complicated and made it hideously complicated. The tax attorneys were delighted. Now, why did it happen? There was a deficit. People were nervous about it, even though interest rates were coming down, even though it turned out to be disinflationary rather than inflationary. There was a prevailing view of how the economy worked and the tax system worked that was out of line with reality. There was a frenzy. The President proposed an improvement. The old guard took over to undo reforms that had recently been made, and that was true on the Hill as well as at the Treasury. I think we need a much broader understanding of what is and is not good tax policy before we have any more of that sort of thing going on. I think we have had a broader understanding. In the years since 1986, we have had one very good Presidential panel, which was constrained in what it could offer by a number of items in its directive from the White House and could have, as Dr. Coburn has explained, gone further had they not been constrained. But they did resurrect the notion of the consumed income tax or the neutral tax systems that were the non-income base rather than the income base. They resurrected the blueprints for basic tax reform that the Treasury wrote in 1976 under David Bradford. They made it intellectually acceptable again, and they opened up the entire debate. They have warned us: You have to know where you are going before you start down the reform road. And I think that was a very important contribution of that panel, although, again, I do wish they had gone further. We have a deficit today, but it is coming down. We have learned now for the second time that major deficits can occur in a situation of low interest rates and low inflation. We are not as panicked as we were back then, but we do have more reason now to proceed with a tax reform. We can look around the world at successful tax reform experiences. You have the flat income taxes that were adopted in parts of Europe. You have the dramatic lowering of corporate tax rates in the EU because they realized that it was detrimental to growth, and the substitution of a neutral tax, they chose the VAT. That is not my favorite. But they have been moving their tax codes in a direction that is less harmful to capital formation, partly because they are competing among themselves for locating capital in their countries. Ireland put the cat among the pigeons, God bless them. We need to learn from that, and we also can learn that if you do that sort of thing, it is doable and it can improve the welfare of the general public. We will need to trim some spending to make it work well, as has been pointed out. I do not want to call it a free lunch, but there are a lot of distortions and anti-growth elements in the current system that would yield some revenue reflow. You do not have to cut spending by a dollar for each dollar you cut taxes if you cut taxes correctly. Treasury is now exploring that trade-off as a matter of fact. They should have done it years ago. The Joint Tax Committee is doing it, but in a manner I do not think is going to work well. So this whole area of research needs to be supported and pushed. Senator Carper. All right. Any closing words, gentlemen? Mr. Furman. I do not want to refight something that I was not present for, but the broad agreement among economists is that 1986 is a real model of broadening the base and lowering the rates. Just to appreciate the magnitude, the top rate was 50 percent. It brought it down to 28 percent. I think Mr. Entin has his views, and I am sure all of us, if we went back, would have things that we would want to change, but that type of model, to work together, broaden the tax base and bring rates down, is on that I think is the most promising way to move forward for tax reform. Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Boortz, please? And I have about 1 minute to finish, so I would ask you to wrap up. Mr. Boortz. One thing very quick. Yes, the 50-percent tax rate down to--what was it?--28 percent, I believe, also at the same time eliminating many of the deductions that would make that 50-percent tax rate much lower in actual basis. Mr. Furman. We are talking about marginal rates, what economists believe affect the economy. Senator Carper. Yes. Good enough. Mr. Chairman, it has been a good hearing. Senator Coburn. Thank you all. Senator Carper. Thank you. Senator Coburn. Thank you each for your testimony and your time. We appreciate it. Mr. Furman and Mr. Entin, I look forward to working with you again in the future. Thank you. Mr. Boortz, thank you. Mr. Boortz. Thank you, sir. Senator Coburn. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN The most recent IRS estimate of the Nation's ``tax gap''--the difference between the amount of taxes owed by taxpayers and the amount collected--is a staggering $346 billion. I commend Chairman Coburn and Ranking Member Carper for their ongoing effort to get to the bottom of the many reasons for this massive tax gap. It is a subject that merits urgent attention from Congress, not only because it shortchanges the U.S. Treasury, but because it forces honest American taxpayers to pick up the tab. Those who abuse the tax system shortchange the men and women who serve in our military, the children who attend our schools, and the millions who rely on Social Security. Tax cheats make it harder to maintain our highways, protect our borders, advance medial research, and inspect our food. They also deepen the deficit ditch that threatens the economic well-being of our children and grandchildren. Even in Washington, $350 billion is a huge amount of money. It is larger than the budgets last year of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined. The tax gap is so huge that it would force each individual U.S. taxpayer to pay more than $2,500 in extra taxes annually to make up for those who are dodging Uncle Sam. Over the past 4 years, Senator Coleman and I, as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, have conducted extensive investigations that provide insight into two major ways that some Americans are exploiting the system to dodge taxes-- offshore tax haven schemes and abusive tax shelters. Last month, we released a bipartisan report that blows the lid off of offshore tax haven abuses using shell corporations, phony trust, and fake economic transactions to help some people dodge millions of dollars in U.S. taxes. Before that, we released a bipartisan report with case histories showing how accountants, lawyers, bankers, and other tax professionals develop dubious tax shelters and hawk them to Americans across the country. Briefly, here's what we have found. Offshore Tax Haven Abuses Experts Joe Guttentag and Reuven Avi-Yonah estimate that offshore tax haven abuses by individuals cost the U.S. Treasury between $40 billion and $70 billion every year in taxes that are owed but not collected. On top of that, the IRS has estimated that corporate offshore tax evasion in 2001 totaled about $30 billion. Put together, that means up to $100 billion per year in being lost to offshore tax abuses. Offshore tax haven countries have, in effect, declared economic war on honest U.S. taxpayers by giving tax dodgers a way to avoid their tax bills and leave them for others to pay. Offshore tax havens attract these tax dodgers not only by charging them low or no taxes, but also by shrouding their financial transactions in a ``black box'' of secrecy that is extremely difficult to penetrate. They sell secrecy to attract customers. This legal black box allows tax dodgers to hide assets, mask who controls them, and obscure how their assets are used. An army of ``offshore service providers''--lawyers, bankers, brokers, and others-- then joins forces to exploit the black box secrecy and help clients skirt U.S. tax, securities, and anti-money laundering laws. Many of the firms concocting or facilitating these schemes are respected names here in the United States. These schemes require the secrecy of tax havens because they can't stand the light of day. Our investigation laid out six case studies that illustrated the scope and seriousness of the problem. In one case, two U.S. citizens moved about $190 million in untaxed stock option compensation offshore to a complex array of 58 offshore trusts and corporations, and utilized a wide range of offshore mechanisms to exercise direction over these assets and hundreds of millions of dollars in investment gains. These untaxed earnings were then used to provide loans, finance business ventures, acquire real estate, and buy art, furnishings and jewelry for the personal use of the family members. Much of this elaborate scheme involved an offshore bank and administrative services firm for offshore entities, both housed in this building in the Cayman Islands, the Ugland House. Believe it or not, this pretty waterfront building is the official address of 12,748 companies. Just having a post office box here enables these shell companies to shift profits that otherwise should be reported as taxable income in the country where it's actually earned. In another case study, two offshore shell corporations engaged in fake stock transactions, seeming to trade stock back and forth as if it were fantasy baseball to create the illusion of economic activity. The shell corporations pretended to run up hundreds of millions of dollars in fake stock losses and then used these phantom losses to offset about $20 billion in real capital gains, the result was $200 million in lost tax revenue to the Treasury. This offshore scheme, shown in this chart, would be comical because of its complexity but for sobering fact that these tax haven abuses are eating away at the fabric of the U.S. tax system, and undermining U.S. laws intended to safeguard our capital markets and financial systems from financial crime. Congress could act to shut down these offshore abuses. One step we could take would be to change how the government views transactions in secrecy tax havens. We should shift the burden of proof so that those who move assets offshore or engage in offshore transactions have to prove that income claimed there is not taxable; i.e. that there are real economic transactions, involving real gain or loss, or at least economic activity. Another simple step would be to require third-party reporting by U.S. financial institutions on a Form 1099 for accounts opened by foreign trusts or corporations where the money is beneficially owned by a U.S. taxpayer. Congress also needs to dig further into transfer pricing activities. Transfer pricing is an accounting method supposedly requiring that related multinational entities engage in transactions at arm's length to ensure the proper reporting of taxable income. ``Supposedly'' is the operative word. IRS Commissioner Everson has said that transfer pricing manipulations are one of the most significant challenges that the Service faces, and I don't doubt that one bit. Earlier this month the IRS settled a transfer pricing dispute with drug giant Glaxo Smith Kline for $3.4 billion. The size of this settlement with just one company indicates that it's worth looking to see if there are ways to improve the relevant portions of the tax code. Treasury has proposed regulations in this area, and I urge the Administration to finalize those rules in as strong a form as possible. I also hope that these and other international tax dodging issues are some of the first we take up in the next Congress. Abusive Tax Shelters In addition to offshore shenanigans, there are plenty of homegrown tax shelters being used to dodge taxes. In 2003 and 2004, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations conducted an in-depth investigation into the widespread involvement of accounting firms, banks, investment advisors, and lawyers in the development, marketing and implementation of abusive tax shelters. We held hearings and reports laying out how these tax shelters are developed and sold to Americans across the country. Again, Congress can crack down on these abusive tax shelters and offshore schemes if it has the will to do so. One big step would be enactment of S. 1565, the Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act, which Senator Coleman and I introduced last year. This bipartisan bill would, for the first time, impose real penalties for those who promote abusive tax shelters or knowingly aid and abet taxpayers to understate their tax liability. It would enable the IRS to work with the SEC and bank regulators to clamp down on bankers, securities firms, and lawyers involved with tax haven and tax shelter scams. It would also authorize the Treasury Secretary to issue a list of tax havens that don't cooperate with U.S. tax enforcement and eliminate U.S. tax benefits for income in those jurisdictions. The ability to tax profits that are in fact attributable to U.S. taxpayers but have been camouflaged using these uncooperative tax havens would hand our government a mighty club to combat tax haven abuses. Adequate IRS Enforcement Another key step to reducing the tax gap would be to give the IRS the funds it needs to go after tax dodgers. For every dollar invested in the IRS's budget, the service yields more than $4 in enforcement revenue. Beyond the additional revenues collected, increased IRS enforcement deters those who might otherwise have dodged their tax obligations and reassures honest taxpayers that compliance with the law is not a chump's game. I hope that Congress will follow the Senate Appropriations Committee's lead and enact the President's full request for the IRS's 2007 budget. I also encourage Treasury and the President to consider asking for more IRS enforcement dollars in the 2008 budget request. I can't think of many better investments to recover revenues wrongfully lost to the U.S. Treasury and to build respect for the law and respect for the honest Americans who play by the rules and meet their tax obligations. Again, I commend Chairman Coburn and Ranking Member Carper for their efforts on this important topic. I look forward to the testimony today. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] <all>