## Understanding Revenue Administration — RA-FIT Round 2 (Excerpt)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Understanding Revenue Administration — RA-FIT Round 2 (Excerpt)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/dp/2017/fad-understanding-revenue-admin.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/dp/2017/fad-understanding-revenue-admin.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/dp/2017/fad-understanding-revenue-admin.pdf.json)

---

### Executive Summary / Survey overview
- Participants: 89 participants.
- Average completion rate across the survey: 81 percent.
- Geographic composition: mainly from Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific region; bias toward the Southern Hemisphere.
- Scope and purpose:
  - Presents results of the second round of the Revenue Administration Fiscal Information Tool (RA-FIT) country survey aggregated for all respondents and by income group.
  - Focuses on tax administration data covering 2011, 2012, and 2013.

### Institutional arrangements and governance
- Semi-autonomous status:
  - Round 1: about 40 percent indicated semi-autonomous status.
  - Round 2: 45 percent report having a semi-autonomous status.
  - For tax-administration-only organizations the likelihood of a semi-autonomous structure is 24 percent; for integrated tax and customs organizations it is 74 percent.
- Management boards:
  - 45 percent of respondents (34) self-identified as semi-autonomous in 2013; 62 percent of those (23) had a management board.
  - 28 percent of all respondents operate with a management board.
  - Average number of board members: eight; about half are from the private sector.
- Autonomy and transparency:
  - RA-FIT autonomy Yes rate (2013): 64 percent overall; Round 1 (2010) Yes rate: 53 percent.
  - Semi-autonomous administrations: 87 percent Yes rate on autonomy questions; administrations within a ministry of finance: 47 percent.
  - RA-FIT transparency Yes rates: semi-autonomous 86 percent versus ministry-structure 52 percent.
- Outsourcing (2010 vs. 2013; selected services):
  - Collection and payment processing to banks: 42% / 48%
  - Debt collection: 8% / 15%
  - IT services: 40% / 43%
  - Taxpayer audit outsourced: 2% / 8%
- Cautionary notes:
  - Sample uneven by income group and region; HIC sample relatively small.
  - Many responses not fully evidence based; data quality issues identified.

### Staffing and office networks
- Dataset: about 600 variables; FTE-level staff breakdown across functions captured.
- Tax operations FTE distribution (2013, percentage means):
  - LICs (15): Client Account Management 32; Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 23; Enforced Debt Collection 19; Other 26
  - LMICs (21): Client Account Management 29; Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 36; Enforced Debt Collection 12; Other 23
  - UMICs (25): Client Account Management 31; Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 34; Enforced Debt Collection 14; Other 21
  - HICs (8): Client Account Management 24; Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 36; Enforced Debt Collection 9; Other 30
  - All Respondents (69): Client Account Management 30; Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 32; Enforced Debt Collection 14; Other 24
- Office network distribution (2013, percentages):
  - LICs (14): Headquarters 32.38; Regional Offices 21.12; Local Offices 38.20; Data Processing Centers 1.09; Service (Call) Centers 0.16; Other Offices 7.05
  - LMICs (21): Headquarters 38.90; Regional Offices 41.21; Local Offices 15.14; Data Processing Centers 0.35; Service (Call) Centers 2.70; Other Offices 1.70
  - UMICs (25): Headquarters 33.87; Regional Offices 25.69; Local Offices 31.65; Data Processing Centers 4.75; Service (Call) Centers 1.44; Other Offices 2.60
  - HICs (8): Headquarters 28.14; Regional Offices 27.23; Local Offices 25.47; Data Processing Centers 2.37; Service (Call) Centers 0.99; Other Offices 15.81
  - All Respondents (68): Headquarters 34�44; Regional Offices 29�72; Local Offices 27�17; Data Processing Centers 2�36; Service (Call) Centers 1�51; Other Offices 4�79
- Staff-ratio measures captured for 2013: population:total staff, active labor force:tax staff, and PIT taxpayers:tax staff.

### Taxpayer segmentation and registration
- Large taxpayer offices (LTOs):
  - Over 84 percent of respondents have an LTO or unit (2013).
  - LTO metrics (means, 2013):
    - All Respondents (56/59/62/46): Percentage of Total Active CIT Taxpayers Managed by LTO 12�75%; Percentage of Total Tax Operations FTEs in the LTO 10�32%; Ratio of LTO CIT Payers to LTO FTEs 18:1; Percentage of Total Domestic Revenue Managed by the LTO 58�16%
    - Ratio of CIT taxpayers to LTO staff FTEs increased from 13:1 in 2010 to 18:1 in 2013.
    - Revenue attributable to LTOs: Round 1 about 48 percent of domestic tax revenue; Round 2 (2013) over 58 percent.
  - LTO criteria used (2013, total respondents with an LTO = 70):
    - Turnover: 65; Industry or Sector: 37; Taxes Paid: 22; Group/Subsidiary/Associated Entities: 10; Assets: 8; Number of Employees: 5
- Simplified regimes for small taxpayers:
  - Round 1: slightly more than half had a small taxpayer regime; Round 2 (2013): over two-thirds (54 of 81).
  - Types used: flat-rate turnover, Forfait (agreed) regimes, simplified participation; indicator-based regimes more common in higher-income groups.
- VAT presence and thresholds:
  - Over 90 percent have a VAT in 2013.
  - Average general VAT threshold (US dollars, All Respondents): $50,477 (2011); $51,735 (2012); $55,428 (2013).
  - Voluntary VAT registration possible with more than 84 percent of respondents who provided data for 2013.
- Tax register quality:
  - Many administrations had difficulty providing high-quality responses on active vs. inactive registered taxpayers.
  - 16 countries provided identical figures for “Total” and “Active” across all three years for income tax and VAT.

### Return filing and filing rates
- Filing completeness caveat: inaccurate register data on active taxpayers can inflate expected returns and depress on-time filing rates.
- VAT filing:
  - VAT on-time filing: Round 1 69 percent; Round 2 (2013) slightly more than 68 percent on average.
  - VAT filing six months after due date averaged about 80 percent in 2013.
  - VAT return composition (2013, All Respondents): Debit returns about 51.02%; Credit returns about 33.55%; Nil returns about 17.93%.
- Corporate Income Tax (CIT):
  - About 57 percent on-time for all income groups in 2013, up from 49 percent in 2010.
  - All Respondents CIT filing rates (On-Time / Six Months after Due Date):
    - 2011: 51�10% / 65�38%
    - 2012: 54�21% / 68�84%
    - 2013: 56�88% / 68�53%
- Personal Income Tax (PIT):
  - PIT on-time filing (All Respondents):
    - 2011: 44�47% (On-Time) / 58�68% (Six Months after Due Date)
    - 2012: 51�07% / 66�19%
    - 2013: 50�08% / 59�72%
  - PIT six-month-after average improvement in 2013: about 10 percent higher than on-time.
- Employer withholding (PAYE) filing (All Respondents):
  - 2011–2013 (On-Time / Six Months after Due Date): 56�94% / 68�14% | 57�14% / 69�23% | 56�98% / 69�50%
- Universal filing requirement for PIT: 66 percent in 2013 (majority of administrations indicated they had a universal filing requirement).

### Taxpayer service — channels and usage (2013)
- Channel average shares across respondents (2013, All Respondents = 54):
  - In-person / face-to-face: 46�61%
  - Telephone – Call Center: 16�73%
  - Written Communication (letters): 15�13%
  - Internet/Email: 10�79%
  - Telephone – IVR: 3�70%
  - Telephone – Outside a Call Center: 7�03%
- Income-group specifics (Queries by Channel, 2013):
  - LICs (12): In Person 42.69; IVR 2.68; Call Center 5.84; Outside Call Center 9.13; Internet/Email 3.35; Written Communication 36.30
  - LMICs (16): In Person 41.74; IVR 2.11; Call Center 22.49; Outside Call Center 6.67; Internet/Email 16.13; Written Communication 10.86
  - UMICs (21): In Person 52.66; IVR 6.36; Call Center 13.67; Outside Call Center 5.17; Internet/Email 13.26; Written Communication 8.89
  - HICs (5): In Person 46.22; IVR 0.00; Call Center 37.32; Outside Call Center 11.02; Internet/Email 1.21; Written Communication 4.23
- Implication: in-person contact is a costly channel to maintain; scope for channel-shift policies to lower-cost channels where feasible.
- Data availability: only 54 respondents supplied taxpayer service data.

### Arrears, recovery, and age profile
- Respondent coverage:
  - Round 1: 17 respondents provided full arrears data.
  - Round 2: 66 respondents provided arrears data (quality and completeness issues remain).
- Arrears composition (All Respondents):
  - 2011: Tax Arrears in Dispute 12�66%; Deemed Irrecoverable 11�73%; Recoverable Arrears 75�61%
  - 2012: 14�24% / 13�44% / 72�32%
  - 2013: 14�87% / 11�97% / 73�16%
- Recoverable arrears by income group (2013): overall average recoverable arrears estimated 73 percent; range 67 percent in LICs to over 85 percent in LMICs.
- Growth in arrears:
  - Growth 2011–12 / 2012–13 (All Respondents): 37�59% / 24�63%
  - LICs saw marked growth 2011–12 then slowed 2012–13 (83.19% then 30.72%).
- Arrears as percentage of collections (All Respondents):
  - 2011: 24�94%; 2012: 24�80%; 2013: 26�38%
  - TADAT benchmark for an “A” grade: arrears as a percentage of collections below 10 percent.
  - Only LICs scored an “A” by the TADAT measure across the years (caveat: LICs may under-record arrears).
- Age of arrears (2013, limited sample):
  - Total Tax Arrears older than 12 months (All Respondents): 59�44% (2013).
  - Specific averages (All Respondents, 2013): Corporate Income Tax 62.62%; Personal Income Tax 67.44%; VAT 54.82%; Other Taxes 55.41%.

### Verification/audit and dispute resolution
- Audit intervention mix (All Respondents, 2013 — by number):
  - Comprehensive Audits 31�28%; Issue-Oriented Audits 29�32%; Desk Audits 22�73%; Other Verification Actions 16�66%
- Audit intervention mix (All Respondents, 2013 — by value):
  - Comprehensive Audits 42�89%; Issue-Oriented Audits 21�89%; Desk Audits 11�16%; Other Verification Actions 2�17%
- Income-group pattern:
  - LICs show highest relative average proportion of comprehensive audits at almost 50 percent of the intervention mix (2013) with the lowest proportion of other verification actions.
  - Yields for LICs mostly come from comprehensive audits; little yield from other verification actions across income groups.
- Disputes and litigation:
  - Response rates poor; only about one third provided disputes and litigation data.
  - Litigation age distribution (All Respondents):
    - Cases less than 1 year old (33/31/38): 42.38% / 48.49% / 38.24%
    - Cases 1 to 5 years old (33/31/38): 44.85% / 37.03% / 49.99%
    - Cases more than 5 years old (33/31/38): 12.77% / 14.48% / 11.77%
  - Implication: weak reporting on disputes and appeals suggests gaps in performance management information.

### Key findings, areas for improvement, and next steps
- Key areas highlighted by RA-FIT Round 2 for improvement:
  - Strengthen taxpayer registers and activity-status data.
  - Improve on-time filing for CIT and PIT.
  - Shift taxpayer service channels away from high-cost in-person interactions where feasible.
  - Enhance data collection and management for arrears, audits, and disputes to support better compliance monitoring.
- Data and sample limitations:
  - Geographic bias toward Southern Hemisphere and under-representation of HICs.
  - Data quality issues in multiple forms (notably Tax Arrears and Disputes).
- Institutional and programmatic next steps:
  - RA-FIT lessons incorporated into ISORA to expand coverage and improve definitions and data quality.
  - ISORA aims to provide a single, annual, web-based platform and a larger database for trend analysis and benchmarking.
  - Countries can access their data (as noted in source).

*Source: Executive Summary and chapter excerpts from RA-FIT Round 2 (Revenue Administration Fiscal Information Tool) — Understanding Revenue Administration (Round 2).*

### Executive Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

### Executive Summary

### Survey overview
- Participants: 89 participants.
- Average completion rate across the survey: 81 percent.
- Geographic composition: mainly from Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific region, with a smaller contingent from Europe and the Middle East; data show a bias toward the Southern Hemisphere.
- Purpose: presents results of the second round of the Revenue Administration Fiscal Information Tool (RA-FIT) country survey in an aggregated manner for all respondents and by income group; focuses on tax administration data.

### Institutional arrangements
- Governance structures: respondents represent a wide range of governance structure models.
- Semi-autonomous status: 45 percent report having a semi-autonomous status; tax and customs are typically managed in an integrated manner within the same administration.
- Comparative performance: semi-autonomous organizations appear to show greater autonomy and transparency across a range of measured areas than those that do not classify themselves as being semi-autonomous.
- Data quality caveat: notwithstanding regional biases and some data quality issues with the sample, broad insights and trends are discernable.

### Staff and office networks
- Staff mix and income levels: the mix of staff types varies across income groups; as income levels increase, proportionately more staff are assigned to audit and investigations functions.
- Staffing metrics and office distribution are reported across income groups (details in survey tables and figures).

### Taxpayer segmentation and registration
- Large taxpayer offices (LTO): over 84 percent of respondents have a large taxpayer office (LTO) or unit.
- Small taxpayer regimes: the majority have some sort of regime for small taxpayers.
- Segmentation criteria: the most common means of assigning taxpayers to segments is based on turnover.
- VAT coverage: over 90 percent of respondents have a value-added tax (VAT).
- Tax register quality: a large number of respondents across income groups had difficulty providing high-quality responses regarding the activity status of their registered taxpayers (active vs. inactive).

### Taxpayer return filing
- On-time filing rates vary across tax, time, and income levels.
- VAT filing: VAT tends to have the best results at about 70 percent (on-time filing).
- Major income taxes: corporate income tax (CIT) and personal income tax (PIT) on-time filing rates average 50 percent to 60 percent.
- Filing improvements: some administrations show improved filing rates at six months from the due date, but this is far from universal.
- Possible causes: lower-than-expected on-time filing rates may be tied to inaccurate register data on active taxpayers, which would inflate the number of expected returns.

### Taxpayer service
- Communication channels (average shares across respondents):
  - In-person / face-to-face: over 46 percent.
  - Telephone: 27 percent.
  - Hardcopy correspondence (letters): 16 percent.
  - Electronic correspondence (email/Internet): 11 percent.
- Cost implication: in-person contact is a costly channel to maintain relative to other channels, suggesting room for channel-shift policies.

### Arrears, verification (audit), and disputes
- Response completeness: response rates to questions on arrears, verification/audit, and disputes were among the lowest in the survey.
- Tax arrears trend: arrears increased in the years surveyed, with some slowing in the rate of increase for lower-income countries.
- Audit types: audits are still mostly comprehensive in lower-income countries (50 percent of intervention types), indicating scope for using other, less costly, intervention types.
- Disputes and appeals data: little data were provided on disputes or appeals, suggesting a gap in many administrations’ performance management information capabilities.
- Compliance monitoring implication: limited availability of these core compliance data suggests weaker compliance monitoring in many countries.

### General conclusions
- The RA-FIT Round 2 data provide aggregate insights despite regional bias and some data quality limitations.
- Key areas for improvement highlighted by the data include:
  - Strengthening taxpayer registers and activity-status data.
  - Improving on-time filing for CIT and PIT.
  - Shifting taxpayer service channels away from high-cost in-person interactions where feasible.
  - Enhancing data collection and management for arrears, audits, and disputes to support better compliance monitoring.
- The RA-FIT results form part of an evolving series that will continue to develop and grow with the International Survey On Revenue Administration (ISORA).

*Source: Executive Summary, RA-FIT Round 2 (Revenue Administration Fiscal Information Tool) — Executive Summary.*

### Executive  Summary

### Executive  Summary

### RA-FIT: Purpose and Key Objectives
- RA-FIT is a survey-based data-gathering initiative designed to collect revenue administration information, including both quantitative and qualitative information and a mixture of baseline and profile data, inputs, and performance-related data.
- Information is provided online by IMF member countries or countries supported by IMF Regional Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs).
- Key objectives of RA-FIT:
  - Elevate the importance of revenue administration performance reporting and measurement globally.
  - Gather data across a large number of tax and customs administrations to permit further analytical work, such as:
    - Understanding historical performance,
    - Establishing baselines by income group and other groupings,
    - Identifying trends,
    - Flagging policy and administrative inefficiencies,
    - Refining performance measures to improve robustness, and
    - Providing sufficient data to facilitate focused and in-depth research.
  - Assist in developing international revenue administration performance measurements and reporting standards.
  - Improve the quality of revenue administration technical assistance.
  - Provide necessary data to better calibrate other tools, such as the Tax Administration Diagnostic Assessment Tool (TADAT).
  - Make data and analyses available to member countries to enable them to monitor their performance and benchmark themselves vis-à-vis other countries.
  - Establish baseline measures (key performance indicators) for the technical assistance programs of all providers and provide a more detailed data source for a results-based management framework.

### Survey History, Rounds, and Scope
- The first round of RA-FIT was piloted in 2012; Round 1 produced an initial data analysis published in 2015 using 2010 data.
- Round 2 commenced in May 2014 on a Web-based platform and covers the period 2011, 2012, and 2013.
- Round 2 represents an iterative improvement over Round 1, with expansion of some forms and revisions to questions.
- The paper presents Round 2 data on an aggregated basis and offers preliminary analysis and observations.
- All data presented are aggregated based on survey responses or information derived from them; aggregated data are presented only where the sample size is at least five countries.

### Participation and Response Rates (Round 1 and Round 2)
- Table 1 as presented in source (response rates grouped by income group):
  - LICLMICUMICHICTotal
  - Round 1202926  681
  - Round 22128291189
- Round 2 participation:
  - Eighty-nine countries (of 112 invited) provided responses in Round 2.
  - Round 1 had 81 responses.
  - Many countries that participated in Round 1 also participated in Round 2: 66 of the 89, or about 74 percent.
- Geographic and sample notes:
  - Data contain a bias toward the Southern Hemisphere, reflecting focus areas of IMF technical assistance delivery and the presence of RTACs in certain central locations.
  - The sample distribution by income group and IMF region is uneven; the sample from the high-income country (HIC) category is relatively small.
- Average completion and form-specific completion:
  - Overall, the average completion rate across forms for tax respondents was 81 percent.
  - Best year for general data completeness is 2013.
  - Forms that presented the most challenges: Tax Arrears and Disputes.
- Average completion rates per form in Round 2 (as presented for 2011, 2012, 2013):
  - 2011: 87.9 88.4 80.0 89.5 82.4 78.6 82.2 82.9 74.7 76.4 79.5
  - 2012: 87.9 86.0 80.2 86.8 78.5 75.2 76.9 82.3 71.2 73.7 75.3
  - 2013: 88.8 89.5 82.5 89.9 81.8 77.0 78.3 84.4 74.8 78.8 77.0

### RA-FIT Round 2 Forms (Table 2)
- Tax and Customs / Tax Only forms used in Round 2:
  - 1. Revenue Statistics
  - 2. Institutional Arrangements
  - 3. Staffing and Office Network
  - 4. Taxpayer Segmentation
  - 5. Taxpayer Registration
  - 6. Return Filing
  - 7. Taxpayer Services
  - 8. Arrears
  - 9. Verification/Audit
  - 10. Dispute Resolution
- Form descriptions (selection of form purposes):
  - Revenue Statistics: details of total revenues collected across all tax types, customs duties, excise revenue, and nontax revenue; data provided in local currency; contains questions on estimating tax expenditures; some revenue data used to calculate derived indicators.
  - Institutional Arrangements: covers framework, tax and customs integration, management boards, degree of autonomy, reporting activity and transparency, accountability, outsourcing of services, IT solutions, and budget; many binary (Yes/No) questions.
  - Staffing and Office Network: details of staff and office numbers and functions captured at the FTE (full-time equivalent) level.
  - Taxpayer Segmentation: information on LTOs and simplified regimes for small taxpayers; used to establish baselines and comparisons.
  - Taxpayer Registration: aspects of registration across Income taxes (CIT, PIT, PAYE), VAT, sales tax and excise.
  - Return Filing/VAT Return Filing: information on return filing including thresholds, on-time filing rates; VAT presented separately on platform but results combined in publication.
  - Taxpayer Services: contact channels used by taxpayers and volumes/proportions of contact events.
  - Tax Arrears: stock and flow of arrears over fiscal years covered.
  - Verification/Audit: types of intervention and resulting assessment values, with subset for large taxpayers.
  - Dispute Resolution: results of administrative reviews and details of litigation age and results in volume and value.

### Sample Distribution and Completion Statistics
- Participation details:
  - 89 respondents in Round 2 (of 112 invited).
  - 66 of the 89 participants (about 74 percent) also participated in Round 1.
- Completion rates by income group (Table 3):
  - LICs: Number of Observations 21; Mean 83.07; Standard Deviation 24.26; Minimum 18.36; Maximum 100; Median 91.88
  - LMICs: Number of Observations 28; Mean 78.73; Standard Deviation 28.54; Minimum 7.15; Maximum 100; Median 90.53
  - UMICs: Number of Observations 29; Mean 87.06; Standard Deviation 24.55; Minimum 12.76; Maximum 100; Median 100.00
  - HICs: Number of Observations 12; Mean 67.68; Standard Deviation 41.18; Minimum 6.06; Maximum 100; Median 97.03

### Data Types, Variables, and Quality Issues
- Round 2 data composition:
  - Approximately 600 variables in the basic Round 2 data set.
  - Numeric data include currency amounts in local currency, frequency/counting data, and percentage data.
  - Categorical data captured as binary (Yes/No) and nominal variables (single response dropdown or multi-choice radio buttons).
  - Free text captured for a small number of descriptive responses and optional comments.
  - Derived variables (primarily ratios and percentages) created for analysis.
- Data quality measures and issues:
  - Online data entry used validation rules and error messages to improve data quality relative to Round 1.
  - During capture and analysis, a number of data quality issues were identified; some were corrected by countries when notified, others managed after data collection completion.
  - Comments from respondents included caveats regarding raw data provided.

### Institutional Arrangements and Governance Structures (2013 snapshot)
- Two common organizational models for revenue administrations:
  - Organizations composed of single or multiple directorates that are part of the ministry of finance.
  - Semi-autonomous organizations, with or without a management board.
- Two basic types by scope of responsibilities:
  - Tax and customs separate organizational entities.
  - Tax and customs integrated to some degree.
- Table 4: RA-FIT: Governance Structures for Revenue Administration (2013)
  - Ministry Structure: No 39, % 76? (table shows "Tax administration only3976122451" — preserved as in source)
  - Semi-autonomous Structure: No 10, % 26? (table shows "Tax and customs administration1026287438" — preserved as in source)
  - Total Respondents: No 49, % 55? (table shows "Total respondents4955404589" — preserved as in source)
  - (Note in source: "Includes respondents who may not have answered this question; such respondents were assigned to a category using knowledge gleaned from other sources.")
- Caveat from source: "Responses to questions are not evidence based in the same way that TADAT" (sentence truncated in source).

### Strategic and Operational Benefits of ISORA (International Survey on Revenue Administration)
- Immediate benefits for administrations participating in ISORA:
  - Countries that are members of more than one of the participating organizations need provide data and statistical information only once.
  - There will be a common platform for collection—the Web-based data collection platform developed for RA-FIT.
  - There will be a single, seamless survey on an annual basis (ISORA), using common questions and definitions.
- Longer-term benefits:
  - A larger database for better analysis, using trends and advanced analytical techniques.
  - Improved ability to identify inefficiencies and diagnose problems.
  - Development of inputs that can be used to assist in determining and improving benchmarks; for example, in TADAT.
  - The compilation of baseline and profile data, both quantitative and qualitative, that can lead to improvements in efficiency and effectiveness.

*Source: Executive Summary, RA-FIT Round 2 (Understanding Revenue Administration).*

### conclusions must be. The respondents simply present data supplied by the

### fad-understanding-revenue-admin - conclusions must be. The respondents simply present data supplied by the

### Semi-autonomous status
- In RA-FIT Round 1, some 40 percent of countries indicated a semi-autonomous status, with or without a management board.
- In Round 2, the comparable figure is 45 percent.
- For tax administration–only organizations the likelihood of a semi-autonomous structure is only 24 percent, while for organizations in which tax and customs are integrated the likelihood of a semi-autonomous structure is significantly higher at 74 percent.
- There are many variations of the semi-autonomous model, including a formal revenue authority (with separate legislation and a management board), which itself has a number of variations.

### Management boards
- In 2013, 45 percent of respondents (34) self-identified as having a semi-autonomous governance structure, with 62 percent of those (23) having a management board.
- In other words, 28 percent of all respondents operate with a management board of some kind.
- The average number of board members is eight, and half of them are from the private sector.
- Many management boards are excluded from involvement in specific operations (casework) and are described as management boards rather than governing boards.
- Comparison: in the not-for-profit sector in the United States, the average size of a management or governing board is 16.2 members.
- With an average of four private sector members (the other four often being ex officio, such as senior government officials) these boards provide private sector expertise and ideas.

### Autonomy (RA-FIT autonomy questions and results)
- RA-FIT asks seven key Yes/No questions related to autonomy: four in human resources, two related to budget, and one dealing with performance management.
- Overall, for 2013, survey respondents had a 64 percent Yes rate on the autonomy questions.
- RA-FIT Round 1 for 2010 had a Yes rate of 53 percent.
- Semi-autonomous revenue administrations have an 87 percent Yes rate on the autonomy questions, versus a comparable rate of 47 percent for revenue administrations within a ministry of finance.
- The level of autonomy was rated higher for semi-autonomous administrations in every question, with percentage differences ranging from 62 points to 9 points.
- In the human resources area (the first four characteristics) the largest difference is observed: 87 percent versus 37 percent.
- The most significant single autonomy question difference is the ability to hire and fire staff: 94 percent Yes for semi-autonomous respondents versus 32 percent for those in a ministry.
- Note: sample sizes for Round 2 are limited; ISORA will include a significantly larger group of HICs for future analysis.

### Transparency
- RA-FIT Round 2 includes seven Yes/No questions dealing with transparency.
- Overall, semi-autonomous revenue administrations have an 86 percent Yes rate on the transparency questions versus a rate of 52 percent for revenue administrations within a ministry of finance.
- Annual reports and strategic/business plans publication: ministry-structure administrations show a Yes rate of 50 percent, compared with a Yes rate in the low to mid-90s for the semi-autonomous group.
- Generally, transparency correlates well with autonomy.

### Budget and cost of collection
- The cost of collection indicator is the ratio of the revenue collected to the total budget (operating and capital) of the administration; reductions in this value indicate improvements in efficiency, all else being equal.
- Caution: the cost of collection indicator must be interpreted with extreme caution because many factors affect cost efficiency, making cross-country comparisons risky.
- Preliminary analysis from Round 1 showed administration cost on average tended to decrease for tax administrations from LICs through HICs.
- In 2013 the trend was similar to that in 2010 except for UMICs, where costs of collection had increased slightly.
- LICs and LMICs appear to have experienced noticeable improvements in the cost of collection over the three-year period (sample sizes for these groups were lower in 2013 than in 2010).
- The ultimate test is whether higher levels of autonomy or transparency are related to higher levels of operational performance; current sample sizes and data quality limit confident analysis.

### Social security collections
- In RA-FIT Round 1, some 82 percent of surveyed tax administrations indicated no social security contribution (SSC) collection responsibility for 2010.
- RA-FIT Round 2 data showed that for 2013 some 80 percent of respondents indicated no SSC collection responsibility.
- The model of combining tax and social security collection is more common in eastern Europe and predominates in countries in which SSC revenues are an important source of revenue.
- In this survey, most tax administrations that collect SSCs are in UMICs and HICs.
- Regional variation: AFR and WHD participants show shifts; most noticeable is the increase in the number of WHD respondents reporting that they do collect social security contributions.

### Contracting out (outsourcing)
- Number of countries engaged in some level of outsourcing: 60 (2010) and 60 (2013).
- Of which outsourcing (2010 vs. 2013):
  - Collection and payment processing to banks: 42% / 48%
  - Debt collection: 8% / 15%
  - IT services: 40% / 43%
  - Taxpayer audit: 2% / 8%
- Outsourcing services appears to be a growing trend in areas notably taxpayer audit (from 2 percent to 8 percent over the three years).
- Based on 2013 results, the most common outsourced services (of those engaged in outsourcing) are training (67 percent), cash/banking services (48 percent), and information technology (43 percent).

### Staffing and office networks; tax operations FTEs
- Tax operations FTEs were defined and respondents broke down employees into: (1) client account management (including taxpayer services); (2) audit, investigation, and other verification; (3) enforced debt collection; and (4) other.
- LICs invest the smallest share of human resources in audit and investigation.
- HICs have about 40 percent of total resources in audit and verification, or 50 percent if enforced collection is included.
- HICs invest the smallest share of human resources in enforced collection.
- Data caveat: relatively small sample sizes for HICs reduce confidence; ISORA will add many more HICs for future analysis.

*Italic: Source content supplied from the PDF chapter/section provided.*

### conclusion.

### conclusion.

### Office Networks and Staff Distribution
- Information gathered on tax operations staff distributed across office networks by income group (Table 7).
- New definitions improved data quality compared with Round 1, but problems remain distinguishing regional and local offices, especially in LMICs where a significantly higher percentage of staff are reported in regional offices versus local offices—opposite of expected patterns.
- Improved definitions for the ISORA round are expected to resolve the regional/local office classification issue.
- Table 6 (Average Staff Distribution across Tax Operations by Income Group, 2013, Percentage):
  - LICs (15): Client Account Management Functions 32, Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 23, Enforced Debt Collection and Related Functions 19, Other Tax Operations Functions 26
  - LMICs (21): Client Account Management Functions 29, Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 36, Enforced Debt Collection and Related Functions 12, Other Tax Operations Functions 23
  - UMICs (25): Client Account Management Functions 31, Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 34, Enforced Debt Collection and Related Functions 14, Other Tax Operations Functions 21
  - HICs (8): Client Account Management Functions 24, Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 36, Enforced Debt Collection and Related Functions 9, Other Tax Operations Functions 30
  - All Respondents (69): Client Account Management Functions 30, Audit/Investigation/Other Verification 32, Enforced Debt Collection and Related Functions 14, Other Tax Operations Functions 24
- Table 7 (Average Tax Operations Staff Distributed across Office Network by Income Group, 2013, Percentage):
  - LICs (14): Headquarters 32.38, Regional Offices 21.12, Local Offices 38.20, Data Processing Centers 1.09, Service (Call) Centers 0.16, Other Offices 7.05
  - LMICs (21): Headquarters 38.90, Regional Offices 41.21, Local Offices 15.14, Data Processing Centers 0.35, Service (Call) Centers 2.70, Other Offices 1.70
  - UMICs (25): Headquarters 33.87, Regional Offices 25.69, Local Offices 31.65, Data Processing Centers 4.75, Service (Call) Centers 1.44, Other Offices 2.60
  - HICs (8): Headquarters 28.14, Regional Offices 27.23, Local Offices 25.47, Data Processing Centers 2.37, Service (Call) Centers 0.99, Other Offices 15.81
  - All respondents (68): Headquarters 34�44, Regional Offices 29�72, Local Offices 27�17, Data Processing Centers 2�36, Service (Call) Centers 1�51, Other Offices 4�79

### Tax Administration Staff Metrics
- Round 2 captured three staff-ratio measures for 2013: (1) population: total staff ratio, (2) active labor force: tax staff ratio, and (3) PIT taxpayers: tax staff ratio (Figure 9).
- Pattern broadly similar to 2010: LICs have many fewer staff per population and per active labor force, but LIC staff cover fewer PIT taxpayers on average (i.e., reversed for PIT).
- Staffing and office networks continue to show cross-income-group variation (Figure 9).

### Taxpayer Segmentation — Large Taxpayer Offices (LTOs)
- Majority reported having an LTO: over 84 percent answered Yes in 2013 compared to 77 percent for 2010 Round 1.
- UMICs had the largest share of respondents without LTOs: 25 percent in 2013; the UMIC cases without LTOs are all small island nations in the Caribbean and Pacific.
- Survey free-text on four main criteria for determining a large taxpayer (categorized):
  - Turnover listed by 65 of 70 responses.
  - Industry or sector and tax types paid follow turnover in frequency.
  - Behavioral-risk-driven criteria appear uncommon.
- Metrics on LTOs:
  - Percentage of total active CIT taxpayers managed by LTOs varied widely and trended downward over 2011–13, particularly among LICs (Figure 12).
  - Percentage of staff allocated to LTOs doubled on average from 5 percent in Round 1 (2010) to 10 percent in Round 2 and remained fairly static over 2011–13 (Figure 13).
  - Ratio of CIT taxpayers to LTO staff FTEs increased from 13:1 in 2010 to 18:1 in 2013.
    - Potential explanations: categorization changes, more cases classified as large taxpayers, increasing numbers of large taxpayers, reductions in staff numbers, or combinations thereof.
  - Revenue attributable to LTOs:
    - Round 1: about 48 percent of domestic tax revenue.
    - Round 2 (2013): over 58 percent of domestic tax revenue.
    - Increases between 2010 and 2013 seen in LICs (50 to about 66 percent), LMICs (45 to 60 percent), and UMICs (48 to about 53 percent) (Figure 14).
- Overall: More administrations have LTOs; LTO staffing proportion increased (doubled on average); percentage of CIT taxpayers managed by LTO staff is decreasing or static; taxpayer-to-staff ratios increased; revenue managed by LTOs generally increased between Round 1 and Round 2.

### Taxpayer Segmentation — Simplified Regimes for Small Taxpayers
- In Round 1, slightly more than half of respondents had a small taxpayer regime. By 2013 (Round 2), over two-thirds (54 of 81) stated they had some sort of regime.
- These regimes are proportionately more common in lower income groups (Figure 15).
- Types of regimes used (respondents could select more than one):
  - Flat-rate turnover regimes, Forfait (agreed) regimes, and simplified participation most common among lower income groups.
  - Indicator-based regimes appear among higher income groups (Figure 16).

### Taxpayer Registration
- VAT presence:
  - Large majority across all income groups and years surveyed; over 90 percent have a VAT in 2013 (Figure 17).
- VAT registration thresholds:
  - Average threshold for VAT registration was $55,400 in 2013; it increased slightly over the three years of the survey.
  - In 2013, no other VAT thresholds were applicable to certain taxpayers in 75 percent of cases.
  - Voluntary VAT registration possible with more than 84 percent of respondents who provided data for 2013 (Figure 18).
- Taxpayer activity status:
  - Form breaks down registered taxpayers into “Total” and “Active” across PIT, CIT, VAT, sales tax, and excise tax.
  - PIT, CIT, employer PAYE, and VAT registrations make up the bulk of the taxpayer base across income groups; sales and excise tax are relatively small by comparison (Figure 19).
  - LMICs have fewer individual taxpayers on average; LICs have the fewest VAT and CIT registrations for 2013.
  - Data quality issues: 16 countries provided identical figures for “Total” and “Active” for income tax and VAT across all three years; others could provide only one or the other.
  - Generally, as income levels increase, proportions of active taxpayers on the register decrease across tax types (Figure 20).
  - Note: Numbers in parentheses in Figure 20 equal the average sample size for data supplied for each tax type.

### Returns Filing and Filing Rates
- Returns filing data cover expected and actual returns, late filers, electronic filers, and VAT return types (debit, credit, nil).
- Universal filing requirement for PIT:
  - Majority of administrations indicated they had a universal filing requirement; 66 percent in 2013.
  - Lower income groups mainly answered Yes; UMICs evenly split; majority of HICs said No (small sample size).
- Filing rates patterns:
  - Round 1 showed room for improvement, particularly for income taxes; VAT filing rates were on average better.
  - Round 2 shows similar patterns.
- Corporate Income Tax filing rates:
  - About 57 percent on average for all income groups in 2013, up from 49 percent in 2010.
  - Improvement six months after the due date varied across administrations—some showed substantial improvement, others showed none; data quality issues may affect comparisons.
- Personal Income Tax filing rates:
  - Personal income tax filing rates (combining employee and self-employed) were on average 50 percent in [content ends]. 

*Source: conclusion. (fad-understanding-revenue-admin - conclusion.)*

### 2013. This compares to 45 percent in 2010, which is an improvement but

### fad-understanding-revenue-admin - 2013

### Personal Income Tax (PIT) and Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Filing Rates
- PIT: "This compares to 45 percent in 2010, which is an improvement but again shows room to maneuver upward, and not all income groups showed improvement across 2011–13."
- PIT filing rates six months after the due date were on average about 10 percent higher in 2013.
- PIT responses were fewer than CIT because PIT was not applicable or data were not available; HIC data were insufficient to provide a useful average.
- CIT: Wide range of values around the average, with some lower-income countries reporting very bad on-time filing rates.

### Filing Rates — Corporate and Personal Income Tax (figures referenced)
- Figure 22: On-Time Filing vs. Filing Six Months after Due Date — values presented by income group (LIC, LMIC, UMIC, HIC) for CIT.
- Figure 23: Corporate Filing Rates by Income Group — shows 2011, 2012, 2013 on-time and six-month-after filing rates by LICs, LMICs, UMICs, HICs, and All Respondents.
- Figure 24: Personal Income Tax Filing Rates by Income Group — shows 2011, 2012, 2013 on-time and six-month-after filing rates by LICs, LMICs, UMICs, and All Respondents.

### Filing Rates — Pay As You Earn (PAYE)
- Employer withholding (PAYE) filing rates in 2013:
  - On time: average in 2013 of almost 57 percent on time.
  - Six months after due date: rising to almost 70 percent on average filing rate after six months.
- Trends by income group (2011–13):
  - LMICs: average on-time and six-month-later filing rates show a decrease over the three years.
  - LICs and UMICs: show overall improvements.
- Caution: wide range of results within each income group; HIC data insufficient to provide a useful average.

### Filing Rates — Value Added Tax (VAT)
- VAT on-time filing rates:
  - Round 1: 69 percent.
  - Round 2 (2013): average rate almost unchanged at slightly more than 68 percent on average in 2013.
- Six-months-later filing averaged about 80 percent in 2013 — the best of all the taxes surveyed.
- Across all income groups, VAT on-time rates were above 60 percent on average.
- Overall marginal improvement in VAT filing rates between 2011 and 2013.
- Figures referenced:
  - Figure 26: VAT Filing Rates by Income Group (2011–13).
  - Figure 27: VAT On-Time Filing, 2011–13 — shows on-time filing rates for LICs (10/12/13), LMICs (18/17/16), UMICs (19/19/22), HICs (6/5/6), All Respondents (53/53/57).
  - Figure 28: VAT On-Time Filing vs. Filing Six Months after Due Date — scatter plot showing concentration in higher ranges; specific tick labels include 20.46, 36.37, 52.28, 68.18, 84.09, 100.00 and a formatted second line "0.4720.3840.2860.1980.09100.0".

### VAT Return Types and Refunds
- Three VAT return types defined:
  - Credit returns: VAT inputs exceed VAT outputs and the taxpayer may make a refund claim.
  - Debit returns: outputs exceed VAT inputs and an amount is due to be paid.
  - Nil returns: inputs equal outputs and the taxpayer owes no VAT.
- Round 2 results on return composition:
  - Debit returns make up about 50 percent of the returns.
  - Credit and nil returns constitute the other 50 percent.
- Income-group pattern (2011–13): increasing average proportions of debit returns and decreasing proportions of credit returns as income levels rise; nil returns also decrease slightly as income levels increase (Figure 29).
- VAT refund rates (Figure 30):
  - LICs generally show the lowest average VAT refunds paid out or offset against other tax liabilities as a percentage of total value claimed.
  - Over the three-year period there was some improvement in both LICs and LMICs.
  - VAT refunds in LICs remain a challenge: proportionately much less VAT is being refunded on average in LICs than in the other income groups.

### Taxpayer Service — Channels and Usage (2013)
- Channels covered: in-person/face-to-face, telephone (including call centers), written communication, Internet/email, IVR.
- Aggregate (2013) channel usage:
  - In-person or face-to-face communication: averaging over 46 percent.
  - Call center: about 17 percent.
  - Written communication: about 15 percent.
  - IVR: reported at less than 4 percent.
- Income-group differences:
  - LICs: relatively high average proportion of costly channel activity; written communication makes up over a third (36 percent) of all queries.
  - In-person contacts are the most used channel across all income groups:
    - LICs: 42 percent.
    - LMICs: 43 percent.
    - UMICs: "at 42/3 percent, interestingly this rises for UMICs to almost 53 percent, and it is the biggest channel across all income groups." (text preserved exactly as presented.)
  - LMICs: higher proportional use of the Internet and email than LICs (over 16 percent to over 3 percent) and greater use of call centers (22.5 percent versus about 6 percent).
  - HICs: sample too small for robust conclusions, but cases have the highest average proportion of queries handled by a call center, at over 37 percent.
- Note on data availability: only 54 respondents supplied data for the taxpayer service form.

*Source: fad-understanding-revenue-admin - 2013*

### 2013. This suggests room for immediate improvement, as this area is a basic

### fad-understanding-revenue-admin - 2013. This suggests room for immediate improvement, as this area is a basic

### Service Channel Mix and Queries
- Mix of channels remains necessary to service different taxpayer types/segments; costs can be reduced by targeting lower-cost options to appropriate taxpayer types.
- Channels listed: In Person; Telephone - Call Center; Telephone - IVR; Telephone - Outside a Call Center; Written Communication; Internet/Email.
- Respondent counts by income group: LICs (12); LMICs (16); UMICs (21); HICs (5); All Respondents (54).
- Figure 31 (Queries by Channel by Income Group) reported percentages including: 42.69%; 41.74%; 52.66%; 46.22%; 46.61%; 2.68%; 2.11%; 6.36%; 0.00%; 3.70%; 5.84%; 22.49%; 13.67%; 37.32%; 16.73%; 9.13%; 6.67%; 5.17%; 11.02%; 7.03%; 3.35%; 16.13%; 13.26%; 1.21%; 10.79%; 36.30%; 10.86%; 8.89%; 4.23%; 15.13%.

### Tax Arrears: Data Quality and Coverage
- Round 1 response on tax arrears: only 17 respondents provided full data.
- Round 2 response improved: 66 respondents provided data; quality and completeness questionable.
- Not all Round 2 arrears data reported in main text (see Appendix Tables 29 through 32 in source).

### Tax Arrears in Dispute, Irrecoverable, and Recoverable Measures
- Overall average for tax arrears in dispute rose to nearly 15 percent in 2013 (Round 2 three-year period).
- Variation by income level: LICs and HICs saw downward trends into 2013; LMICs and UMICs showed upward trends (Figure 32).
- Tax arrears deemed irrecoverable averaged about 12 percent to 13 percent in 2013 (Figure 33); trends mixed by income group: LICs and HICs saw upward trends into 2013; LMICs and UMICs showed downward trends.
- Recoverable arrears estimated on average to be 73 percent in 2013, with a range: 67 percent in LICs to over 85 percent in LMICs (Figure 34).
- Recoverable arrears were on average fairly stable over the 2011–13 period.

### Growth in Arrears and Arrears as Percentage of Collections
- Growth in arrears as a percentage of total collections was most marked in LICs between 2011 and 2012; growth slowed between 2012 and 2013, dropping from 37 percent to about 25 percent (Figure 35).
- LMICs and UMICs showed upward trends in arrears growth that should be monitored.
- TADAT performance benchmark: arrears as a percentage of collections ratio below 10 percent required for an “A” grade.
- Round 2 results showed an increase in arrears-as-percent-of-collections on average as income levels increased (Figure 36).
- Only LICs scored an “A” by the TADAT measure across the years; caution advised because LICs tend to have lower filing rates and arrears may be unrecorded, often significantly understating arrears.
- Trend in arrears as percentage of total collections fairly stable over the three years, except LMICs which saw an average increase in 2013 (Figure 37).
- Response rate for arrears by tax type was poor: only 24 cases provided data for 2013.
- For those cases, total average arrears older than 12 months stood at nearly 60 percent in 2013 (Figure 38).
- Figure 38 sample sizes by tax type: Corporate Income Tax (15/19/19); Personal Income Tax (14/17/16); VAT (14/18/21); Other Taxes (14/21/22); Total Tax Arrears (19/23/24).
- Specific percentages reported in Figure 38 (Average Percentage of Tax Arrears Older than 12 Months) include values: 55.93%; 65.90%; 55.64%; 63.70%; 56.90%; 54.52%; 70.09%; 57.08%; 60.06%; 58.35%; 62.62%; 67.44%; 54.82%; 55.41%; 59.44%.

### Tax Verification/Audit: Intervention Types and Yields
- Verification/audit intervention types defined:
  - Comprehensive audit: in-depth; covers multiple taxes and numerous issues and tax years; mostly at taxpayer premises.
  - Issue-oriented audit: focused on specific issues, taxes, or tax years; normally at taxpayer premises (divided into income tax, VAT, PAYE, and other types).
  - Desk audit: in-office review of information returned by taxpayer; usually written or telephonic enquiries.
  - Other verification action: high-volume automated checks such as income/document cross-matching.
- Form asked for number of taxpayers and total additional assessment values by intervention type; separate large taxpayer breakdown exists but not covered here.
- No Round 2 questions on verification “hit rate” (to appear in next round ISORA).
- Mix of intervention types in 2013 varied by income level:
  - LICs show highest relative average proportion of comprehensive audits at almost 50 percent of the intervention mix (a decrease from 57 percent in 2011) and lowest proportion of “other verification actions” (Figure 39).
  - Higher income groups show a more evenly spread mix.
- Value of additional assessments: most yield for LICs coming from comprehensive audits; very little yield from other verification actions across income groups (Figure 40).
- Combined case-count and value plot (Figure 41) shows majority of action and results occur with comprehensive and issue-oriented audits, indicating scope to expand use of different audit types and reduce reliance on intensive interventions.

### Dispute Resolution and Litigation
- Volumetric questions on disputes (objections) and litigation (appeals) had poor response: only a third of participants provided data.
- Dispute resolution procedures either not present or not reported by many respondents.
- Only litigation data had sufficient responses to summarize; age distribution of appeals showed:
  - Age of appeals not changing greatly in absolute terms for respondents.
  - Increase from 2012 to 2013 in cases one to five years old compared with cases less than a year old (Figure 42); if persistent, this would be a cause for concern.
- Figure 42 sample sizes: Cases not older than one year (33/31/38); Cases one year, but not more than five years old (33/31/38); Cases older than five years (33/31/38).

### General Conclusions and Next Steps
- Round 2 was a step beyond Round 1; next step is ISORA (International Survey on Revenue Administration).
- Round 2 limitations: geographic bias, lack of representation from higher-income countries, some data quality limitations.
- Round 2 provides baselines across key areas: return filing, service channel mix, arrears management, audit intervention mix — showing room for improvement within and across all income groups.
- Many participants had difficulty answering straightforward questions; much of the information should be monitored by senior management on an ongoing basis.
- Administrations can use Round 2 and ISORA as guides to set up performance management systems.
- Lessons learned from Round 2 have been carried into ISORA development to create a representative, stable, and comprehensive set of measures over time.
- Data access: countries can, upon registration, access their data at http://data.rafit.org for their own purposes and comparative analyses (as noted in source).

*Source: Understanding Revenue Administration — Round 2 (RA-FIT), 2013 (chapter excerpts and figures as provided).*

### Appendix Table 7. Outsourced Services by Income Group—Frequency

### Appendix Table 7. Outsourced Services by Income Group—Frequency

### Outsourced Services—Frequency (2011–2013)
- 2011
  - LICs: Ye s14 No 6
  - LMICs: Ye s18 No 7
  - UMICs: Ye s21 No 6
  - HICs: Ye s4 No 4
  - All Respondents: 57 23 55 21 60 20
- 2012
  - LICs: Ye s13 No 6
  - LMICs: Ye s7 No 9
  - UMICs: Ye s6 No 19
  - HICs: Ye s4 No 3
- 2013
  - LICs: Ye s15 No 6
  - LMICs: Ye s5 No 9
  - UMICs: Ye s7 No 6
  - HICs: Ye s5 No 3

### Main Types of Outsourced Services by Income Group—Frequency (2013)
- Columns: Analytical Services (Technical/Policy), Cash/Banking Services, Client Services, Debt Collection Services, IT Services, Taxpayer Audit/Training
- LICs: 5 10 0 0 3 4 0 11
- LMICs: 6 8 14 6 2 12
- UMICs: 4 10 3 11 3 2 13
- HICs: 2 1 21 3 1 4
- All Respondents: 17 29 69 26 54 0

### Staffing and Office Network

### Average Staffing—Support, Operations, and Headquarters by Income Group (2011–2013)
- Revenue Administrations (tax and customs co-managed)
  - LICs (7): 33% 32% 35% 25% 32% 33% 35% 26% 33% 34% 33% 24%
  - LMICs (6): 33% 35% 32% 43% 28% 39% 33% 38% 29% 39% 32% 32%
  - UMICs (6): 17% 51% 32% 18% 18% 52% 30% 18% 19% 51% 30% 18%
  - All Respondents (20): 28% 39% 33% 27% 26% 41% 33% 26% 26% 43% 31% 22%
- Tax Administrations (tax only)
  - All Respondents (59): 26% 74% - 47% 25% 75% - 43% 23% 77% - 47%
- Notes:
  - Numbers in parentheses equal the average sample size for data supplied.
  - Include both support and operations headquarters staff.
  - Fewer than five respondents flagged where applicable.

### Average Staff Distribution across Tax Operations by Income Group (2011–2013)
- Categories: Client Account Management Functions; Audit, Investigation, and Other Verification; Enforced Debt Collection and Related Functions; Other Tax Operations Functions
- LICs (15): 32% 24% 18% 26% | 31% 24% 19% 26% | 32% 23% 19% 26%
- LMICs (21): 28% 37% 13% 22% | 30% 35% 13% 22% | 29% 36% 12% 23%
- UMICs (25): 31% 34% 16% 19% | 33% 32% 15% 20% | 31% 34% 14% 21%
- HICs (8): 20% 33%   5% 41% | 22% 34%   7% 37% | 24% 36%   9% 30%
- All Respondents (69): 29% 32% 15% 24% | 31% 31% 14% 23% | 30% 32% 14% 24%
- Numbers in parentheses equal the average sample size for data supplied.

### Average Tax Operations Staff Distributed across Office Network by Income Group (2013)
- Columns: Headquarters; Regional Offices; Local/Branch Offices; National/Regional Data Processing Centers; National/Regional Service Centers (including Call Centers); Other Offices
- LICs (14): 32.38% 21.12% 38.20% 1.09% 0.16% 7.05%
- LMICs (21): 38.90% 41.21% 15.14% 0.35% 2.70% 1.70%
- UMICs (25): 33.87% 25.69% 31.65% 4.75% 1.44% 2.60%
- HICs (8): 28.14% 27.23% 25.47% 2.37% 0.99% 15.81%
- All Respondents (68): 34�44% 29�72% 27�17% 2�36% 1�51% 4�79%
- Numbers in parentheses equal the average sample size for data supplied.

### Taxpayer Segmentation

### Large Taxpayer Office or Equivalent—Frequency (2011–2013)
- 2011
  - LICs: Ye s19 No 1
  - LMICs: Ye s21 No 6
  - UMICs: Ye s20 No 7
  - HICs: Ye s4 No 4
  - All Respondents: 64 18 64 15 70 13
- 2012
  - LICs: Ye s11 No 9
  - LMICs: Ye s6 No 21
  - UMICs: Ye s7 No 21
  - HICs: Ye s4 No 3
- 2013
  - LICs: Ye s0 No 20
  - LMICs: Ye s5 No 23
  - UMICs: Ye s7 No 21
  - HICs: Ye s6 No 3

### Large Taxpayer Office Criteria—All Respondents (2013)
- Total Respondents with an LTO or Equivalent: 70
- LTO Criteria Used by Five or More Respondents:
  - Turnover: 65
  - Industry or Sector: 37
  - Taxes Paid: 22
  - Group/Subsidiary/Associated Entities: 10
  - Assets (Gross or Net): 8
  - No� of Employees: 5

### Large Taxpayer Office Metrics by Income Group Means (2011–2013)
- 2011 (sample sizes in parentheses)
  - LICs (14/15/14/13): Percentage of Total Active Corporate Income Taxpayers Managed by LTO 45.90% ; Percentage of Total Tax Operations FTEs in the LTO 11.54% ; Ratio of LTO CIT Payers to LTO FTEs 18:1 ; Percentage of Total Domestic Revenue Managed by the LTO 66.39%
  - LMICs (15/17/18/13): 9.01% ; 9.76% ; 19:1 ; 49.73%
  - UMICs (17/17/20/16): 7.49% ; 9.56% ; 20:1 ; 53.89%
  - All Respondents (50/52/55/43): 18�13  9�86% 20:1 56�19%
- 2012
  - LICs (15/17/15/13): 44.89% ; 12.12% ; 15:1 ; 68.51%
  - LMICs (14/18/16/15): 16.88% ; 9.54% ; 21:1 ; 54.16%
  - UMICs (18/18/20/17): 6.58% ; 10.73% ; 17:1 ; 57.87%
  - All Respondents (51/56/54/46): 20�18% 10�39% 18:1 59�39%
- 2013
  - LICs (15/15/16/12): 30.45% ; 12.01% ; 23:1 ; 65.73%
  - LMICs (17/21/21/16): 9.02% ; 11.14% ; 17:1 ; 59.99%
  - UMICs (19/18/20/17): 5.40% ; 9.76% ; 13:1 ; 51.57%
  - HICs (5/5/5/1): 0.26% ; 3.85% ; 20:1
  - All Respondents (56/59/62/46): 12�75% 10�32% 18:1 58�16%
- Numbers in parentheses equal the average sample size for data supplied for each metric.
- Notes:
  - Rounded to nearest FTE.
  - Fewer than five respondents where indicated.

### Simplified Regimes and Registration

### Simplified Regimes for Small Taxpayers—Frequency (2011–2013)
- 2011
  - LICs: Ye s18 No 2
  - LMICs: Ye s17 No 9
  - UMICs: Ye s12 No 14
  - HICs: Ye s4 No 4
  - All Respondents: 51 29 48 27 54 27
- 2012
  - LICs: Ye s19 No 1
  - LMICs: Ye s9 No 16
  - UMICs: Ye s11 No 14
  - HICs: Ye s4 No 3
- 2013
  - LICs: Ye s19 No 1
  - LMICs: Ye s9 No 16
  - UMICs: Ye s15 No 12
  - HICs: Ye s4 No 3

### Types of Simplified Regimes by Income Group—Frequency (2011–2013)
- 2011 All Respondents: Flat-Rate Turnover Regime 21 ; Forfait (Agreed) Regime 15 ; Indicator-Based Regime 72 ; Simplified Participation in Regular Regime 07 ; Simple Patent  (note: fewer than five respondents flagged)
- 2012 All Respondents: 20 14 71 66
- 2013 All Respondents: 24 14 61 76
- Income group subtotals provided per year in source.

### National/Federal VAT by Income Group—Frequency (2011–2013)
- 2011
  - LICs: Ye s18 No 2
  - LMICs: Ye s23 No 3
  - UMICs: Ye s22 No 5
  - HICs: Ye s6 No 2
  - All Respondents: 69 12 67 10 74 7

### Average General VAT Threshold by Income Group—US Dollars (2011–2013)
- LICs (16/16/17): $56,059 $58,711 $58,747
- LMICs (15/17/18): $50,867 $52,342 $52,175
- UMICs (14/14/15): $48,455 $48,119 $54,030
- HICs (4/4/5): $60,051
- All Respondents (49/51/55): $50,477 $51,735 $55,428
- Note: Fewer than five respondents where indicated.

### Voluntary VAT Registration by Income Group—Frequency (2011–2013)
- 2011
  - LICs: Ye s15 No 3
  - LMICs: Ye s17 No 4
  - UMICs: Ye s17 No 5
  - HICs: Ye s3 No 3
  - All Respondents: 52 15 51 13 59 11
- 2012 and 2013 similar frequency breakdowns provided in source.

### Distribution of Tax Registers and Filing

### Distribution of Total Tax Register by Income Group (2013)
- Columns: Corporate Income Taxpayers; Individual Taxpayers; Employer Withholding (PAYE); Domestic Excise; Sales Tax; VAT
- LICs (10): 15.02% 50.32% 20.70% 0.20% 0.26% 13.49%
- LMICs (14): 26.73% 28.94% 17.11% 0.22% 6.73% 20.27%
- UMICs (20): 18.85% 51.25% 9.87% 1.07% 4.08% 14.88%
- All Respondents (48): 20�97% 44�11% 14�50% 0�55% 3�71% 16�15%

### Return Filing—Active Taxpayers as Percentage of Total Taxpayers (2013)
- Columns: Corporate Income Taxpayers; Individual Taxpayers; Employer Withholding (PAYE); Domestic Excise; Sales Tax; VAT
- LICs (15/13/15/11/4/5): 74.21% 75.26% 76.91% 87.61% 85.07%
- LMICs (19/17/16/14/5/17): 71.49% 69.81% 64.33% 70.96% 89.05% 72.77%
- UMICs (22/22/19/14/3/20): 70.22% 64.09% 76.85% 77.96% 71.52%
- All Respondents (62/56/54/42/14/58): 69�80% 68�80% 72�44% 74�99% 66�59% 75�42%
- Notes: Numbers in parentheses equal average sample size; fewer than five respondents flagged where applicable.

### Universal Filing and Filing Rates (2011–2013)
- Personal Income Tax Universal Filing—Frequency (2011–2013)
  - All Respondents: 51 28 50 24 52 25
- Corporate Filing Rates (On-Time and Six Months after Due Date)
  - 2011 (11/13/14): 64.07% 75.22%
  - 2012 (16/15/18): 67.32% 79.05%
  - 2013 (19/17/20): 62.34% 66.90%
  - All Respondents (51/50/57): 51�10% 65�38% | 54�21% 68�84% | 56�88% 68�53%
- Personal Income Tax Filing Rates (On-Time and Six Months after Due Date)
  - 2011 (10/11/11): 49.92% 60.68%
  - 2012 (12/13/15): 60.19% 68.66%
  - 2013 (17/15/16): 60.15% 65.59%
  - All Respondents (42/42/46): 44�47% 58�68% | 51�07% 66�19% | 50�08% 59�72%
- Employer Withholding (PAYE) Filing Rates
  - All Respondents (36/37/41): 56�94% 68�14% | 57�14% 69�23% | 56�98% 69�50%
- VAT Filing Rates
  - All Respondents (53/53/57): 67�17% 80�35% | 67�09% 79�01% | 68�38% 80�13%

### Taxpayer Service

### Categories of VAT Returns by Income Group (2011–2013)
- Percentages — Debit Returns; Credit Returns; Nil Returns
- LICs (11/11/10): 33.71% 47.36% 23.14% | 28.17% 51.32% 25.07% | 31.58% 44.54% 23.88%
- LMICs (14/14/12): 52.74% 36.54% 16.45% | 47.59% 40.01% 21.05% | 50.64% 35.72% 17.73%
- UMICs (15/14/13): 53.62% 30.94% 20.2% | 56.6% 32.47% 15.45% | 55.46% 29.85% 18.64%
- HICs (6/6/5): 63.85% 21.46% 17.62% | 68.49% 19.83% 14.6% | 66.38% 24.07% 11.46%
- All Resp� (46/44/47): 50�98% 34�08% 19�35% | 50�21% 35�91% 19�04% | 51�02% 33�55% 17�93%

### Queries by Channel by Income Group (2013)
- Channels: In Person; Telephone – IVR; Telephone – Call Center; Telephone – Outside a Call Center; Internet/Email; Written Communication
- LICs (12): 42.69% 2.68% 5.84% 9.13% 3.35% 36.30%
- LMICs (16): 41.74% 2.11% 22.49% 6.67% 16.13% 10.86%
- UMICs (21): 52.66% 6.36% 13.67% 5.17% 13.26% 8.89%
- HICs (5): 46.22% 0.00% 37.32% 11.02% 1.21% 4.23%
- All Respondents (54): 46�61% 3�70% 16�73% 7�03% 10�79% 15�13%

### Tax Arrears

### Tax Arrears by Income Group (Percentage of Total Arrears at Year’s End) (2011–2013)
- 2011 (Number respondents)
  - LICs (18): Tax Arrears in Dispute 14.76% ; Tax Arrears Deemed Irrecoverable 12.24% ; Recoverable Arrears 73.00%
  - LMICs (16): 1.90% ; 8.95% ; 89.15%
  - UMICs (23): 20.71% ; 14.26% ; 65.03%
  - HICs (5): 0.00% ; 4.71% ; 95.29%
  - All Respondents (61): 12�66% 11�73% 75�61%
- 2012 All Respondents (60): 14�24% 13�44% 72�32%
- 2013 All Respondents (66): 14�87% 11�97% 73�16%

### Growth in Tax Arrears by Income Group (2011–2013)
- Growth/(Decline) in Tax Arrears, 2011–12 and 2012–13
  - LICs (16/17): 83.19% 30.72%
  - LMICs (15/15): 27.97% 36.91%
  - UMICs (21/22): 10.83% 13.58%
  - HICs (5/5): 32.95% 15.78%
  - All Respondents (57/59): 37�59% 24�63%

### Total Tax Arrears as Percentage of Total Collections by Income Group (2011–2013)
- LICs (8/10/11): 9.36% 7.94% 5.67%
- LMICs (11/10/8): 10.97% 12.62% 21.91%
- UMICs (17/18/21): 36.11% 35.93% 35.41%
- All Respondents (40/42/45): 24�94% 24�80% 26�38%
- Note: Fewer than five respondents flagged where applicable.

### Average Percentage of Tax Arrears Older than 12 Months—All Respondents (2011–2013)
- Corporate Income Tax (15/19/19): 55.93% 54.52% 62.62%
- Personal Income Tax (14/17/16): 65.90% 70.09% 67.44%
- VAT (14/18/21): 55.64% 57.08% 54.82%
- Other Taxes (14/21/22): 63.70% 60.06% 55.41%
- Total Tax Arrears (19/23/24): 56�90% 58�35% 59�44%
- Numbers in parentheses equal the average sample size for data supplied for each year.
- Note: Limited data, not meaningful to present by income group.

### Verification, Audit, and Dispute Resolution

### Audit Types as Percentage of Total Audits by Income Group (Number) (2011–2013)
- Categories: Comprehensive Audits; Issue-Oriented Audits; Desk Audits; Other Verification Actions
- 2011 All Respondents (60): 34�41% 25�29% 23�41% 16�89%
- 2012 All Respondents (61): 31�51% 29�20% 21�84% 17�45%
- 2013 All Respondents (69): 31�28% 29�32% 22�73% 16�66%
- Income group specifics provided per year in source (see dataset).

### Audit Types as Percentage of Total Audits by Income Group (Value) (2011–2013)
- 2011 All Respondents (59): 46�94% 17�76% 14�22% 3�34%
- 2012 All Respondents (57): 44�91% 21�17% 9�97% 2�79%
- 2013 All Respondents (64): 42�89% 21�89% 11�16% 2�17%
- Income group specifics provided per year in source.

### Litigation (Appeals) Cases by Age—All Respondents (2011–2013)
- Cases less than 1 year old (33/31/38): 42.38% 48.49% 38.24%
- Cases 1 to 5 years old (33/31/38): 44.85% 37.03% 49.99%
- Cases more than 5 years old (33/31/38): 12.77% 14.48% 11.77%
- Numbers in parentheses equal the average sample size for data supplied for each year.
- Note: Limited data, not meaningful to present by income group.

*Source: Appendix tables extracted from the provided content unit.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/dp/2017/fad-understanding-revenue-admin.pdf_