## isorauraea

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [isorauraea](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/dp/2019/english/isorauraea.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/dp/2019/english/isorauraea.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/dp/2019/english/isorauraea.pdf.json)

---

### Overview and Purpose
- Publication structured in two parts: "Part 1: ISORA 2016—General Overview" and "Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data".
- ISORA 2016 survey edition with frequent reporting for 2015 and multi-year comparisons including 2011–15.
- Key topical areas: Introduction and Purpose of ISORA; History and Development; ISORA 2016—Survey Metrics; Access to and Use of ISORA Data; Overall Approach and Improvements; Performance-related Data; Profile Data; Administrative and Operational Practices.

### Participation and Coverage
- Jurisdictions Participating in ISORA 2016: 135.
- Geographic distribution (Table 3): Sub-Saharan Africa 37; Asia and the Pacific 19; Europe 41; Middle East and Central Asia 5; Western Hemisphere 33; Total 135.
- Population-size groups (Table 4): Small States (population < 1.5 Million) 31; Population 1.5–7.5 Million 38; Population 7.5–24 Million 33; Population > 24 Million 33; Total 135.
- Partner support (Table 6): CIAT-supported 15; IMF-supported 55; IOTA-supported 10; OECD-supported 55; totals by standard grouping: Small States 31; Lower Income 44; Higher Income 60; Total 135.
- Fragile states: 18 provided responses to ISORA 2016 (of 39 fragile states in 2015 designation).

### Data Access and RA-FIT Portal
- RA-FIT Data Portal URL cited: http://data.rafit.org
- Public access: aggregate ISORA 2016 data, questionnaires, guides, presentations, and publications.
- Registered user access: administration-level data accessible to registered users (staff of participating tax administrations) subject to terms and conditions.
- Data publication constraints: IMF- and IOTA-supported administrations require express consent for country-specific public release; aggregated/anonymized data (minimum five countries) may be made public.
- Improvements between 2016 and 2018 questionnaires:
  - Prefilled data entry points increased from 44 percent to 69 percent.
  - Annual questions reduced from 368 to 282 data entry points.

### Performance-related Data — Key Findings and Coverage
- Performance areas covered: Return filing, Payment, Electronic filing and payment, Tax arrears, Verification, Disputes, Cost of collection, Tax administration resources per taxpayers and citizens.
- Return filing:
  - Filing rates computable for roughly 60 percent of participants.
  - VAT on-time filing rate exceeds other core tax types.
  - Higher-income jurisdictions have higher filing rates; small states have the lowest on-time filing rates.
  - Five-year median CIT on-time filing rates (33 jurisdictions): 2011 55; 2012 54; 2013 55; 2014 72; 2015 69.
  - Table 9 ratio of expected CIT returns to active CIT taxpayers (Number of Data Points): 2011 52; 2012 51; 2013 58; 2014 80; 2015 76.
- Payment:
  - For 2015, > 65 percent of jurisdictions provided sufficient data to compute on-time filing rates; for on-time payment rates, less than 40 percent provided sufficient data.
  - PAYE has highest on-time payment rates overall, followed by VAT, CIT, then PIT.
  - Figure 5 sample grouping caption: Small States (6/5/5/8/8/8/6/8); Lower Income (17/17/13/19/21/21/16/19); Higher Income (24/23/20/25/26/24/20/26).
  - Data anomalies may occur (e.g., 101 percent PAYE due to estimation formula issues).
- Electronic filing and payment:
  - Online filing rates determinable for about 45 to 50 jurisdictions depending on year and tax type; response rate well under 50 percent of participants.
  - Less than a quarter of small-state and lower-income jurisdictions provided filing-channel information.
  - TADAT e-filing thresholds: A ≥85 percent; B ≥70 percent; C ≥50 percent for at least two core taxes; D below C.
  - Table 10 average proportions of returns filed electronically (All sample sizes): 2014 CIT 75 percent, PIT 61 percent, VAT 78 percent; 2015 CIT 77 percent, PIT 65 percent, VAT 83 percent.
  - Table 11 average percentage of electronic payments (All sample sizes): 2014 CIT 48 percent, PIT 49 percent, VAT 48 percent; 2015 CIT 47 percent, PIT 49 percent, VAT 51 percent.
- Tax arrears:
  - ISORA computes year-end tax arrears as a percentage of total net tax collected; 63 percent of respondents provided sufficient data.
  - Table 12 average tax arrears as percent of total net tax collected: Small States (12/14) 2014 51 percent, 2015 52 percent; Lower Income (24/26) 2014 23 percent, 2015 24 percent; Higher Income (47/44) 2014 34 percent, 2015 38 percent; All (83/84) 2014 33 percent, 2015 36 percent.
  - TADAT rating thresholds: A < 10 percent; B 10–20 percent; C 20–40 percent; D below C.
  - Data caveats: omission of customs-collected VAT may overstate ISORA ratios; 81 percent of participants recorded basis of accounting as "cash".
- Verification (audit):
  - Staff engaged in verification-related activities: approximately 20 percent to 33 percent.
  - Assessments raised through verification activity as percent of tax revenue (All): 2014 Comprehensive 2.42; Issue-oriented 0.73; Desk 0.02; Other 0.00; All 3.89. 2015 Comprehensive 3.14; Issue-oriented 0.85; Desk 0.01; Other 0.00; All 4.43.
  - Verification coverage per 100 active taxpayers (All median values): 2014 CIT 1.72; PIT 0.38; Empl. 1.02; VAT 5.01. 2015 CIT 1.65; PIT 0.45; Empl. 0.92; VAT 4.02.
  - Adjustment rates (All median percent): 2014 CIT 58 percent; PIT 71 percent; Empl. 67 percent; VAT 61 percent. 2015 CIT 64 percent; PIT 65 percent; Empl. 58 percent; VAT 58 percent.
  - Sample-size and definitional issues affect interpretation (automated high-volume checks underreported).
- Disputes:
  - ISORA response for disputes poor: ISORA 2016 response 29 percent.
  - Table 16 value of year-end stock of objections to total tax revenue (All): 2014 1.99 percent; 2015 1.50 percent.
  - Table 16 by group: Small States (9/11) 2014 0.04 percent, 2015 0.11 percent; Lower Income (16/16) 2014 3.14 percent, 2015 2.86 percent; Higher Income (13/13) 2014 2.84 percent, 2015 2.58 percent.
  - Suggestion: tracking counts of objections may be more feasible than values given response patterns.
- Cost of collection:
  - Definition numerator: Total recurrent expenditure; denominator: Net revenue collected less VAT and excises on import.
  - Information sufficient to compute ratio provided by 76 participants.
  - Table 17 median and average cost of collection ratios, 2015:
    - Small States (11): Median 1.3; Average 1.9
    - Lower Income (19): Median 1.0; Average 1.10
    - Higher Income (46): Median 0.9; Average 0.89
    - All (76): Median 1.0; Average 1.1
  - Cautions: definitional differences, inclusion/exclusion of customs and nontax revenues, macroeconomic and tax policy changes affect comparability.
- Tax administration resources per taxpayers and citizens:
  - Table 18 median Active Core Taxpayers per FTE, 2015:
    - Small States (18/20): 2014 90 ; 2015 120
    - Lower Income (23/27): 2014 33 ; 2015 35
    - Higher Income (54/53): 2014 702 ; 2015 703
    - All (95/100): 2014 439 ; 2015 426
  - Table 19 median Citizens per FTE, 2015:
    - Small States (25/26): 2014 1,461 ; 2015 1,430
    - Lower Income (31/32): 2014 9,306 ; 2015 10,176
    - Higher Income (57/57): 2014 1,556 ; 2015 1,476
    - All (113/115): 2014 2,167 ; 2015 2,192

### Profile Data — Institutional Arrangements, Scope, and Roles
- Institutional arrangements (Table 21, 2015):
  - Tax Only: Semiautonomous Number 29 (21 percent); Within Ministry Number 57 (42 percent); All 86 (64 percent).
  - Tax and Customs: Semiautonomous Number 39 (29 percent); Within Ministry Number 10 (8 percent); All 49 (36 percent).
  - Total: Semiautonomous Number 68 (50 percent); Within Ministry Number 67 (50 percent); All 135 (100 percent).
- Semiautonomy:
  - Of 68 semiautonomous respondents, 53 percent indicated they had a management board; for 80 percent of these (29 of 36) the board is decision-making.
  - Table 23 management board size: Decision-making Board (29): Average board members 8.1; Average private sector board members 2.8. Advisory Board (7): Average board members 6.4; Average private sector board members 2.5.
- Scope and revenue composition (Table 24, 2015 percent share of revenue):
  - Small States (23): Core Taxes 61.4; Other Taxes 27.8; Social Security Contributions 8.4; Nontax Revenue 2.4.
  - Lower Income (33): Core Taxes 69.8; Other Taxes 26.3; Social Security Contributions 0.9; Nontax Revenue 3.1.
  - Higher Income (54): Core Taxes 69.0; Other Taxes 16.9; Social Security Contributions 11.4; Nontax Revenue 2.6.
  - All (110): Core Taxes 67.6; Other Taxes 22.0; Social Security Contributions 7.6; Nontax Revenue 2.7.
- Appendix Table 19 — Nontax Roles, 2015 (All percent):
  - Collection of SSC 28.9; Welfare Benefits 6.7; Child Support 5.2; Property Valuation 30.4; Student Loans 5.9; Population Register 2.2; Retirement Savings 6.7; Lotteries/Gambling/Gaming 37.0; Other 39.3.
- Other taxes and nontax roles:
  - Appendix Table 17 (Total, percent): Excises (domestic) 66; Motor Vehicle Taxes 40; Real Property 46; Wealth Taxes 22; Estate/Inheritance/Gift 37; Other Taxes 59; Social Security Contributions 34; Nontax Revenue 61.
  - Table 28 average number of nontax roles and “other” taxes collected, 2015:
    - Small States (31): Average nontax roles 1.5; Average “Other” Taxes Collected 1.9.
    - Lower Income (44): Average nontax roles 1.0; Average “Other” Taxes Collected 1.8.
    - Higher Income (60): Average nontax roles 2.2; Average “Other” Taxes Collected 2.3.
    - All (135): Average nontax roles 1.6; Average “Other” Taxes Collected 2.0.
- Social security contributions (Table 29 by region):
  - AFR (37): Collecting SSC percent 27; SSC Collection Planned number 4.
  - APD (19): Collecting SSC percent 5; SSC Collection Planned number 0.
  - EUR (41): Collecting SSC percent 54; SSC Collection Planned number 4.
  - MCD (5): Collecting SSC percent 4; SSC Collection Planned number 0.
  - WHD (33): Collecting SSC percent 33; SSC Collection Planned number 0.

### Staff Allocation, Outsourcing, and Demographics
- Staff allocation by function (Table 30 average percent, All (87)):
  - Registration and Taxpayer Service 14.0; Payment and Returns Processing 15.2; Audit and Verification 28.4; Enforcement and Debt Collection 11.2; Disputes and Appeals 3.3; Other Tax Operations 8.9; Support Functions 19.0.
- Full-time Equivalents by office type (Table 31 average percent, All (76)):
  - Headquarters 31.9; Regional Offices 19.7; Local/Branch Offices 38.6; Data Processing Centers 2.2; Service Centers 5.0; Other Offices 2.6.
- Outsourcing (Table 32 percent, All (135)):
  - Client Services 19; Data Processing Services 27; Information Technology Services 56.
- Staff age distribution (Figure 14 percent, All administrations (108)):
  - Under 25: 4; 25–34: 23; 35–44: 30; 45–54: 27; 55–64: 16; 65 and older: 1.
  - Percentage aged 45 years and older: just over 44 percent; aged 55 years and older constitutes 17 percent.
  - By grouping: Higher-income participants 54 percent aged 45+; Small states 36 percent; Lower-income jurisdictions about 33 percent.
- Length of service (Figure 18, all administrations (102) percent):
  - Less than 5 years 25; 5 to 9 years 22; 10 to 19 years 17; 20 years or more 22.
- Gender (Appendix Table 24 All (121/103)):
  - All staff 52 percent female; Executives 41 percent female.
  - Small States (29/23): All staff 60 percent female; Executives 42 percent.
  - Fragile States (13/12): All staff 35 percent female; Executives 30 percent.

### Segmentation and Large Taxpayer Programs
- Incidence of LTO/P, HNWI program, simplified regimes (Table 33 percent, All (135)):
  - LTO/P 86; HNWI 20; Simplified Regime or Small Taxpayers 56.
  - Small States (31): LTO/P 52; HNWI 13; Simplified Regime 26.
  - Lower Income (44): LTO/P 98; HNWI 2; Simplified Regime 82.
  - Higher Income (60): LTO/P 95; HNWI 32; Simplified Regime 53.
- Revenue through LTO/P median (Appendix Table 26 All (56/49)): 2014 44; 2015 45.
- Median percentage of corporate taxpayers included in LTO/P (All (76/78)): 2014 1.6; 2015 2.0.
- Functions within LTO/P (Table 35 percent, All): Audit 91; Arrears 69; Services 84; Returns/Payments 66; Disputes 47; Registration 46.

### Information-gathering and Debt Collection Powers
- Information-gathering powers (Table 39 percent of 135 participants):
  - To obtain all relevant information: 100
  - To request information from third parties: 96
  - To require taxpayers to produce all records on request: 98
  - To obtain information from other government departments or agencies: 96
  - Powers to enter business premises without consent or search warrant: 51; to enter dwellings without consent or warrant: 19.
- Debt collection powers:
  - 20 powers listed and grouped into Facilitating Payment (1,2,15,18,19), Direct Enforcement (3,5,7,12,14,16,17,20), Indirect Enforcement (4,6,8,9,10,11,13).
  - Frequently used powers (percent frequently used by participants):
    - Grant extensions of time to pay; formulate payment arrangements — used frequently by more than 50 percent.
    - Remit interest and penalties — frequently used by about 45 percent.
    - Direct enforcement frequently used by >50 percent for: collect taxes via third parties; offset tax debts against overpayments; garnishee salaries/wages.
    - Indirect enforcement frequently used by >50 percent for: obtain a lien over taxpayer’s assets; require tax clearance certificate for government contracts.
  - Overall, majority of powers (13 of 20) are not used frequently.

### Management, HR, and Compliance Risk Management
- Management practices (Figure 29 percent "Yes"):
  - Strategic plan: Small states 84; Lower income 93; Higher income 95.
  - Annual business/operational plans: Small states 90; Lower income 93; Higher income 89.
  - Formal internal assurance (internal audit): Small states 58; Lower income 59; Higher income 82.
  - Enterprise-wide risk policy: Small states 35; Lower income 95; Higher income 100.
- Human resources management (Figure 30 percent "Yes", All 135 unless otherwise noted):
  - Human resource strategy All 90; Specific training plan All 86; Specific recruitment plan All 64; Analysis of staff demographics All 65; Policies for flexible working arrangements All 52.
  - Higher-income group consistently outperforms other groups.
- Performance management (Figure 31 percent "Yes"):
  - Performance management system All 90; PM includes individual development plans All 71; Staff performance formally evaluated at least annually All 68; Performance linked to pay and reward All 52.
  - Higher-income: staff performance formally evaluated at least annually 88 percent.
- Staff engagement (Figure 32 percent "Yes", All 135):
  - Staff surveyed periodically 54; Staff engagement assessed 46; Staff survey results shared 44; Staff engaged in action plans 41.
  - Higher-income substantially ahead on engagement metrics.
- Compliance risk management (Figure 34 percent "Yes", All 133/135):
  - Formal approach for identifying key compliance risks All 74; Verification/audit All 73; Return filing All 46; Payment processing All 53; Taxpayer service All 52.
  - Compliance strategy priorities (Figure 35 percent high priority, All 133): Cooperative compliance 60; Tax compliance by design 30; Leveraging intermediaries 35; Making third-party data visible 39; Pre-assessment verification 52; Exchange of information 42.
- Audit case selection criteria (Table 40 percent, All 135):
  - Top criteria used: Economic sector 89; Third-party information 88; Taxpayer behavior 84; Taxpayer category 81; Information cross-checking 80.
- Electronic audit methods (Figure 38 percent, All 135):
  - Electronic audit methods used 57; Electronic methods for risk profiling 45; For case selection 50; For audit case management 37; Behavioral/predictive models 28.
  - Higher-income jurisdictions use electronic methods far more extensively (e.g., 82 percent use electronic audit methods).

### Indices — Administrative and Operational Practices
- Meeting Performance Standards Index (mean values, 2015, Table 41):
  - Small States (28): 51.8
  - Lower Income (43): 48.6
  - Higher Income (56): 69.1
  - All (127): 58.3
- Management and Human Resources Autonomy Index (Table 42 averages, 2015):
  - Semiautonomous: Management Autonomy 79.0; Human Resources Autonomy 94.9; Overall 89.2.
  - Within Ministry: Management Autonomy 62.3; Human Resources Autonomy 63.7; Overall 63.2.
  - All (135) Overall Index 76.3.
- Public Accountability Index (Table 43, 2015 averages):
  - Small States (31): 31.2
  - Lower Income (44): 47.3
  - Higher Income (60): 60.0
  - All (135): 49.3
  - By institutional arrangement: Semiautonomous 61.5; Within Ministry 36.8; All 49.3.
- Service Orientation Index (Table 45, 2015 averages):
  - Small States (31): 50.4
  - Lower Income (44): 58.7
  - Higher Income (60): 79.0
  - All (135): 65.8
  - By institutional arrangement: Semiautonomous 76.5; Within Ministry 55.0; All 65.8.
- Correlations among indices (Table 47, 2015):
  - Meeting Performance Standards with Management & HR Autonomy: 0.27
  - Meeting Performance Standards with Public Accountability: 0.44
  - Meeting Performance Standards with Service Orientation: 0.52
  - Management & HR Autonomy with Public Accountability: 0.52
  - Management & HR Autonomy with Service Orientation: 0.53
  - Public Accountability with Service Orientation: 0.74
  - Note: strongest relationship is Public Accountability and Service Orientation (0.74).

### Fragile States — Selected Comparisons
- Fragile states sample: 18 respondents; majority (13) low-income.
- Selected indicators (Table 48, percent or index values where noted):
  - Semiautonomous in Fragile States 45 percent; LTO/P incidence 100 percent; Simplified regime for small taxpayers 78 percent; VAT on-time filing rate 89 percent (sample sizes vary).
- Indices (Table 49, index values, 2015):
  - Fragile States (18): Meeting Performance Standards 43; Management & HR Autonomy 69; Public Accountability 32; Service Orientation 44.
  - Nonfragile States (117): Meeting Performance Standards 61; Management & HR Autonomy 77; Public Accountability 52; Service Orientation 69.
- Observations:
  - Fragile states have lower average index values across all four indices compared with nonfragile peers.
  - Fragile states resemble LICs in many limitations (data availability, lower public accountability and service orientation).

### Summary Conclusions and Policy Implications (as presented)
- Organizational form:
  - 68 of 135 administrations self-identified as semiautonomous.
  - 49 of 135 participants (about 36 percent) are responsible for both tax administration and customs.
- Revenue composition:
  - Noncore taxes, social security contributions, and nontax revenues account for close to 40 percent of all revenues for small-state jurisdictions, and about 30 percent for others.
- Staff allocation:
  - Front-office functions about 30 percent of staff; back-office (audit/verification/enforced debt collection) about 40 percent; disputes about 3 percent; support and other operational functions about 27 percent.
- Performance and capacity patterns:
  - Higher-income jurisdictions generally ahead on indices and on e-filing, e-payment, electronic audit methods, and service orientation.
  - Lower-income and small-state jurisdictions lag but show heterogeneity; some measures (on-time filing/payment) show smaller-than-expected differences.
- Data quality and future work:
  - Data quality issues due to survey newness and capacity disparities; ISORA provides a single comparable dataset using common concepts and definitions.
  - Future ISORA iterations should emphasize measurable performance indicators and build time series to deepen analysis and comparison with evidence-based assessments such as TADAT.
- Operational considerations highlighted:
  - Design and resourcing of tax administrations should reflect shares of revenues derived from noncore and nontax sources, especially in small states.
  - Where administrations combine tax and customs, integration of processes and information systems may improve efficiency.
  - Comparative ISORA data can guide technical assistance priorities and benchmarking.

*Source: isorauraea - Executive Summary, Part 1 and Part 2 (ISORA 2016) — extracted content as presented in the provided PDF chapter.*

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

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

### Overview and Purpose
- Publication structured in two parts: "Part 1: ISORA 2016—General Overview" and "Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data".
- Key topical coverage areas (as reflected in the table of contents):
  - Introduction and Purpose of ISORA.
  - History and Development of ISORA.
  - ISORA 2016—Survey Metrics.
  - Access to and Use of ISORA Data.
  - Overall Approach and Improvements to ISORA.
  - Performance-related Data, Profile Data, and Administrative and Operational Practices.
- Timeframes and reference years explicitly used in the content:
  - ISORA 2016 (the survey edition).
  - Data and indicators frequently reported for 2015.
  - Multi-year comparisons include 2011–15.

### Part 1: ISORA 2016 — General Overview (structure)
- Chapters and subtopics enumerated:
  - Introduction.
  - Purpose of ISORA.
  - History and Development of ISORA.
  - ISORA 2016—Survey Metrics.
  - Access to and Use of ISORA Data.
  - The Overall Approach for this Publication.
  - Making Improvements to ISORA.
- Boxes and portals referenced:
  - Box 1. Jurisdictions Listed by ISORA Partner Providing Support.
  - Box 2. The RA-FIT Data Portal.
  - Box 3. Jurisdiction Groupings Used in this Paper.
- Tables summarizing participant characteristics and groupings (examples listed in the contents):
  - Table 1. Key Aggregated Information from ISORA 2016.
  - Table 2. Variation among ISORA 2016 Participants.
  - Table 3. Survey Participants by Income Group and IMF Region.
  - Table 4. Survey Participants by Population Size.
  - Table 5. Grouping of ISORA Subject Matter Areas.
  - Table 6. Survey Participants by Partner-Group.
  - Table 7. Survey Participants by IMF Region and the Standard Grouping.
  - Table 8. Fragile State Participants by Income and Standard Grouping.

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data (structure and focal metrics)
- Major thematic sections:
  - Performance-related Data
    - Return Filing
    - Payment
    - Electronic Filing and Payment
    - Tax Arrears
    - Verification
    - Disputes
    - Cost of Collection
    - Tax Administration Resources in Relation to Taxpayers and Citizens Served
    - Conclusion
  - Profile Data
    - Institutional Arrangements
    - Scope
    - Allocation of Tax Administration Staff
    - Staff Demographics
    - Segmentation
    - Registration
    - Information Gathering Powers
    - Debt Collection Powers
    - Management Issues
    - Human Resource Management
    - Compliance Risk Management
    - Conclusion
  - Administrative and Operational Practices
    - Meeting Performance Standards Index
    - Management and Human Resources Autonomy Index
    - Public Accountability Index
    - Service Orientation Index
    - Relationships among the Four Indices and Performance Measures
    - Conclusion

### Key Indicators, Figures, and Tables (topics and exact numeric labels preserved)
- Figures addressing filing, payment, arrears, staff distribution, and indices include:
  - Figure 1. Geographic Distribution of ISORA 2016 Participants
  - Figure 2. Median On-Time Filing Rates
  - Figure 3. Median On-Time Filing Rates for Core Taxes, 2011–15 (Data Set 1)
  - Figure 4. Median On-time Filing Rates for Core Taxes, 2011–15 (Data Set 2)
  - Figure 5. Median On-time Payment Rate by Value
  - Figure 6. Number of Responses by Online Filing Rate
  - Figure 7. Number of Responses by Online Payment Rates, 2015
  - Figure 8. Distribution of Arrears-to-Collection Ratios, 2015
  - Figure 9. Distribution of the Cost of Collection Values, 2015
  - Figures 10–49 covering Institutional Arrangements, staff, service profiles, autonomy, accountability, service orientation, and practices (each figure listed in the contents with its exact title).
- Tables providing detailed statistics and ratios include (selected from contents):
  - Table 9. Expected Corporate Income Tax Returns Compared to Active Corporate Income Tax Taxpayers
  - Table 10. Average Percentage of Returns Filed Electronically by Tax Type
  - Table 11. Average Percentage of Electronic Payments by Tax Type
  - Table 12. Average Tax Arrears at Year-end as a Percentage of Total Net Tax Collected
  - Table 13. Assessments Raised through Verification Activity
  - Table 15. Verification Activities Leading to Adjustment (Adjustment Rate)
  - Table 16. Value of Year-end Stock of Objections to Total Tax Revenue
  - Table 17. Median and Average Cost of Collection Ratios, 2015
  - Table 18. Median Active Core Taxpayers per FTE
  - Table 19. Citizens per FTE
  - Table 21. Institutional Arrangements Matrix, 2015
  - Table 22. Autonomy and Scope, 2015
  - Table 29. Tax Administrations Collecting or Planning to Collect Social Security Contributions, 2015
  - Table 41. Mean Values for the Meeting Performance Standards Index, 2015
  - Table 42. Combined Management and Human Resources Autonomy Index, 2015
  - Table 43. Public Accountability Index Average for Standard Groups, 2015
  - Table 45. Service Orientation Index Average for Standard Groups, 2015
  - Appendix Tables 1–18 covering median and average rates, arrears, audits, cost of collection, staffing ratios, and institutional arrangements (each appendix table listed with its exact title).

### Indices, Performance Measures, and Thematic Analysis Areas
- The publication constructs and reports on multiple indices and their relationships:
  - Meeting Performance Standards Index.
  - Management and Human Resources Autonomy Index (also presented as Combined Management and Human Resources Autonomy Index).
  - Public Accountability Index.
  - Service Orientation Index.
  - Relationships among the four indices and performance measures are analyzed and tabulated (Table 47. Correlation Between the Practices Indices, 2015).
- Human resources and management practices are a major focus, with dedicated figures and tables on:
  - Staff age distribution (Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17).
  - Staff allocation by function and office (Figure 12, Figure 13; Table 30, Table 31).
  - Elements of good practice in management, human resources, performance management, and staff engagement (Figures 29–33).
- Compliance and verification topics covered include:
  - Verification and audit activity metrics (Table 13, Table 14, Table 15).
  - Tax gap estimates and audit conduct (Figure 37).
  - Electronic methods in audit and specific uses (Figure 38).
  - Debt collection powers and frequency of use (Figure 27, Figure 28).
- Cost and efficiency metrics included:
  - Cost of collection distributions and median/average ratios (Figure 9; Table 17; Appendix Table 12).
  - Active core taxpayers per FTE and citizens per FTE (Table 18; Table 19; Appendix Tables 13–14).

### Special Topics and Group Analyses
- Fragile states are specifically compared across selected indicators and indices:
  - Table 8. Fragile State Participants by Income and Standard Grouping.
  - Table 48. Comparing Fragile States—Sample Indicators, 2015.
  - Table 49. Comparing Fragile States—Indices, 2015.
  - Box 7. Administrative and Operational Practices of Fragile States.
- Jurisdiction groupings, partner support, and the RA-FIT Data Portal are documented:
  - Box 1. Jurisdictions Listed by ISORA Partner Providing Support.
  - Box 2. The RA-FIT Data Portal.
  - Table 6. Survey Participants by Partner-Group.

### Analytical Outputs Emphasized by the Publication (by structure)
- Multi-year comparisons of filing behavior: "Median On-time Filing Rates" and "Median On-Time Filing Rates for Core Taxes, 2011–15 (Data Set 1/2)".
- Electronic filing and payment uptake and their distribution among respondents (Figures 6 and 7; Tables 10 and 11).
- Arrears and arrears-to-collection ratios and their distribution (Figure 8; Table 12; Appendix Table 7).
- Verification coverage and adjustment rates, and the value of objections relative to revenue (Tables 13–16; Appendix Tables 8–11).
- Institutional arrangements and autonomy by type and grouping (Figures 10–11; Tables 21–24; Appendix Tables 15–16).
- Service orientation, public accountability, and performance standard achievement by standard grouping and institutional type (Figures 39–47; Tables 41, 43–46).

*Source: isorauraea - Executive Summary (ISORA 2016) — contents and structure as listed in the provided PDF chapter/section.*

### Appendix Table 19. Nontax Roles, 2015 ......................................................................109

### Appendix Table 19. Nontax Roles, 2015

### Key findings related to nontax roles (from ISORA 2016 summary)
- Noncore taxes, social security contributions, and nontax revenues account for close to 40 percent of all revenues for small-state jurisdictions, and about 30 percent for the others.
- About 36 percent of participants (49 of 135) are responsible for both tax administration and customs administration, indicating overlap between tax and nontax revenue collection responsibilities in many administrations.
- Participating administrations represent 135 jurisdictions and cover a significant portion of the global economy (92 percent of global GDP), implying that the reported nontax roles reflect a broad cross-section of institutional arrangements.

### Relevant aggregate statistics (ISORA 2016)
- Jurisdictions Participating in ISORA 2016: 135
- Total Net Revenue Collected (US dollars): 9,800,000,000,000
- Operational Budget (US dollars): 108,000,000,000
- Active Personal Income Tax and Corporate Income Tax Taxpayers: 800,000,000
- Value-added Tax Registrants: 310,000,000
- Staff Employed: 2,000,000

### Implications for administrations with nontax roles
- High reliance on noncore taxes and nontax revenues in small-state jurisdictions (close to 40 percent) suggests that revenue administration capacity and policy design must accommodate a broader revenue mix than jurisdictions dominated by core taxes.
- Shared responsibility for tax and customs administration in 36 percent of participants points to potential efficiencies or complexities arising from combined mandates—implications for organizational design, staffing, and systems integration.
- Given the large scale of aggregated collections and registrants reported, nontax roles likely interact with performance-related measures (filing, payment, cost of collection) and administrative practices (service orientation, public accountability).

### Policy and operational considerations highlighted by ISORA findings
- Design and resourcing of tax administrations should reflect the share of revenues derived from noncore taxes, social security contributions, and nontax sources—particularly in small states where these shares are larger (close to 40 percent).
- Where administrations are responsible for both tax and customs, strategies for integration of processes and information systems may improve efficiency and revenue collection outcomes.
- Comparative ISORA data can be used to identify baseline practices and to calibrate technical assistance priorities for administrations with significant nontax roles.

*Source: ISORA 2016 findings as presented in Understanding Revenue Administration (ISORA 2016).*

### Part 1: ISORA 2016—General Overview

### Part 1: ISORA 2016—General Overview

### ISORA 2016 partnership and purpose
- ISORA 2016 is the first result of a memorandum of understanding concluded in 2016 between CIAT, IMF, IOTA, and the OECD to collect tax administration information based on common questions and definitions and using the IMF’s online RA-FIT platform.
- The partnership produced a single survey with a total of 135 participating tax administrations.
- Partner organizations continue to produce their own analyses and contextualization of data in a manner that best meets the needs of their members.

### Survey metrics and participation
- Total participating tax administrations: 135.
- Six other administrations submitted forms but did not qualify for inclusion due to insufficient responses or completing only one year.
- Geographic and income observations:
  - ISORA 2016 responses from low-income countries (LICs) are largely concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa.
  - Europe’s responses are dominated by upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) and high-income countries (HICs).
- World Bank income group definitions cited:
  - low-income countries—$1,045 or less;
  - lower-middle-income countries—$1,046 to $4,125;
  - upper-middle-income countries—$4,126 to $12,745;
  - high-income countries—$12,746 or more.

### Distribution of participants (by region and income group)
- Table 3 (Survey Participants by Income Group and IMF Region) key figures:
  - Sub-Saharan Africa total participants: 37
  - Asia and the Pacific total participants: 19
  - Europe total participants: 41
  - Middle East and Central Asia total participants: 5
  - Western Hemisphere total participants: 33
  - Total participants: 135
  - Low-Income Countries row: 21, 1, 0, 0, 0, total 22
  - Lower-Middle-Income Countries row: 9, 6, 14, 6, 26 (note: original table formatting indicates counts across regions)
  - Upper-Middle-Income Countries row: 6, 6, 10, 11, 7, total 40
  - High-Income Countries row: 1, 6, 30, 0, 10, total 47

- Table 4 (Survey Participants by Population Size) key figures:
  - Total participants by population-size groups: 31, 38, 33, 33, total 135
  - Small States: population < 1.5 Million People — 31 participants
  - Population 1.5 to 7.5 Million People — 38 participants
  - Population 7.5 to 24 Million People — 33 participants
  - Population > 24 Million People — 33 participants
  - Examples by income group:
    - Low-Income Countries: 0, 6, 9, 7, total 22
    - Lower-Middle-Income Countries: 4, 9, 8, 5, total 26
    - Upper-Middle-Income Countries: 15, 10, 5, 10, total 40
    - High-Income Countries: 12, 13, 11, 11, total 47

### Partner support and jurisdictions
- All participants are members of one of the international partner groups or have a relationship with one of the IMF’s Regional Technical Assistance Centers.
- Each ISORA partner organization supports participants from their organizations in completing the survey; memberships overlap across partners.
- Distribution of participants by partner group (Table 6):
  - Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations-supported jurisdictions: 15
  - IMF-supported jurisdictions: 55
  - Intra-European Organisation of Tax Administrations-supported jurisdictions: 10
  - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-supported jurisdictions: 55
  - Totals by standard grouping in Table 6:
    - Small States: 3 (CIAT), 21 (IMF), 2 (IOTA), 5 (OECD), total 31
    - Lower Income: 7 (CIAT), 31 (IMF), 3 (IOTA), 3 (OECD), total 44
    - Higher Income: 5 (CIAT), 3 (IMF), 1 (IOTA), 51 (OECD), total 60
    - Total participants by partner groups: 15, 55, 10, 55, total 135

- Box 1 lists jurisdictions supported by each partner (jurisdiction lists provided in the source).

### Access to and use of ISORA data
- Access rules vary by partner-supported group:
  - Tax administrations supported by OECD and CIAT agreed that all their data can be made public by those organizations. For ISORA 2016, the OECD has already made public the vast majority of the data from its supported administrations.
  - Those supported by the IMF and IOTA are not currently required to agree that their data can be placed in the public domain.
- Data publication constraints:
  - Country-specific data from IMF- and IOTA-supported administrations cannot be made public without that administration’s express consent.
  - Aggregated data (from at least five countries) and other data sufficiently anonymized to prevent identification may be made public.
  - This IMF publication provides only aggregated and anonymized data; statistics such as the average or median are used where at least five data points are available.
- The IMF plans to seek approval from its supported participants for ISORA data to be placed in the public domain.
- Data collected in ISORA 2016 is available from the RA-FIT Data portal.

### RA-FIT Data Portal (Box 2)
- Portal URL cited: http://data.rafit.org
- Public access features:
  - Provides public access to aggregate data collected in ISORA 2016, ISORA questionnaires and guides, presentations, and publications based on ISORA data.
  - Data available as standard tables and visualizations; users can create custom tables through the query tool.
  - The portal includes ISORA 2016 data not covered explicitly in this publication.
- Registered user access:
  - Administration-level data accessible to registered users (staff of participating tax administrations).
  - Registered users bound by terms and conditions: unless data are already public domain, only aggregate data may be published.

### Analysis framework and income grouping approach
- This publication groups ISORA subject matter into three areas (Table 5):
  - Performance-related Data: Return filing and payment, electronic filing and payment, tax arrears, audit/verification, disputes, cost of collection, and tax administration resources.
  - Profile Data: Institutional arrangements, scope, segmentation, registration, personal income tax withholding and reporting, information-gathering powers, collection powers, management issues, human resources, and compliance risk management.
  - Data on Administrative and Operational Practices: Indices on the existence of performance standards, management and human resources autonomy, public accountability, and service orientation.
- Indices for administrative and operational practices are calculated from “Yes/No” questions; higher numbers of “Yes” responses yield higher index values and are assumed to indicate more representative “good” practice.
- Income-grouping logic:
  - Prior analysis showed significant differences in tax administration across four World Bank income groups (LICs, LMICs, UMICs, HICs), but sample sizes made four-way distinctions too granular for some analyses.
  - Many small states, although often higher-income, exhibit characteristics of lower-capacity, lower-income tax administrations; treating small states separately increases group homogeneity.
  - Standard analysis framework used in this publication: three groups — lower income (LICs and LMICs), higher income (UMICs and HICs), and small state — comprising responses from 44, 60, and 31 jurisdictions, respectively.

### Regional and fragile-state considerations
- Table 7 (Survey Participants by IMF Region and the Standard Grouping) key figures:
  - Sub-Saharan Africa: Small States 4, Lower Income 29, Higher Income 4, total 37
  - Asia and the Pacific: Small States 7, Lower Income 0, Higher Income 12, total 19
  - Europe: Small States 7, Lower Income 0, Higher Income 33, total 41
  - Middle East and Central Asia: Small States 0, Lower Income 1, Higher Income 4, total 5
  - Western Hemisphere: Small States 13, Lower Income 14, Higher Income 6, total 33
  - Total participants: 135
- Fragile states:
  - The IMF designates fragile states using a three-year average of the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment score.
  - In 2015, 39 states were designated fragile; 18 of these provided responses to ISORA 2016.
  - Table 8 (Fragile State Participants) key figures:
    - Lower-Income Countries: 13 fragile states
    - Lower-Middle-Income Countries: 3 fragile states
    - Upper-Middle-Income Countries: 2 fragile states
    - Higher-Income Countries: 0 fragile states
    - Fragile states by standard grouping: Small States 1, Lower Income 15, Higher Income 2, total 18

### Making improvements to ISORA and data quality actions
- Operating philosophy: continuous improvement via a Technical Working Group guided by an Executive Council.
- Two important post-survey tasks for the Technical Working Group:
  - Complete review of each survey question and participant responses to identify problems of definition, data availability, utility, and other participant-raised matters.
  - Sharing of experience in providing assistance and review during the collection phase to leverage synergies in quality-assurance techniques.
- Data quality considerations:
  - Obvious data quality issues arise from the newness and complexity of ISORA and wide disparities in participating administrations’ capacity to provide accurate data.
  - Over the longer run, successive surveys will allow analysis of response and participation rates and inform survey improvements.
  - ISORA provides a single, comparable set of data for all tax administrations using common concepts and definitions, significantly increasing comparable data points for numerical responses (for example, tax arrears figures, on-time filing, audit results).
- Examples of improvements implemented between ISORA 2016 and the 2018 questionnaire:
  - The proportion of prefilled data entry points increased from 44 percent (in the ISORA 2016 questionnaire) to 69 percent.
  - The number of annual questions was reduced from 368 to 282 data entry points.
  - Both the 2016 and 2018 questionnaires are available at the RA-FIT portal (portal URL cited).

*Source: ISORA 2016—General Overview*

### Box 3. Jurisdiction Groupings Used in this Paper

### Box 3. Jurisdiction Groupings Used in this Paper

### Jurisdiction Groupings
- Asia and Pacific (19)
  - Australia, Cook Islands, China (P.R.: Hong Kong), China (P.R.: Mainland), Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic of ), Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu.
- Europe (41)
  - Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ire- land, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (FYR), Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republika Srpska, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia (Republic of ), Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and United Kingdom.
- Middle East and Central Asia, including North Africa (5)
  - Armenia (Republic of ), Azerbaijan (Republic of ), Georgia, Mauritania, and Morocco.
- Western Hemisphere, including Caribbean (33)
  - Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Grenada, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States, Uruguay, and Virgin Islands (British).
- Fragile States (18)
  - Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Democratic Republic of ), Congo (Republic of ), Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, and Togo.

### Performance-related Data — Overview
- Coverage: eight specific performance areas drawn from ISORA and largely comparable to TADAT.
- Purpose: discuss indicative set of performance measures and assess ISORA's capability to collect such information; not exhaustive.
- Key measures discussed:
  - Return filing — on-time filing rates;
  - Payment — on-time payment rates;
  - Electronic filing and payment
    - Percentage of returns filed electronically;
    - Percentage of electronic payments;
  - Tax arrears — arrears at year-end as a percentage of total net taxes collected;
  - Verification
    - Assessments raised through verification activity as a percentage of total net taxes collected;
    - Verification activity per 100 active taxpayers (coverage rate);
    - Percentage of verification activities leading to adjustment (adjustment rate);
  - Disputes — value of year-end stock of objections (administrative disputes) as a percentage of total net tax collected;
  - Cost of collection — total recurrent expenditure as a percentage of total net taxes collected (excluding value-added tax [VAT] and excises on import);
  - Tax administration resources compared to taxpayers and citizens
    - Active core taxpayers per full-time equivalent (FTE);
    - Citizens per FTE.

### Return Filing — Findings and Data Coverage
- Method: on-time filing rate = ratio of returns filed on time to total number of expected returns for the same tax type and period.
- Historical RA-FIT observations:
  - Personal income tax (PIT) on-time filing: 45 percent in 2010 growing to 50 percent by 2013.
  - Corporate income tax (CIT) on-time filing: improved to 57 percent from 49 percent over same period.
- ISORA 2016:
  - Filing rates can be computed for roughly 60 percent of ISORA 2016 participants.
  - VAT on-time filing rate exceeds that of other core tax types.
  - Filing rates in higher-income jurisdictions are higher than for other groups for all taxes.
  - Small states have the lowest on-time filing rates for each tax type for each year.
- Figure data summaries (medians and sample sizes shown in source figures):
  - Figure 2 caption indicates sample sizes presented as: Small States (14/14/11/19/14/15/12/19), Lower Income (28/25/22/29/27/22/20/25), Higher Income (47/44/26/41/42/40/27/42).
  - Figure 3 sample sizes: CIT (51/50/57/89/83), PIT (42/41/45/83/77), VAT (53/53/57/89/86), Employers (36/37/41/59/59).
  - Figure 4 sample sizes for panel: CIT (33), PIT (22), Employers (20), VAT (34).

### Box 4 — Five-year Analysis of Corporate Income Tax On-time Filing Rates (2011–2015)
- Sample: 33 jurisdictions provided CIT data for 2011–2015.
- Median CIT on-time filing rates for these jurisdictions:
  - 2011: 55
  - 2012: 54
  - 2013: 55
  - 2014: 72
  - 2015: 69
- Observations:
  - Sudden increase in CIT on-time filing rates between 2013 and 2014.
  - Reasons include improved data richness across surveys (RA-FIT Rounds 1 and 2, and ISORA 2016) and changes in definitions/inputs (registered taxpayers vs. active taxpayers; addition of filing frequency).
  - The ratio of expected returns to active taxpayers influences on-time filing rates.
- Table 9 (Proportion of responses where ratio of expected CIT returns to active CIT taxpayers is):
  - < 1: 2011 35, 2012 31, 2013 34, 2014 39, 2015 34
  - = 1: 2011 31, 2012 25, 2013 24, 2014 31, 2015 33
  - > 1: 2011 35, 2012 43, 2013 41, 2014 30, 2015 33
  - Between 0.9 and 1.1: 2011 40, 2012 37, 2013 38, 2014 58, 2015 61
  - Number of Data Points: 2011 52, 2012 51, 2013 58, 2014 80, 2015 76
- Implication: reduction in expected returns relative to active taxpayers between 2013 and 2014 contributed to the increase in on-time filing rates; changes in expected-returns estimation methodology affect interpretation.

### Payment — Findings and Data Coverage
- ISORA collects on-time payment information analogous to on-time filing.
- TADAT measures for VAT only: on-time payment rate by number of payments and by value of payments (value typically exceeds number).
- ISORA completeness:
  - For 2015, > 65 percent of jurisdictions provided sufficient data to compute on-time filing rates.
  - For on-time payment rates, less than 40 percent of jurisdictions provided sufficient data.
- Figure 5 summaries and observations:
  - Pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) has the highest on-time payment rates overall, followed by VAT, CIT, and then PIT.
  - Differences by income group and small states clustered within a 10 percentage-point range over both years.
  - Some data anomalies exist (e.g., 101 percent for PAYE for small states in 2015) due to estimation formula issues for on-time payment rates (actual value of on-time payments as percent of estimated value of on-time payments).
- Figure 5 sample grouping caption: Small States (6/5/5/8/8/8/6/8), Lower Income (17/17/13/19/21/21/16/19), Higher Income (24/23/20/25/26/24/20/26).

### Electronic Filing and Payment — Findings and Data Coverage
- ISORA seeks filing-by-channel and payment-by-channel data; posits online filing and payment rates as performance measures.
- Response rates:
  - Online filing rates can be determined for about 45 to 50 jurisdictions depending on year and tax type.
  - Overall response rate well under 50 percent of ISORA participants; most responses from higher-income jurisdictions.
  - Less than a quarter of small-state and lower-income jurisdictions provided information on filing channels.
- Context:
  - Many administrations aim to increase online filing and payment rates to improve service and efficiency.
  - TADAT electronic filing thresholds and ratings (as provided in source):
    - A — at least 85 percent of declarations are filed electronically for each of the core taxes, and all large taxpayers file core tax declarations electronically;
    - B — at least 70 percent of declarations are filed electronically for each of the core taxes, and at least 80 percent of large taxpayers file core tax declarations electronically;
    - C — at least 50 percent of declarations are filed electronically for at least two core taxes;
    - D — the requirements for a “C” rating or higher are not met.

*Source: Box 3. Jurisdiction Groupings Used in this Paper (ISORA 2016 content as provided).*

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### E-filing and Online Payments
- Respondent coverage: administrations offering e-filing were more likely to provide channel information; statistics skewed toward administrations that offer e-filing.
- Distribution of online filing (Figure 6): approximately a quarter of respondents providing return filing channel information indicated that 100 percent of CIT and VAT returns are received online.
- Comparisons by tax type:
  - CIT and VAT: more administrations record an online filing rate of between 85 and 100 percent than a rate between 0 and 85 percent.
  - PIT: online filing rates lag CIT and VAT; 10 percent of participants providing return channel information record 100 percent online filing; online filing rate for PIT taxpayers is over 50 percent for more than half of these administrations.
- Average proportions of returns filed electronically for administrations reporting e-filing (Table 10):
  - Small States (sample sizes shown in parentheses): 2014 — CIT 2 percent, PIT 1 percent, VAT 49 percent; 2015 — CIT 56 percent, PIT 2 percent, VAT 1 percent. (Parenthetical sample-size sequence: (3/5/6/4/5/6))
  - Lower Income (sample sizes): 2014 — CIT 47 percent, PIT 58 percent, VAT 49 percent; 2015 — CIT 70 percent, PIT 82 percent, VAT 2 percent. (Parenthetical sequence: (8/6/7/6/5/3))
  - Higher Income (sample sizes): 2014 — CIT 82 percent, PIT 63 percent, VAT 90 percent; 2015 — CIT 85 percent, PIT 64 percent, VAT 89 percent. (Parenthetical sequence: (35/33/30/32/31/30))
  - All (sample sizes): 2014 — CIT 75 percent, PIT 61 percent, VAT 78 percent; 2015 — CIT 77 percent, PIT 65 percent, VAT 83 percent. (Parenthetical sequence: (46/44/43/42/41/39))
- Observations:
  - E-filing rates for responding participants from higher-income jurisdictions are significantly higher than those from lower-income jurisdictions and small states.
  - In higher-income jurisdictions, CIT and VAT e-file rates often reach above 85 percent; roughly 20 percent of higher-income respondents report 100 percent e-filing for PIT.
- Online payment response limitations:
  - Online payment rates determined from 17 to 21 jurisdictions depending on tax type and year (around 15 percent of ISORA 2016 participants).
  - Low response rate will affect analytical conclusions.
  - For higher-income participants answering payment-related questions, non-VAT electronic payment rates are less than 50 percent; electronic payment rates appear lower across all tax types than e-filing rates.
- Average percentage of electronic payments by tax type for administrations that receive electronic payments (Table 11):
  - Small States (sample sizes): data sparse; many columns indicate "1 Fewer than five respondents."
  - Lower Income (sample sizes): 2014/2015 values not fully enumerated in source extract.
  - Higher Income (10/9/9/10/9/8): 2014 — CIT 61 percent, PIT 60 percent, VAT 64 percent; 2015 — CIT 60 percent, PIT 59 percent, VAT 69 percent.
  - All (15/14/13/15/14/12): 2014 — CIT 48 percent, PIT 49 percent, VAT 48 percent; 2015 — CIT 47 percent, PIT 49 percent, VAT 51 percent.
- Note: less than a third of the responses provided originated from tax administrations in small-state and lower-income jurisdictions.

### Tax Arrears
- Performance measure context: ratio of stock of total tax arrears at year-end to total tax collections for the year (TADAT performance outcome area); TADAT ratings based on three-year average:
  - A: ratio is below 10 percent.
  - B: ratio is above 10 percent but does not exceed 20 percent.
  - C: ratio is above 20 percent but does not exceed 40 percent.
  - D: requirements for a "C" rating or higher are not met.
- ISORA limitations: ISORA computes ratio of year-end tax arrears as a percentage of total net tax revenue but does not gather information on VAT revenues collected at the border by customs; ISORA-computed ratios may be overstated.
- ISORA response rates: 63 percent of respondents provided data sufficient to compute arrears ratios.
- Average tax arrears at year-end as a percentage of total net tax collected (Table 12):
  - Small States (12/14): 2014 51 percent, 2015 52 percent.
  - Lower Income (24/26): 2014 23 percent, 2015 24 percent.
  - Higher Income (47/44): 2014 34 percent, 2015 38 percent.
  - All (83/84): 2014 33 percent, 2015 36 percent.
  - Note: "An extreme outlier has been omitted from the calculation of the average."
- Distribution and variability (Figure 8):
  - For lower-income jurisdictions, interquartile range: ratio lies between 7 percent and 30 percent for half the administrations.
  - Distribution is highly skewed; averages for higher-income countries lie above the third quartile; averages for small states lie far above the median.
- Data quality caveats affecting use of arrears ratio:
  1. External factors may significantly change ratio year to year (for example, the global crisis in 2008).
  2. Administrations with active filing compliance programs may see ratio worsen relative to administrations not pursuing outstanding returns because liabilities of non-filers may not be established.
  3. Failure to use write-off provisions to categorize arrears as uncollectible will overstate total tax arrears.
- Additional data note: approximately 40 percent of administrations that provided tax arrears aggregates did not provide the breakdown between collectible and noncollectible arrears.
- Accounting basis: 81 percent of participants recorded their basis of accounting as "cash" rather than "accrual."

### Verification (Audit) — Assessments, Coverage, and Adjustment Rates
- Verification defined as interventions to check taxpayer reporting; types described:
  - Comprehensive audit: in-depth, covers multiple taxes/issues/years, mostly at taxpayer premises.
  - Issue-oriented audit: focused on specific issues/taxes/years, normally at taxpayer premises.
  - Desk audit: in-office review of returned information, often written or telephonic enquiries.
  - Other verification interventions: high-volume automated checks such as income/document cross-matching.
- Focus of analysis: (1) assessment results (additional taxes assessed through verification) and (2) coverage and adjustment rates.
  - Results measured by percentage of total tax revenue provided through verification activities.
  - Coverage rate: verification activity per 100 active taxpayers.
  - Adjustment rate: percentage of verification activity leading to adjustment in tax liability.
- Staff engagement: approximately 20 percent to 33 percent of all tax administration staff engaged in verification-related activities.
- Reporting challenges: differences in recording automated/high-volume activities affect coverage and adjustment calculations; issues addressed for ISORA 2018.
- Assessments raised through verification activity as percent of tax revenue (Table 13):
  - Small States (sample sizes): 2014 — Comprehensive 1.79, Issue-oriented 1.78, Desk 0.02, Other 0.04, All 2.45; 2015 — Comprehensive 3.23, Issue-oriented 1.34, Desk 0.05, Other 0.01, All 4.69. (Parenthetical sizes: (11/11/6/5/8/15/11/8/7/9))
  - Lower Income (sample sizes): 2014 — Comprehensive 4.52, Issue-oriented 0.86, Desk 0.01, Other 0.00, All 5.40; 2015 — Comprehensive 3.39, Issue-oriented 1.38, Desk 0.00, Other 0.00, All 5.08. (Parenthetical: (23/22/10/5/15/26/26/13/6/17))
  - Higher Income (sample sizes): 2014 — Comprehensive 1.97, Issue-oriented 0.56, Desk 0.03, Other 0.01, All 3.85; 2015 — Comprehensive 2.68, Issue-oriented 0.45, Desk 0.02, Other 0.01, All 4.05. (Parenthetical: (36/29/28/20/19/35/29/28/19/19))
  - All (sample sizes): 2014 — Comprehensive 2.42, Issue-oriented 0.73, Desk 0.02, Other 0.00, All 3.89; 2015 — Comprehensive 3.14, Issue-oriented 0.85, Desk 0.01, Other 0.00, All 4.43. (Parenthetical: (70/62/44/30/42/76/66/49/32/45))
- Observations on assessments:
  - Far more administrations provided information on comprehensive audits than other types.
  - Comprehensive audits contribute more than any other audit type to assessments raised.
  - Unexpectedly low results for the "Other Verification" category, including automated processes.
- Verification coverage per 100 active taxpayers (median values, Table 14):
  - Small States (sample sizes): 2014 — CIT 1.46, PIT 0.13, Empl. 0.60, VAT [blank]; 2015 — CIT 6.59, PIT 1.77, Empl. 0.28, VAT 2.29. (Parenthetical: (6/5/5/8/7/6/4/8))
  - Lower Income (sample sizes): 2014/2015 values show sparse reporting and are not fully enumerated in the extract; some entries indicate "Fewer than five respondents."
  - Higher Income (32/30/14/32/32/32/30/15/33): 2014 — CIT 1.75, PIT 0.43, Empl. 1.29, VAT 3.89; 2015 — CIT 1.52, PIT 0.47, Empl. 0.92, VAT 3.99.
  - All (43/38/23/45/43/39/23/46): 2014 — CIT 1.72, PIT 0.38, Empl. 1.02, VAT 5.01; 2015 — CIT 1.65, PIT 0.45, Empl. 0.92, VAT 4.02.
  - Note: "Fewer than five respondents" applies to some cells.
- Verification activities leading to adjustment (adjustment rates, median values, Table 15):
  - Small States (sample sizes): 2014 — CIT 67 percent, PIT 98 percent, Empl. 100 percent, VAT 78 percent; 2015 — CIT 54 percent, PIT 89 percent, Empl. 100 percent, VAT 76 percent. (Parenthetical: (7/6/5/9/7/7/5/9))
  - Lower Income (6/5/5/5/4/4/4/4): 2014 — CIT 66 percent, PIT 48 percent, Empl. 30 percent, VAT 37 percent; 2015 — values sparsely reported. (Some cells indicate "Fewer than five respondents.")
  - Higher Income (30/29/21/33/31/30/22/34): 2014 — CIT 54 percent, PIT 61 percent, Empl. 57 percent, VAT 58 percent; 2015 — CIT 56 percent, PIT 64 percent, Empl. 62 percent, VAT 53 percent.
  - All (43/40/31/47/42/41/31/47): 2014 — CIT 58 percent, PIT 71 percent, Empl. 67 percent, VAT 61 percent; 2015 — CIT 64 percent, PIT 65 percent, Empl. 58 percent, VAT 58 percent.
- Caveats:
  - Sample size issues particularly affect lower-income administrations and the 2015 data.
  - Ambiguous treatment of high-volume automated verifications impacts coverage and adjustment rates; conclusions should be treated with caution.
  - PIT coverage extremely low for small states; VAT coverage rates are highest across groups, possibly due to newer systems, invoice checking, and high audit rates for refunds.
  - Relatively high adjustment rates in small-state jurisdictions may be influenced by final withholding systems for PIT and excessive VAT checking and refund audit.

### Disputes
- Importance: access to effective dispute processes is key to a sound tax administration and fair tax system; processes should be legally grounded, known to taxpayers, easily accessible, guarantee transparent independent decision-making, and resolve disputes timely.
- Types of disputes:
  - Objections: cases filed with the tax administration, reviewed informally or administratively.
  - Appeals: cases filed with a court or tribunal.
- Potential performance measure: value of outstanding administrative review backlog at year end as percent of total tax revenue.
- ISORA response rates for disputes: poor — ISORA 2016 response was 29 percent (RA-FIT Rounds 1 and 2 were 33 percent); many participants did not provide all requested data.
- Table 16 — Value of year-end stock of objections to total tax revenue:
  - Small States (9/11): 2014 0.04 percent, 2015 0.11 percent.
  - Lower Income (16/16): 2014 3.14 percent, 2015 2.86 percent.
  - Higher Income (13/13): 2014 2.84 percent, 2015 2.58 percent.
  - All (38/40): 2014 1.99 percent, 2015 1.50 percent.
- Data limitations and suggestions:
  - Better responses required for this measure to be useful; insufficient multi-year data to analyze trends.
  - Large fluctuations possible, especially in small countries where large settlements affect year-to-year comparisons.
  - Alternative measures: number of administrative review cases initiated per 1,000 active PIT or CIT payers; ISORA had a higher response rate for number of objections than for associated values, suggesting tracking counts over time may be more useful.
  - Time series from future surveys will improve usefulness of these data.

*Source: isorauraea - Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data (ISORA 2016 chapter excerpt).*

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Cost of Collection: definition, measurement, and 2015 results
- Definition used for ISORA cost of collection ratio:
  - Numerator: Total recurrent expenditure
  - Denominator: Net revenue collected less VAT and excises on import (if collected by customs)
- Rationale and choices:
  - Use of recurrent expenditure only (exclusion of capital expenditure) to reduce volatility.
  - ISORA common definitions and approaches address some comparability issues for the numerator; other cautions remain.
  - For 2015, information sufficient to compute the cost of collection ratio was provided by 76 participants.
- Table 17 — Median and Average Cost of Collection Ratios, 2015:
  - Small States (11): Median (percent) 1.3 ; Average (percent) 1.9
  - Lower Income (19): Median (percent) 1.0 ; Average (percent) 1.10
  - Higher Income (46): Median (percent) 0.9 ; Average (percent) 0.89
  - All (76): Median (percent) 1.0 ; Average (percent) 1.1
- Distributional observations:
  - Large difference between median and average for small states indicates a highly skewed distribution with high-value outliers raising the average.
  - For higher-income jurisdictions the box-and-whisker distribution is tight and the mean almost coincides with the median.
  - For small-state and lower-income groups the ratio distribution is wider and more skewed; a few high-value outliers raise the average above the median.
  - Year-on-year changes suggest some extreme high and low values for small-state and lower-income groups may be questionable.
- Interpretation:
  - Higher-income jurisdictions reveal a more favorable ratio, consistent with greater automation, larger cadre of highly skilled staff, and better ability to detect and curb tax avoidance and evasion.
  - Fixed or overhead costs imply smaller administrations could be expected to have higher costs relative to collections.
  - The cautions limit the indicator’s usefulness for international comparison; it is more useful for comparing performance of a given administration over time (with due caution).

### Box 5 — Cautions in Using Cost of Collection as an Indicator
- Major considerations listed:
  1. Lack of common definitions and measurement approaches:
     - Variations in treatment of employee benefits, accommodation, capital expenditure.
     - Some jurisdictions include costs from customs or independent investigative agencies; others do not.
     - Some use “net” collections, others “gross”; inclusion/exclusion of nontax revenues and social security contributions varies.
  2. Differences in the range and nature of taxes administered and nontax functions performed:
     - Multiple major tax authorities at national level; taxes administered at national and subnational levels; national administrations collecting for all levels of government in some cases.
  3. Macroeconomic changes:
     - Abnormal movements in economic growth or inflation affect revenue collected and the cost/revenue relationship, especially in volatile developing countries.
  4. Tax policy changes:
     - Rate or policy changes can impact numerator and denominator.
  5. Differences in compliance levels among jurisdictions:
     - Initiatives that improve compliance affect the cost/revenue relationship; the ratio ignores the revenue potential (tax gap), limiting its value as an effectiveness measure.

### Tax Administration Resources Relative to Taxpayers and Citizens
- Concept:
  - Compare size of administration (FTEs) against “active taxpayers” and “citizens” to proxy workload per unit of labor and efficiency.
  - Active core taxpayers are those registered and active for PIT, CIT, VAT, and employers.
- Table 18 — Median Active Core Taxpayers per FTE:
  - Small States (18/20): 2014 = 90 ; 2015 = 120
  - Lower Income (23/27): 2014 = 33 ; 2015 = 35
  - Higher Income (54/53): 2014 = 702 ; 2015 = 703
  - All (95/100): 2014 = 439 ; 2015 = 426
- Observations:
  - Higher-income jurisdictions have approximately 20 times more active taxpayers to “manage” per FTE than lower-income counterparts, and approximately six or seven times more than small states.
  - Differences may reflect automation, differing tasks, differing tax regimes, more active taxpayers per citizen, or economies of scale in FTEs.
  - International comparisons across groups may not be meaningful; comparisons within groups or over time for a jurisdiction may be informative.
- Table 19 — Citizens per FTE:
  - Small States (25/26): 2014 = 1,461 ; 2015 = 1,430
  - Lower Income (31/32): 2014 = 9,306 ; 2015 = 10,176
  - Higher Income (57/57): 2014 = 1,556 ; 2015 = 1,476
  - All (113/115): 2014 = 2,167 ; 2015 = 2,192
- Observations:
  - Lower-income participants have significantly more citizens per FTE (about six times more than higher-income administrations).
  - Small states (mostly higher-income or upper-middle-income) exhibit similar citizens per FTE ratios to the higher-income grouping.
  - Factors include nature of tax system, size of informal economy, compliance levels, and levels of service provided.

### Comparative indicators and illustrative performance snapshot
- Table 20 — Illustrative Example of Indicators (percent where applicable unless noted):
  - Small States:
    - VAT On-time Filing: 81
    - CIT On-time Filing: 40
    - VAT On-time Payment: 84
    - CIT On-time Payment: 84
    - Debt Ratio: 52
    - e-filing Rate: 58
    - Cost of Collection (percent): 1.92
  - Lower Income:
    - VAT On-time Filing: 84
    - CIT On-time Filing: 72
    - VAT On-time Payment: 93
    - CIT On-time Payment: 88
    - Debt Ratio: 24
    - e-filing Rate: 49
    - Cost of Collection (percent): 1.10
  - Higher Income:
    - VAT On-time Filing: 90
    - CIT On-time Filing: 81
    - VAT On-time Payment: 93
    - CIT On-time Payment: 94
    - Debt Ratio: 38
    - e-filing Rate: 89
    - Cost of Collection (percent): 0.85
- Conclusion on measures:
  - A certain amount of year-on-year volatility is evident; a longer ISORA time series will improve understanding of norms and trends.
  - As a rule, lower-income and small-state jurisdictions lag higher-income participants, but for some measures (e.g., on-time filing and payment rates) differences are less marked than expected.
  - 2014 and 2015 will in many cases be the effective starting years for ISORA analyses given the expansion relative to RA-FIT.

### Data quality, comparability, and future focus
- Data quality and responsibility:
  - ISORA is not an evidence-based process; quality control is limited to general plausibility and technical checks (e.g., proper use of local currency values to the nearest thousand, queries on significant year-to-year variations).
  - Content accuracy is 100 percent the responsibility of the participating jurisdiction.
- Future work:
  - Future ISORA iterations and analyses should focus more on measurable performance indicators to assist participants in using ISORA to improve tax administration performance.
  - It will be useful to compare ISORA-reported values with evidence-based assessments under TADAT.

### Profile data and institutional arrangements (2015)
- Profile data collected includes legal framework, structure, inputs and outputs, workforce characteristics, large taxpayer programs, registration, powers to gather information and collect debts, management and HR issues, and compliance risk management.
- Institutional models and scope:
  - Two common governance models: (1) part of ministry of finance (single or multiple directorates); (2) semiautonomous organizations, with or without a management board.
  - Two types by scope: (1) tax administration and customs separate; (2) tax and customs comanaged.
  - ISORA participants self-assess semiautonomy; no specific definition provided in the survey.
- Table 21 — Institutional Arrangements Matrix, 2015 (number and percent):
  - Tax Only:
    - Semiautonomous: Number 29 ; Percent 21
    - Within Ministry: Number 57 ; Percent 42
    - All: Number 86 ; Percent 64
  - Tax and Customs:
    - Semiautonomous: Number 39 ; Percent 29
    - Within Ministry: Number 10 ; Percent 8
    - All: Number 49 ; Percent 36
  - All:
    - Semiautonomous: Number 68 ; Percent 50
    - Within Ministry: Number 67 ; Percent 50
    - All: Number 135 ; Percent 100
- Observations:
  - In RA-FIT Rounds 1 and 2, 40 percent and 45 percent of participants self-identified as semiautonomous; for ISORA 2016 the figure is 50 percent (135 participants).
  - About 64 percent of ISORA participants are tax administration only; one third of these self-identify as semiautonomous.
  - Of the 36 percent where tax administration and customs are comanaged, 80 percent self-identify as semiautonomous.
  - Small-state participants are much more likely to be part of the ministry of finance and less likely to be semiautonomous than lower- and higher-income counterparts; small states are also highly likely to be tax administration–only organizations.

*Source: isorauraea - Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data*

### Appendix Table 16 for a breakdown by type of institution.

### Appendix Table 16 for a breakdown by type of institution.

### Institutional arrangements and autonomy
- Profile similarity across lower- and higher-income groups: close to 60 percent semiautonomous and 60 percent tax administration only.
- If participating administrations with a population of less than 1.5 million are excluded, 40 percent of participating administrations comanage customs and tax administration functions in the same organization.
- ISORA semiautonomous respondents (68 total self-identified semiautonomous):
  - 53 percent (of 68) indicated they had a management board.
  - For 80 percent of these (29 of 36) the management board is decision-making rather than advisory.
  - Average number of board members: 8.
  - Average number of private sector board members: 3.
- Table 22. Autonomy and Scope, 2015 (percent)
  - Small States (31): Semiautonomous 26; Within Ministry 74; All 100
    - Tax Only 13; Tax and Customs 10; (Tax Only and Tax and Customs rows align with group)
  - Lower Income (44): Semiautonomous 55; Within Ministry 45; All 100
    - Tax Only 16; Tax and Customs 39
  - Higher Income (60): Semiautonomous 60; Within Ministry 40; All 100
    - Tax Only 30; Tax and Customs 30
  - Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column.
- Table 23. Management Board Size by Type, 2015
  - Decision-making Board (29): Average Number of Board Members 8.1; Average Number of Private Sector Board Members 2.8
  - Advisory Board (7): Average Number of Board Members 6.4; Average Number of Private Sector Board Members 2.5
  - All Boards (36): Average Number of Board Members 7.8; Average Number of Private Sector Board Members 2.8

### Scope and revenue composition
- Definition: scope includes core taxes, other taxes, and nontax activities or roles.
- Core taxes typically include PIT, CIT, VAT and social security contributions where collected by tax administration.
- Table 24. Share of Revenue by Revenue Type, 2015 (Percent)
  - Small States (23): Core Taxes 61.4; Other Taxes (Non-core taxes) 27.8; Social Security Contributions 8.4; Nontax Revenue 2.4
  - Lower Income (33): Core Taxes 69.8; Other Taxes 26.3; Social Security Contributions 0.9; Nontax Revenue 3.1
  - Higher Income (54): Core Taxes 69.0; Other Taxes 16.9; Social Security Contributions 11.4; Nontax Revenue 2.6
  - All (110): Core Taxes 67.6; Other Taxes 22.0; Social Security Contributions 7.6; Nontax Revenue 2.7
- Aggregate observations:
  - Core taxes make up approximately two-thirds of net revenue collected by tax administrations.
  - Remaining one-third dominated by other taxes; SSCs and nontax revenue together make up a little over 10 percent of collections.
  - Noncore taxes are more significant in small-state and lower-income jurisdictions.
  - SSC collection is lowest among lower-income jurisdictions.
  - Nontax revenue collection is more relied upon by lower-income jurisdictions than small-state and higher-income jurisdictions.
- Table 25. Median Share of Revenue by Revenue Type for Administrations that Collect Each Revenue Type, 2015 (Percent)
  - Small States (23/22/7/14): Core Taxes 67.6; Other Taxes 27.6; Social Security Contributions 20.8; Nontax Revenue 1.9
  - Lower Income (33/31/3/18): Core Taxes 72.6; Other Taxes 24.9; Social Security Contributions 4.9; Nontax Revenue 2.7
  - Higher Income (54/53/23/33): Core Taxes 67.6; Other Taxes 15.1; Social Security Contributions 30.5; Nontax Revenue 1.5
  - All (110/106/33/65): Core Taxes 69.2; Other Taxes 20.0; Social Security Contributions 27.1; Nontax Revenue 1.7
  - Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column.

### Other taxes and nontax roles
- Table 26. Participants Collecting “Other Taxes,” 2015 (Percent)
  - Small States (31): Excises (domestic) 48; Motor Vehicle Taxes 45; Real Property 42; Wealth Taxes 16; Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes 23; Other Taxes 61
  - Lower Income (44): Excises 80; Motor Vehicle Taxes 41; Real Property 41; Wealth Taxes 27; Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes 32; Other Taxes 43
  - Higher Income (60): Excises 65; Motor Vehicle Taxes 37; Real Property 52; Wealth Taxes 22; Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes 48; Other Taxes 68
  - Total (135): Excises 66; Motor Vehicle Taxes 40; Real Property 46; Wealth Taxes 22; Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes 37; Other Taxes 59
- Table 27. Participants with Specific Nontax Roles, 2015 (Percent)
  - Small States (31): Welfare Benefits 3; Child Support 3; Property Valuation 42; Student Loans 30; Population Register 6; Retirement Savings 3; Lotteries/Gambling/Gaming 9; Other 26
  - Lower Income (44): Welfare Benefits 0; Child Support 0; Property Valuation 18; Student Loans 20; Population Register 2; Retirement Savings 3; Lotteries/Gambling/Gaming 6; Other 32
  - Higher Income (60): Welfare Benefits 13; Child Support 10; Property Valuation 33; Student Loans 10; Population Register 5; Retirement Savings 10; Lotteries/Gambling/Gaming 37; Other 52
  - All (135): Welfare Benefits 7; Child Support 5; Property Valuation 30; Student Loans 62; Population Register 7; Retirement Savings 3; Lotteries/Gambling/Gaming 7; Other 39
  - Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column.
- Table 28. Average Number of Nontax Roles and “Other Taxes” Collected, 2015
  - Small States (31): Average Number of Nontax Roles 1.5; Average Number of “Other” Taxes Collected 1.9
  - Lower Income (44): Average Number of Nontax Roles 1.0; Average Number of “Other” Taxes Collected 1.8
  - Higher Income (60): Average Number of Nontax Roles 2.2; Average Number of “Other” Taxes Collected 2.3
  - All (135): Average Number of Nontax Roles 1.6; Average Number of “Other” Taxes Collected 2.0
  - Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column.
- Observations:
  - Substantial numbers of jurisdictions collect a variety of other taxes.
  - Average number of “other” distinct nontax roles among participants responding positively is two.
  - OECD noted expansion of responsibilities can increase risks to the core revenue-raising task and requires strong governance, risk management, and resourcing.

### Social security contributions (SSC)
- SSC collection coverage and plans (Table 29):
  - Table 29. Tax Administrations Collecting or Planning to Collect Social Security Contributions, 2015
    - AFR (37): Collecting SSC (percent) 27; SSC Collection Planned (number) 4
    - APD (19): Collecting SSC (percent) 5; SSC Collection Planned (number) 0
    - EUR (41): Collecting SSC (percent) 54; SSC Collection Planned (number) 4
    - MCD (5): Collecting SSC (percent) 4; SSC Collection Planned (number) 0
    - WHD (33): Collecting SSC (percent) 33; SSC Collection Planned (number) 0
    - Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column. AFR = Africa; APD = Asia Pacific; EUR = Europe; MCD = Middle East and Central Asia; SSC = social security contributions; WHD = Western Hemisphere.
  - One tax administration that did not collect SSC in 2014 did so in 2015.
  - In 2014, seven administrations indicated plans to integrate SSC collection into tax administration; in 2015 eight did so (these eight include all seven from 2014).

### Staff allocation and outsourcing
- ISORA collects FTE allocation by function and by type of office.
- Table 30. Full-time Equivalents by Function, 2015 (Average percent)
  - Small States (21): Registration and Taxpayer Service 14.7; Payment and Returns Processing 15.3; Audit and Verification 30.1; Enforcement and Debt Collection 10.7; Disputes and Appeals 2.1; Other Tax Operations 8.8; Support Functions 18.3
  - Lower Income (19): Registration and Taxpayer Service 11.0; Payment and Returns Processing 15.4; Audit and Verification 20.1; Enforcement and Debt Collection 14.0; Disputes and Appeals 3.3; Other Tax Operations 16.2; Support Functions 19.9
  - Higher Income (47): Registration and Taxpayer Service 14.9; Payment and Returns Processing 15.0; Audit and Verification 30.9; Enforcement and Debt Collection 10.2; Disputes and Appeals 3.9; Other Tax Operations 6.1; Support Functions 19.0
  - All (87): Registration and Taxpayer Service 14.0; Payment and Returns Processing 15.2; Audit and Verification 28.4; Enforcement and Debt Collection 11.2; Disputes and Appeals 3.3; Other Tax Operations 8.9; Support Functions 19.0
  - Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column.
- Observations:
  - Audit and verification receives the largest staff allocation across groups, but significantly lower for lower-income jurisdictions (20 percent) versus small-state or higher-income groups (30 percent).
  - Combined allocation to registration & taxpayer services plus enforcement & debt collection is almost exactly 25 percent for each group.
  - Payment and returns processing resource shares are almost identical across groups.
- Table 31. Full-time Equivalents by Type of Office, 2015 (Average percent)
  - Small States (17): Headquarters 52.9; Regional Offices 9.8; Local/Branch Offices 29.8; Data Processing Centers 0.2; Service Centers (including Call Centers) 6.1; Other Offices 1.2
  - Lower Income (16): Headquarters 40.9; Regional Offices 17.2; Local/Branch Offices 30.9; Data Processing Centers 2.5; Service Centers 2.5; Other Offices 5.9
  - Higher Income (43): Headquarters 20.3; Regional Offices 24.6; Local/Branch Offices 44.9; Data Processing Centers 2.9; Service Centers 5.5; Other Offices 1.8
  - All (76): Headquarters 31.9; Regional Offices 19.7; Local/Branch Offices 38.6; Data Processing Centers 2.2; Service Centers 5.0; Other Offices 2.6
  - Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column.
- Outsourcing (Table 32. Administrations that Outsource Selected Activities, 2015, Percent)
  - Small States (31): Client Services 10; Data Processing Services 19; Information Technology Services 48
  - Lower Income (44): Client Services 11; Data Processing Services 23; Information Technology Services 41
  - Higher Income (60): Client Services 30; Data Processing Services 33; Information Technology Services 72
  - All (135): Client Services 19; Data Processing Services 27; Information Technology Services 56
  - Note: Numbers in parentheses equal the sample size for data supplied in each column.
- Observations:
  - Headquarters FTE share for All (31.9 percent) may be overstated in some jurisdictions due to differing application of the definition.
  - Outsourcing is more common in higher-income jurisdictions; 33 percent outsource data processing and 30 percent outsource client services including call centers.

### Staff demographics and age
- Figure 14. Staff by Age Group, 2015 (Percent, All administrations (108))
  - Under 25: 4
  - 25 to 34: 23
  - 35 to 44: 30
  - 45 to 54: 27
  - 55 to 64: 16
  - 65 and older: 1
- Key age observations:
  - Percentage of tax administration staff aged 45 years and older: just over 44 percent.
  - Staff aged 55 years and older alone constitutes 17 percent of tax administration staff.
  - International Labour Organisation comparison: general labor force aged 45 years and older about 36 percent; aged 55 years and over 16 percent.
  - By standard grouping (Figure 15 summary):
    - Lower-income jurisdictions: about 33 percent of staff are in the 45 years and older bracket.
    - Small states: 36 percent in the 45 years and older bracket.
    - Higher-income ISORA participants: 54 percent in the 45 years and older bracket.
- Implication: overrepresentation of older staff groups in tax administrations poses management and succession planning challenges.

*Source: Appendix Table 16 for a breakdown by type of institution.*

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Age distribution of tax administration staff
- Asia Pacific region is the youngest on average: it is the only region to have 10 percent of its staff aged 25 years or less, and over 40 percent of staff younger than 35 years.
- Sub-Saharan Africa shows the strongest concentration of staff in the 35- to 44-year-old grouping.
- Europe has more staff aged 55 to 64 years than staff aged 35 to 54 years and is the only region for which most staff fall in the 45- to 55-year-old bracket; over a quarter of European tax administration staff is between 55 and 64 years.
- Comparison with the general labor force (ILO data):
  - Over 50 percent of the labor force in Africa is under 35 years.
  - In Europe (and Central Asia) over 40 percent of the labor force is over 45 years.
  - Tax administrations generally have fewer staff under 35 years than the general labor force, with the exception of staff aged 25 to 34 years in the Asia Pacific region.
  - Tax administration staff have lower proportions over 65 years than the general labor force, and are generally older than the labor force.

### Length of service
- Figure 18 (all administrations, 102) service profile (percent):
  - Less than 5 years: 25
  - 5 to 9 years: 22
  - 10 to 19 years: 17
  - 20 years or more: 22
- Service profile by standard grouping (Figure 19) (percent):
  - Small States (23): Less than 5 years 25; 5 to 9 years 22; 10 to 19 years 17; 20 years or more 27
  - Lower Income (27): Less than 5 years 29; 5 to 9 years 25; 10 to 19 years 26; 20 years or more 20
  - Higher Income (52): Less than 5 years 26; 5 to 9 years 23; 10 to 19 years 41; 20 years or more 10
- Observations:
  - High proportion of staff with service of 20 years or more fits profile of long staff tenure in specialized, technical work areas.
  - Higher-income jurisdictions: two-thirds of their staff have 10 or more years’ service but have had relatively small intakes of new staff.
  - A quarter of the staff of small states has been taken on in the past five years.
  - Staff growth has taken place more recently in tax administrations in lower-income jurisdictions and in small states.

### Gender
- Figure 20 (percent): Proportion of female staff and female executives, 2015
  - All (121/103): All Staff ~? (figure shows); Executives only ~? (figure shows)
  - Small States (29/23), Lower Income (34/29), Higher Income (58/51) — reported that the proportion of female staff and female executives is higher in tax administrations in higher-income jurisdictions and small states than in lower-income jurisdictions.
- Observations:
  - In each group, the average percentage of female executives is lower than the proportion of female staff.
  - Only in 36 administrations of the 103 for which data are available does the proportion of female executives exceed the corresponding staff proportion.
- Note on definition:
  - Participants self-defined “executive”; ratios vary widely and are not necessarily comparable across administrations.

### Segmentation: Large Taxpayer Offices/Programs (LTO/P), HNWI programs, and small taxpayer regimes
- ISORA collected whether administrations used: (1) an LTO/P, (2) an HNWI program, and (3) a simplified regime for small taxpayers.
- Table 33. Administrations with LTO/P, HNWI, and Small Taxpayer Regimes, 2015 (Percent)
  - Small States (31): LTO/P 52; HNWI 13; Simplified Regime or Small Taxpayers 26
  - Lower Income (44): LTO/P 98; HNWI 2; Simplified Regime or Small Taxpayers 82
  - Higher Income (60): LTO/P 95; HNWI 32; Simplified Regime or Small Taxpayers 53
  - All (135): LTO/P 86; HNWI 20; Simplified Regime or Small Taxpayers 56
- Observations:
  - Almost all lower-income and higher-income participants have an LTO/P; only half of small-state participants do.
  - HNWI programs are more common in higher-income jurisdictions; take-up remains very low for lower-income and small-state participants.
  - Incidence of specific regimes for small taxpayers is more than 80 percent for lower-income participants versus an average rate for all participants of 56 percent.

- Revenue and CIT payers in LTO/Ps (Table 34: median percentages)
  - Median proportion of total net core tax revenue collected through the LTO/P:
    - Small States (2/3/6/7): 2 (2014), 1 (2015)
    - Lower Income (24/19/24/27): 45 (2014), 49 (2015)
    - Higher Income (32/29/45/44): 44 (2014), 45 (2015)
    - All (58/51/75/78): 44 (2014), 45 (2015)
  - Median percentage of corporate taxpayers included in the LTO/P:
    - Small States: 2.2 (2014), 2.7 (2015)
    - Lower Income: 6.0 (2014), 4.5 (2015)
    - Higher Income: 0.5 (2014), 0.4 (2015)
    - All: 1.4 (2014), 2.0 (2015)
  - Observations:
    - Median proportion of total net core tax revenue collected through the LTO/P is approximately 45 percent for 2014 and 2015.
    - CIT payers included in the LTO/P are significantly lower for the higher-income group (median proportions 0.5 and 0.4), consistent with much higher rates of CIT payers per citizen in higher-income jurisdictions versus lower-income (median proportions 3.9 percent and 0.2 percent referenced in registration section).

- Criteria for inclusion in LTO/P (Figure 22, percent using criterion)
  - Turnover/revenue: 94 (All)
  - Economic sector/activity: 54 (All)
  - Taxes (assessed/paid): 32 (All)
  - Assets: 18 (All)
  - Income: 14 (All)
  - Other criteria also used, especially by higher-income group, including multinationals, branches of international companies, subsidiaries forming part of a group, and individuals with international business interests or very important persons.

- Functions provided within LTO/Ps (Table 35, percent)
  - Audit is most common: All 91; Small States 88; Lower Income 84; Higher Income 96
  - Arrears: All 69; Small States 69; Lower Income 84; Higher Income 53
  - Services: All 84; Small States 81; Lower Income 79; Higher Income 86
  - Returns/Payment: All 66; Small States 50; Lower Income 40; Higher Income 60
  - Disputes: All 47; Small States 50; Lower Income 49; Higher Income 53
  - Registration: All 46; Small States 25; Lower Income 21; Higher Income 34
  - All Services (all six functions): All 19; Small States 6; Lower Income 21; Higher Income 21
  - Observations:
    - Considerable mix of functions provided through LTO/Ps.
    - Only one small state has an LTO/P covering all six functions; just over 20 percent of LTO/Ps in lower-income and higher-income jurisdictions provide an all-service LTO/P.

- Incidence of small taxpayer regimes (Table 36, percent)
  - Types of small taxpayer regimes (All, 76 respondents):
    - Flat Rate Turnover Regime: 55
    - Simplified Participation in Regular Regimes: 25
    - Forfait (Agreed) Regime: 24
    - Simple Patent: 20
    - Indicator-based Regime: 18
  - By group:
    - Small States (8): Flat Rate Turnover Regime 75; Simplified Participation 0; Forfait 13; Simple Patent 0; Indicator-based 13
    - Lower Income (36): Flat Rate 64; Simplified Participation 22; Forfait 25; Simple Patent 19; Indicator-based 6
    - Higher Income (32): Flat Rate 41; Simplified Participation 28; Forfait 19; Simple Patent 19; Indicator-based 22
  - Observations:
    - Flat rate on turnover and simplified participation in regular regimes are the two most popular approaches.

### Registration: taxpayers and register quality
- ISORA covers use of taxpayer identification numbers, where and by whom registration can take place, active taxpayers versus total taxpayers by tax type, registration channels, and improving the quality of the tax register.
- Definition used for active taxpayer (TADAT definition): “A registered taxpayer from whom a tax declaration (return) is expected (i.e. ’active’ taxpayers exclude those who have not filed a declaration within at least the last year because the case is defunct (e.g. a business taxpayer has ceased trading or an individual is deceased), the taxpayer cannot be located, or the taxpayer is insolvent).”
- Many participants had difficulty providing both total taxpayers and active taxpayers; Table 37 shows participants not providing data for both total and active taxpayers (percent):
  - Examples (selected): All (107/101/82/103/112/104/80/108) for 2014/2015 columns show values such as 37, 44, 48, 39, 35, 41, 51, 41 (see Table 37 for full breakdown by tax type and year).
- For participants who provided total and active taxpayers, Figure 25 shows median ratio of inactive taxpayers to total registered taxpayers (percent), excluding administrations providing the exact same number for both:
  - Lower-income grouping carries a larger proportion of inactive taxpayers on their registers for all taxes except PIT in both years, and PAYE in 2014 only.
  - Example median percentages (from Figure 25): mixtures include values such as 23, 6, 17, 9, 24, 9, 16, 10, etc. (see Figure 25 for tax-specific medians by year and group).
- Taxpayers as a percentage of citizens, 2015 (Table 38, percent)
  - CIT:
    - Small States (19): 10.2
    - Lower Income (33): 0.2
    - Higher Income (51): 3.9
    - All (103): 3.9
  - PIT:
    - Small States (16): 39.0
    - Lower Income (33): 1.5
    - Higher Income (49): 42.3
    - All (98): 28.0
  - PAYE:
    - Small States (14): 3.0
    - Lower Income (24): 0.3
    - Higher Income (36): 3.0
    - All (74): 2.1
  - VAT:
    - Small States (20): 5.4
    - Lower Income (32): 0.5
    - Higher Income (49): 5.3
    - All (101): 3.8
- Observations:
  - Lower-income participants have consistently lower taxpayers-as-percent-of-citizens values by at least an order of magnitude.
  - Possible contributing factors noted: poor quality tax registries, significant gray economy issues (nonregistrants), general economic conditions, final withholding PIT systems, higher VAT thresholds, and other factors.

### Information gathering powers
- Tax administrations require legislative powers to obtain information that enables them to administer and enforce tax laws; ISORA addresses aspects of registration, taxpayer data, and related functions (TADAT assesses registration processes, accuracy of register, detection of potential taxpayers not in register, and extent of computerization in registration processes).

*Source: isorauraea - Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data*

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Information-gathering Powers
- All 135 ISORA participants indicated their legislation provided for specific powers to gather required information.
- Frequency of specific powers among respondents (Table 39):
  - (a) To obtain all relevant information: 100
  - (b) To request information from third parties: 96
  - (c) To extend powers to third parties: 58
  - (d) To require taxpayers to produce all records on request: 98
  - (e) To obtain information from other government departments or agencies: 96
  - (f) To enter taxpayers’ business premises without taxpayers’ consent or search warrant: 51
  - (g) To enter taxpayers’ dwellings without taxpayers’ consent or search warrant: 19
  - (h) To seize taxpayers’ documents without taxpayers’ consent or search warrant: 41
  - (i) To request a court to issue a search warrant without assistance from other government agencies: 53
  - (j) To serve search warrants without assistance from other government agencies: 44
- Observations:
  - All administrations indicate they can “obtain all relevant information.”
  - Over 95 percent of administrations have powers (b), (d), and (e).
  - Information-gathering powers exist more extensively in higher-income jurisdictions than in small-state and lower-income participants for many listed powers.
  - Certain powers are less likely to exist:
    - Small states: powers to obtain or serve search warrants without assistance from other government agencies.
    - Lower-income jurisdictions: power to enter business premises or dwellings or to seize documents without consent or a search warrant.
  - Item (a) (to obtain all relevant information) is concluded not to be really a legislated power comparable to other items in Table 39.
  - Narrative responses indicate diverse “other” information-gathering powers and differing legal structures between jurisdictions.

### Debt Collection Powers
- ISORA lists 20 debt collection powers and asks if each is not applicable, never used, infrequently used, or frequently used.
- The 20 specific powers:
  1. To grant extensions of time to pay tax debts
  2. To formulate payment arrangements
  3. To collect taxes owed via third parties (for example, banks, employers)
  4. To impose restrictions on overseas travel
  5. To garnishee salaries/wages or other property
  6. To affect a temporary closure of a business/withdrawal of a license
  7. To offset tax debts against excess/overpayments arising under other taxes
  8. To obtain a lien over a taxpayer’s assets
  9. To withhold payments owing to a delinquent taxpayer by the government
  10. To require businesses to obtain a tax clearance certificate when bidding for government contracts
  11. To have delinquent taxpayers denied access to certain government services
  12. To impose liability on company directors for certain tax debts (for example, employee withholdings, VAT) arising from a company’s operations
  13. To publicize the names of debtor taxpayers in the media or by some other manner
  14. To initiate bankruptcy or asset liquidation actions
  15. To remit interest and penalties
  16. To collect any disputed tax while the dispute case is under judicial review
  17. To collect any disputed tax while the dispute case is open and under judicial review
  18. To offer reduced penalties to the general taxpaying population
  19. To offer reduced interest payments to the general taxpaying population
  20. To collect tax debts through agreements with other tax administrations
- Grouping for analysis:
  - Facilitating debt payment by the taxpayer: 1, 2, 15, 18, 19 (five)
  - Direct enforcement powers: 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20 (eight)
  - Indirect enforcement powers: 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 (seven)
- Usage findings:
  - All respondents indicate they have specific powers in legislation or regulation to assist in collecting tax arrears.
  - Facilitating group: only two powers are used frequently by more than 50 percent of participants: to grant time extensions to pay, and to make payment arrangements (installments).
  - Some 45 percent of participants frequently use the power to remit interest and penalties on tax arrears.
  - Direct enforcement group: three powers are frequently used by more than 50 percent of participants:
    - To collect taxes owed through third parties
    - To offset tax arrears against overpayments or credits in other taxes
    - To garnishee salaries and wages
  - Indirect enforcement group: two powers exceed the 50 percent frequency rate:
    - To obtain a lien against a taxpayer’s assets
    - To require a business to obtain a tax clearance certificate when bidding on a government contract
  - Overall, the majority of powers (13 of 20) identified by ISORA 2016 are not used frequently.
- Differences by standard groups (small-state, lower-income, higher-income):
  - For facilitating and indirect collection powers, no discernable pattern among groups.
  - For direct powers, higher-income participants use the powers more frequently in every instance than small-state and lower-income participants, indicating a greater readiness to use direct measures such as garnishment or forced bankruptcy. These tools are significantly less used in lower-income and small-state jurisdictions.

### Management Issues
- ISORA gathered data on general management practices considered “good” management and used in TADAT assessments.
- Selected good management practices (Figure 29) — percent of “Yes” answers by standard grouping:
  - Strategic plan:
    - Small states: 84
    - Lower income: 93
    - Higher income: 95
  - Annual business/operational plans:
    - Small states: 90
    - Lower income: 93
    - Higher income: 89
  - Annual report:
    - Small states: 84
    - Lower income: 95
    - Higher income: 95
  - Formal internal assurance mechanism (internal audit):
    - Small states: 58
    - Lower income: 59
    - Higher income: 82
  - Enterprise-wide risk policy:
    - Small states: 35
    - Lower income: 95
    - Higher income: 100
- Observations:
  - Small states are almost as likely as lower-income and higher-income administrations to have formal plans and reporting, but lag significantly in having an internal audit function and an enterprise-wide risk policy.

### Human Resource Management
- ISORA posed Yes/No questions organized into:
  1. Human resources management (seven questions)
  2. Performance management (eight questions)
  3. Staff engagement (four questions)

Human Resources Management Approach and Components (Figure 30) — percent of “Yes” answers:
- Human Resource strategy:
  - All (135): 90
  - Small states (31): 70
  - Lower income (44): 85
  - Higher income (60): 90
- Specific training plan:
  - All: 86
  - Small states: 56
  - Lower income: 64
  - Higher income: 91
- Specific recruitment plan:
  - All: 64
  - Small states: 56
  - Lower income: 56
  - Higher income: 73
- Analysis of age and other demographic characteristics of staff:
  - All: 65
  - Small states: 52
  - Lower income: 61
  - Higher income: 82
- Policies for flexible working arrangements:
  - All: 52
  - Small states: 45
  - Lower income: 27
  - Higher income: 63
- A time reporting system:
  - All: 61
  - Small states: 52
  - Lower income: 36
  - Higher income: 70
- Specific leadership and talent management programs:
  - All: 52
  - Small states: 39
  - Lower income: 48
  - Higher income: 72

Key observations:
- Higher-income group consistently outperforms the other two groups.
- Only half the small states have a human resources strategy; this may reflect small administration scale (100 or fewer employees).
- More administrations have a training plan than a human resources strategy.
- Lower-income jurisdictions lag in modern HR approaches (flexible working arrangements, leadership and talent management, time reporting).
- Most administrations indicate staff age and other demographic characteristics are important in HR approach; some were unable to provide staff data.

Performance Management Approach (Figure 31) — percent of “Yes” answers:
- Performance management system (PM) present:
  - All: 90
  - Small states: 79
  - Lower income: 61
  - Higher income: 92
- PM includes individual development plans:
  - All: 71
  - Small states: 61
  - Lower income: 61
  - Higher income: 92
- PM includes specific objectives for staff:
  - All: 61
  - Small states: 68
  - Lower income: 61
  - Higher income: 77
- Staff performance formally evaluated at least annually:
  - All: 68
  - Small states: 52
  - Lower income: 50
  - Higher income: 88
- Performance linked to pay and reward:
  - All: 52
  - Small states: 50
  - Lower income: 48
  - Higher income: 70
- Poor performance can result in reduced salary:
  - All: 13
  - Small states: 20
  - Lower income: 32
  - Higher income: 30
- Poor performance can result in denial of annual increment:
  - All: 39
  - Small states: 32
  - Lower income: 42
  - Higher income: 63
- Increased remuneration for good performance:
  - All: 68
  - Small states: 52
  - Lower income: 57
  - Higher income: 77

Key observations:
- Higher-income jurisdictions outperform others, though not always by large margins.
- All participants have difficulty reducing salary or denying increments for poor performance.
- More than 75 percent of ISORA participants formally assess all staff performance at least once a year (specific figure in chart: 68 percent overall; higher-income 88).

Staff Engagement Approach (Figure 32) — percent of “Yes” answers:
- Staff surveyed periodically:
  - All (135): 54
  - Small states (31): 46
  - Lower income (44): 44
  - Higher income (60): 73
- Staff engagement assessed:
  - All: 46
  - Small states: 34
  - Lower income: 30
  - Higher income: 62
- Staff survey results shared with staff:
  - All: 44
  - Small states: 32
  - Lower income: 26
  - Higher income: 65
- Staff engaged in developing and implementing action plans:
  - All: 41
  - Small states: 29
  - Lower income: 30
  - Higher income: 55

Observations:
- Higher-income participants are significantly ahead in staff engagement.
- 54 percent survey their staff, but only 44 percent share results and 41 percent involve staff in implementing action plans.

Regional analysis:
- Income level influences tax administration practices more than geographical region.
- Notable regional differences (Figure 33):
  - Europe and Asia Pacific are more likely to engage staff via surveys and plans than sub-Saharan Africa and the Western Hemisphere.
  - Sub-Saharan Africa and the Western Hemisphere lag in policies for flexible working hours and using a time-reporting system.
  - Asia Pacific appears to lead in providing specific leadership and talent management programs.
- Note: Middle East and Central Asia responses are limited, so percentages range more widely.

### Compliance Risk Management
Aspects covered in ISORA:
1. Formal approach to managing compliance risk
2. Compliance strategy priorities
3. Priority focus areas
4. Tax gap and random audits
5. Criteria for audit case selection
6. Electronic audit methods

Formal approach to managing compliance risk (Figure 34) — percent of “Yes” answers:
- Formal approach for identifying, assessing and prioritizing key compliance risks:
  - All (133): 74
  - Small states (31): 55
  - Lower income (44): 77
  - Higher income (60): 82
- Return filing:
  - All: 46
  - Small states: 32
  - Lower income: 66
  - Higher income: 72
- Payment processing:
  - All: 53
  - Small states: 39
  - Lower income: 61
  - Higher income: 55
- Collection enforcement:
  - All: 58
  - Small states: 39
  - Lower income: 61
  - Higher income: 65
- Verification/audit:
  - All: 73
  - Small states: 52
  - Lower income: 77
  - Higher income: 82
- Taxpayer service:
  - All: 52
  - Small states: 32
  - Lower income: 55
  - Higher income: 61

Observations:
- Lower-income and higher-income jurisdictions are more likely than small states to have formal approaches across a range of functions.
- Audit and verification activities are most likely to have formal compliance risk approaches (73 percent overall).
- Taxpayer service and payment processing are least likely to have formal compliance risk approaches (52 percent and 53 percent, respectively).

Compliance strategy priorities (Figure 35) — percent identifying as high priority:
- Cooperative compliance:
  - All (133): 60
  - Small states (31): 77
  - Lower income (44): 55
  - Higher income (58): 69
- Tax compliance by design:
  - All: 30
  - Small states: 29
  - Lower income: 25
  - Higher income: 52
- Leveraging compliance through tax intermediaries/agents:
  - All: 35
  - Small states: 23
  - Lower income: 25
  - Higher income: 48
- Making third party data visible to taxpayers:
  - All: 39
  - Small states: 39
  - Lower income: 32
  - Higher income: 45
- Pre-assessment verification:
  - All: 52
  - Small states: 46
  - Lower income: 45
  - Higher income: 69
- Exchange of information:
  - All: 42
  - Small states: 41
  - Lower income: 34
  - Higher income: 52

Observations:
- Higher-income jurisdictions generally prioritize more modern approaches to managing risk.
- Small states place higher priority on cooperative compliance relative to the other groups, though less than half later indicate a cooperative compliance program for large taxpayers exists or is planned.
- Biggest differences among groups are in priority for making third-party data visible to taxpayers and in exchange of information, with higher-income administrations more likely to attach high priority.

*Source: Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data*

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Priority Focus Areas
- Ten focus areas were indicated as high priority by more than 20 percent of ISORA participants.
- VAT fraud is a high priority for 70 percent of ISORA’s participants.
- A lower frequency of prioritization of VAT fraud by small states is consistent with a lower proportion of small states collecting VAT (74 percent) than in lower-income and higher-income jurisdictions (both over 90 percent).
- Base erosion and profit shifting, VAT fraud, and other domestic issues remain high priority across all groupings.
- For lower-income jurisdictions, “preferential tax regimes and incentives” is a high priority focus area.
- Higher-income jurisdictions are more likely to focus on aggressive domestic tax avoidance schemes and the underground or cash economy than peers in other groupings.

### The Tax Gap and Random Audits
- Higher-income jurisdictions are most likely to formally estimate tax gaps:
  - Tax gap—PIT: 33 percent (higher-income jurisdictions)
  - Tax gap—CIT: 37 percent (higher-income jurisdictions)
  - Tax gap—VAT: 44 percent (higher-income jurisdictions)
- Small-state jurisdictions are least likely to produce tax gap estimates.
- More administrations indicate that they estimate the VAT gap than any other tax gap.
- Tax gaps other than for VAT are estimated only by administrations that also estimate their VAT gap.
- Administrations in small states are more likely than peers to conduct random audits despite resource limitations.
- Uses of random audits (percentages shown in Figure 37):
  - Test compliance in targeted sectors
  - Enhance risk profiling systems
  - Produce tax gap estimates
  - Measure the behavioral effects of audits
- Fewer administrations use random audits to produce tax gap estimates than those that make VAT gap estimates.

### Audit Case Selection
- 96 percent of participants indicated they use one or more of the listed criteria/processes to initiate verification or audit interventions.
- Top criteria/processes used (percentages by group shown in Table 40; sample sizes in parentheses):
  - Economic Sector: All 89 percent (All (135)), Small States 81 percent (31), Lower Income 95 percent (44), Higher Income 88 percent (60)
  - Third-Party Information: All 88 percent; Small States 77 percent; Lower Income 91 percent; Higher Income 92 percent
  - Taxpayer Behavior: All 84 percent; Small States 77 percent; Lower Income 84 percent; Higher Income 88 percent
  - Taxpayer Category (for example, self-employed): All 81 percent; Small States 71 percent; Lower Income 77 percent; Higher Income 88 percent
  - Information Cross-Checking: All 80 percent; Small States 61 percent; Lower Income 84 percent; Higher Income 87 percent
  - Significant Changes to Taxpayer: All 79 percent; Small States 65 percent; Lower Income 77 percent; Higher Income 87 percent
  - Selected Based on Judgment: All 73 percent; Small States 77 percent; Lower Income 70 percent; Higher Income 73 percent
  - Internal Intelligence Function: All 73 percent; Small States 61 percent; Lower Income 80 percent; Higher Income 73 percent
  - Risk Profiling—Business Rules: All 69 percent; Small States 42 percent; Lower Income 70 percent; Higher Income 82 percent
  - Compliance Checks (for example, payroll checks): All 68 percent; Small States 71 percent; Lower Income 64 percent; Higher Income 70 percent
  - Collected Tax: All 64 percent; Small States 55 percent; Lower Income 66 percent; Higher Income 68 percent
  - Frequency (time between audits): All 61 percent; Small States 42 percent; Lower Income 75 percent; Higher Income 62 percent
  - BEPS or Aggressive Tax Planning Issues: All 53 percent; Small States 23 percent; Lower Income 57 percent; Higher Income 76 percent
  - Random: All 53 percent; Small States 58 percent; Lower Income 50 percent; Higher Income 52 percent
  - Location: All 52 percent; Small States 39 percent; Lower Income 48 percent; Higher Income 62 percent
  - International Exchange of Information: All 52 percent; Small States 26 percent; Lower Income 39 percent; Higher Income 75 percent
  - Tax Control Framework–based “Audits”: All 48 percent; Small States 23 percent; Lower Income 61 percent; Higher Income 52 percent
  - Ownership in a Corporate Entity: All 45 percent; Small States 39 percent; Lower Income 41 percent; Higher Income 52 percent
  - Risk Profiling—Predictive Modeling: All 41 percent; Small States 19 percent; Lower Income 45 percent; Higher Income 50 percent
  - Commercial Register: All 31 percent; Small States 19 percent; Lower Income 25 percent; Higher Income 42 percent
- More than half the ISORA participants use one or more of 15 processes/criteria; the top 8 are used by over 70 percent.
- The top three criteria for all groups are economic sector, third-party information, and taxpayer behavior.
- Auditor judgment is used by 70 percent or more administrations in all three groups.
- Risk profiling using business rules is used overall by 69 percent of ISORA participants; auditor judgment is used by a higher proportion in small-state and lower-income jurisdictions than business rule–based risk profiling.

### Electronic Audit Methods
- Use of electronic audit methods and specific uses (percentages shown in Figure 38; sample sizes in parentheses):
  - Electronic audit methods used: Higher-income jurisdictions 82 percent; Lower income 47 percent; Small states 48 percent
  - Electronic methods used for risk profiling: Higher-income jurisdictions 72 percent; Lower income 16 percent; Small states 29 percent
  - Electronic methods used in case selection: Higher-income jurisdictions 77 percent; Lower income 29 percent; Small states 29 percent
  - Electronic methods used for audit case management: Higher-income jurisdictions 57 percent; Lower income 23 percent; Small states 20 percent
  - Behavioral or predictive models and analysis for risk assessment: Higher-income jurisdictions 47 percent; Lower income 11 percent; Small states 16 percent
- Administrations in higher-income jurisdictions utilize digital technology far more in every audited aspect covered in ISORA.
- Administrations in lower-income jurisdictions are least likely to use digital technologies.
- Use of behavioral or predictive models in risk assessment is not yet widespread; less than half of higher-income participants use such models.

### Conclusion — Key Findings and Statistics
- Organizational form and responsibilities:
  - 68 of 135 participating administrations self-identified as semiautonomous organizations (8 small states, 23 lower income, 37 higher income).
  - 49 of 135 participants (about 36 percent) are responsible for tax administration and customs administration.
- Revenue composition:
  - Noncore taxes, SSC, and nontax revenues account for close to 40 percent of all revenues for small-state jurisdictions, and about 30 percent for the others.
- Tax types collected beyond core taxes (PIT, CIT, VAT, and SSC):
  - 66 percent of participants collect domestic excise taxes.
  - 40 percent collect motor vehicle taxes.
  - 46 percent are involved in real property taxes.
  - 22 percent collect wealth taxes.
  - 37 percent collect estate, inheritance, and gift taxes.
  - 59 percent report collecting at least one other tax not included in this list.
- Staff allocation by function:
  - Front office functions (registration, service, returns, and payment processing): about 30 percent of staff.
  - Back office functions (audit, verification, and enforced debt collection): about 40 percent of staff.
  - Disputes (objections and appeals): about 3 percent of staff.
  - Other operational and support functions: about 27 percent of staff.
- Other workforce and governance statistics:
  - More than 85 percent of respondents report having dedicated LTO/Ps.
  - Higher-income group has 22 percent of employees aged 55 years or older; small-state participants 12 percent; lower-income participants 10 percent.
  - Overall, female staff make up 53 percent of tax administration employees, but only 40 percent of executives.
- Compliance risk approaches:
  - Lower-income and higher-income jurisdictions are more likely to have a formal approach to identifying, assessing, and prioritizing key compliance risks across a range of tax administration functions than administrations in small states.
  - Across all groups, audit and verification activities are most likely to have formal compliance risk approaches (73 percent overall).
  - Taxpayer service and payment processing are least likely to have formal compliance risk approaches (52 percent and 53 percent, respectively).
- Priority focus areas summary:
  - VAT fraud is a high priority for 70 percent of ISORA’s participants.
  - For lower- and higher-income jurisdictions, “aggressive domestic tax avoidance schemes” is also a high priority.
  - For lower-income jurisdictions, “preferential tax regimes and incentives” is a high priority.
  - For higher-income jurisdictions, “the underground or cash economy” was identified as a high-priority focus area.

### Meeting Performance Standards Index
- ISORA asked participants if the administration can establish standards and, for 10 typical standards, whether the standard is “no standard,” “not met,” “partially met,” or “mostly met.”
- The 10 typical standards:
  a. Processing personal income tax returns and refunds;
  b. Processing VAT returns and refunds;
  c. Sending a substantive response to a written request on a routine matter;
  d. Dealing with taxpayers’ in-person (face-to-face) enquiries at tax office;
  e. Answering telephone calls;
  f. Resolving taxpayers’ complaints;
  g. Collecting outstanding tax returns;
  h. Collecting outstanding tax arrears;
  i. Resolving tax dispute cases via administrative reviews; and
  j. Completion of audits within agreed timeframes.
- 127 out of 135 participants indicated they had the authority to establish performance standards.
- Figure 39 shows percentages of administrations indicating a standard is “partially met” or “mostly met” for each area; combined ranges:
  - “Mostly met” percentages range (examples): collecting outstanding tax arrears less than 50 percent “mostly met”; resolving taxpayer complaints more than 65 percent “mostly met.”
  - If both “mostly met” and “partially met” are taken into account, the range is 77 percent (collecting outstanding returns) to 85 percent (substantive responses to written requests).
- For the Meeting Performance Standards Index, only “mostly met” responses were used. Mean values for the Index, 2015:
  - Small States (28): 51.8
  - Lower Income (43): 48.6
  - Higher Income (56): 69.1
  - All (127): 58.3
- Observations:
  - Small-state and lower-income groups self-assess at about 50 percent progress in mostly meeting standards.
  - Higher-income group self-assesses at the 70 percent level.
  - The Index may be useful for monitoring progress over time and for peer comparison; divergence from peers could indicate issues with standard-setting or efficiency.

### Management and Human Resources Autonomy Index — Questions Covered
- Management autonomy questions (Yes/No):
  - Does the tax administration exercise discretion over the operating budget?
  - Does the tax administration exercise discretion over the capital budget?
  - Does the tax administration establish performance standards?
  - Does the tax administration determine its own management structure?
- Human resources autonomy questions (Yes/No):
  - Can the tax administration determine work requirements?
  - Can the tax administration make appointments of new staff?
  - Can the tax administration decide on promotion of existing staff?
  - Can the tax administration decide skills and qualifications required for appointment or promotion?
  - Can the tax administration determine whether work is carried out by permanent staff or contractually?
  - Can the tax administration place staff within a salary range?
  - Can the tax administration terminate employment?

*Source: Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data, isorauraea - Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data*

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data

### Management and Human Resources Autonomy — key findings
- The autonomy index is based on 11 Yes/No questions across two components: management autonomy and human resources autonomy. A “Yes” for each question represents good tax administration practice.
- Sample size for all related tables is all 135 participants.
- Semiautonomous administrations score higher than within-ministry administrations on every question in both components.
- Biggest single question gap: authority to place staff within a salary range (human resources component).
- Index averages (percent), 2015 (Table 42):
  - Semiautonomous: Average Value of Management Autonomy Index 79.0; Average Value of Human Resources Autonomy Index 94.9; Average Value of Overall Index 89.2
  - Within Ministry: Average Value of Management Autonomy Index 62.3; Average Value of Human Resources Autonomy Index 63.7; Average Value of Overall Index 63.2
  - All: Average Value of Management Autonomy Index 70.7; Average Value of Human Resources Autonomy Index 79.4; Average Value of Overall Index 76.3
- Distributional notes:
  - Minimum overall autonomy value for a self-classified semiautonomous administration is 6 out of 11 or 55 percent; 53 semiautonomous administrations score 9 or above (out of 11).
  - Within-ministry administrations display a much wider range: six score 11 out of 11 (100 percent), while some score as low as 9 percent, 18 percent, and 27 percent.
- Figure 40 (management autonomy Yes responses, percent) highlights for semiautonomous versus within ministry (sample sizes: Semiautonomous (68), Within ministry (67), All (135)) — notable item-level Yes percentages for semiautonomous: 76, 60, 99, 81; within ministry: 54, 40, 90, 66; all: 65, 50, 94, 73 (presented in chart form in source).

### Public Accountability Index — key findings
- The Public Accountability Index uses 12 Yes/No questions. Good practice would see “Yes” for each.
- The 12 questions are:
  - (a) Publish its strategic plan?
  - (b) Publish its annual business/operations plans?
  - (c) Make public a formal set of service delivery standards?
  - (d) Publish the results it achieves against the formal service delivery standards?
  - (e) Publish its annual report?
  - (f) Have an external auditor?
  - (g) Make key compliance risks public regularly?
  - (h) Make reports of outcomes in addressing compliance risks public regularly?
  - (i) Publish the results of taxpayer satisfaction surveys?
  - (j) Have a document that formally sets out taxpayer rights?
  - (k) Have a specific mechanism for managing taxpayer complaints?
  - (l) Publish periodic estimates of the tax gap?
- Sample size for all related tables is all 135 participants.
- Overall Yes-response pattern for the 12 questions (Figure 44, percent):
  - a: 63
  - b: 47
  - c: 59
  - d: 36
  - e: 67
  - f: 77
  - g: 20
  - h: 22
  - i: 34
  - j: 80
  - k: 67
  - l: 19
- Summary averages (Table 43, Table 44):
  - Public Accountability Index Average (percent) by standard groups, 2015:
    - Small States (31): 31.2
    - Lower Income (44): 47.3
    - Higher Income (60): 60.0
    - All (135): 49.3
  - Public Accountability Index Average (percent) by institutional arrangement, 2015:
    - Semiautonomous (68): 61.5
    - Within Ministry (67): 36.8
    - All (135): 49.3
- Interpretation:
  - Clear progression in public accountability from small states (31 percent) to lower-income jurisdictions (47 percent) to higher-income jurisdictions (60 percent).
  - Lower Public Accountability Index for small states may partly reflect inadequate resourcing for producing publication-ready documents.
  - No single question drives the lower averages for small-state and lower-income groups; the pattern is spread across items.
  - Positive relationship suggested between autonomy and public accountability.

### Service Orientation Index — key findings
- Service Orientation Index comprises 13 equally weighted Yes/No questions (compound indicators noted where applicable). The 13 questions are:
  - (a) formal set of service standards?
  - (b) use information on compliance burden to stakeholders?
  - (c) users involved in testing and design of services? (compound: end-user testing of e-services OR design of services)
  - (d) taxpayers can register simultaneously for multiple tax types?
  - (e) taxpayers can register through other agencies?
  - (f) formal taxpayer service and assistance strategy?
  - (g) conduct taxpayer satisfaction surveys?
  - (h) special provision for taxpayers with disabilities?
  - (i) services in languages other than official languages? (compound: telephonically OR on the web)
  - (j) e-services provided? (website used as proxy)
  - (k) rulings provided to taxpayers?
  - (l) taxpayer rights set out in a formal document?
  - (m) specific mechanism for managing taxpayer complaints?
- Percent Yes responses for the 13 questions (Figure 46):
  - a: 74
  - b: 55
  - c: 67
  - d: 88
  - e: 16
  - f: 76
  - g: 61
  - h: 46
  - i: 53
  - j: 90
  - k: 83
  - l: 80
  - m: 67
- Range and central tendency:
  - Lowest Yes: about 18 percent (taxpayers being able to register through other agencies; chart lists 16 percent).
  - Highest Yes: about 90 percent (providing e-services including a website).
  - Excluding extremes, the range is about 45 percent to 85 percent.
- Service Orientation Index averages (Table 45, Table 46):
  - Service Orientation Index Average (percent) by standard groups, 2015:
    - Small States (31): 50.4
    - Lower Income (44): 58.7
    - Higher Income (60): 79.0
    - All (135): 65.8
  - Service Orientation Index Average (percent) by institutional arrangement, 2015:
    - Semiautonomous (68): 76.5
    - Within Ministry (67): 55.0
    - All (135): 65.8
- Interpretation:
  - Clear progression in service orientation moving from small states to lower-income to higher-income jurisdictions.
  - No single question drives differences across groups; variation is distributed across the index.
  - Significant difference in service orientation between semiautonomous and within-ministry jurisdictions suggests a link between autonomy and service practices.

### Relationships among indices and performance measures
- Correlation coefficients among indices, 2015 (Table 47):
  - Meeting Performance Standards correlated with:
    - Management and Human Resources Autonomy: 0.27
    - Public Accountability: 0.44
    - Service Orientation: 0.52
  - Management and Human Resources Autonomy correlated with:
    - Public Accountability: 0.52
    - Service Orientation: 0.53
  - Public Accountability correlated with Service Orientation: 0.74
- Notes on correlations:
  - The strongest relationship is between the Public Accountability and Service Orientation Indices (0.74).
  - Correlations are not merely due to income: the respective correlation coefficients with income are lower.
  - The Meeting Performance Standards Index is the weakest-correlated with other indices; it measures self-assessed performance against possibly heterogeneous internal standards.
- Future work:
  - A longer time series of quantitative performance measures through ISORA will permit deeper analysis of relationships between administrative/operational practices and performance measures.

### Fragile states — selected indicators and index comparisons
- Fragile states cluster similar to low-income countries: just over two-thirds (13 out of 18) are low-income countries (LICs) and 3 are lower-middle-income; close to 84 percent of fragile states fall into the lower-income grouping.
- Sample indicators, 2015 (Table 48) — percent:
  - Group notation: numbers in parentheses equal sample size for data supplied in each column.
  - Fragile States (18/18/11/18/10): Semiautonomous 45; LTO/P 100; Corporate Taxpayers Managed Through LTO/P 10; Simplified Regime for Small Taxpayers 78; VAT On-Time Filing Rate 89
  - Nonfragile States (117/117/67/117/76): Semiautonomous 51; LTO/P 84; Corporate Taxpayers Managed Through LTO/P 25; Simplified Regime for Small Taxpayers 68; VAT On-Time Filing Rate 84
  - LICs (22/22/12/22/11): Semiautonomous 55; LTO/P 100; Corporate Taxpayers Managed Through LTO/P 9; Simplified Regime for Small Taxpayers 99; VAT On-Time Filing Rate 85
- Interpretation and context:
  - No striking differences in institutional arrangements between fragile and nonfragile states; all fragile states participating have a large taxpayer office/program (LTO/P).
  - Fragile states are more likely than nonfragile states to administer a simplified regime for small taxpayers, similar to LICs.
  - Higher proportion of corporate taxpayers managed through LTO/P in fragile states partly reflects a small base of active corporate taxpayers.
  - Fragile states often mirror LICs in limitations on data availability (e.g., staff demographic data, audit data).
- Indices (Table 49) — index values, 2015:
  - Fragile States (18): Meeting Performance Standards 43; Management and Human Resources Autonomy 69; Public Accountability 32; Service Orientation 44
  - Nonfragile States (117): Meeting Performance Standards 61; Management and Human Resources Autonomy 77; Public Accountability 52; Service Orientation 69
  - LICs (22): Meeting Performance Standards 42; Management and Human Resources Autonomy 80; Public Accountability 42; Service Orientation 52
- Key comparisons and findings:
  - Average index values for fragile states fall well below averages for other participants across all four indices.
  - Low Management and Human Resources Autonomy Index for fragile states persists when examined separately for semiautonomous and within-ministry administrations:
    - For semiautonomous fragile administrations: 84 percent versus 89 percent (nonfragile semiautonomous average)
    - For within-ministry fragile administrations: 57 percent versus 63 percent (nonfragile within-ministry average)
  - Public Accountability and Service Orientation Indices for fragile states are lower than for LICs and nonfragile peers: fragile-state administrations disclose plans and performance and accommodate taxpayers to a lesser extent than peers.

_Italic: Source — isorauraea - Part 2: Analysis of ISORA 2016 Data (PDF chapter) (ISORA 2016 data and figures as presented)._

### Box 7. Administrative and Operational Practices of Fragile States (continued)

### Box 7. Administrative and Operational Practices of Fragile States (continued)

### Conclusions
- Four indices cover a range of administrative and operational practices of tax administrations; Appendix Table 45 presents a consolidated view broken down by various groupings, including the World Bank–defined income groups.
- All indices demonstrate a similar pattern: administrations in higher-income jurisdictions are further ahead of small-state and lower-income jurisdictions in implementing a range of practices considered to be “good practice.”
- Tax administrations that self-identify as semiautonomous score higher on all four indices than do tax administrations that operate within a ministry.
- There are correlations between the indices. The strongest relationship is between the Public Accountability and the Service Orientation indices.
- The Management and Human Resource Autonomy index is also positively correlated with both the Public Accountability and the Service Orientation indices.
- Consistent time series data will facilitate further exploration of relationships between these indices and performance outcomes.

### Selected Performance and Profile Statistics (preserved verbatim)
- Appendix Table 1 — Median On-time Filing Rates (All):
  - All (89/83/59/89/83/77/59/86) 81 81 79 83 75 81 74 85
- Appendix Table 2 — Average On-time Filing Rates (All and groups):
  - All (89/83/59/89/83/77/59/86) 81 81 79 83 75 81 74 85
  - Small States (14/14/11/19/14/15/12/19) 43 72 67 78 40 63 61 81
  - Fragile States (12/10/10/12/10/8/8/10) 85 89 83 80 73 89 75 89
  - Nonsmall States (75/69/48/70/69/62/47/67) 84 83 87 86 79 84 83 86
- Appendix Table 3 — Median On-time Payment Rate for Core Taxes by Value (All):
  - All (47/45/38/52/55/53/42/53) 90 89 96 94 90 88 97 92
- Appendix Table 4 — Average On-time Payment Rates for Core Taxes by Value (All):
  - All (47/45/38/52/55/53/42/53) 90 89 96 94 94 90 88 97 92
  - Fragile States (12/10/10/12/10/8/8/10) 84 87 95 10 18 27 5 96 74
- Appendix Table 5 — Median Proportion of Returns Filed Electronically (All):
  - All (50/47/48/43/43/42) 87 76 93 93 83 98
  - Small States (6/6/8/4/5/7) 22 52 8 33 45 3
  - Fragile States (1/1/2/1/1/2) ——————
- Appendix Table 6 — Median Proportion of Payments Made Electronically (All):
  - All (21/18/20/19/17/17) 12 30 7 13 27 14
  - Fragile States (0/0/0/0/0/0) ——————
- Appendix Table 7 — Debt at Year-end as Percentage of Total Tax Collected:
  - All (83/85) 15 17
  - Small States (12/14) 25 20
  - Fragile States (7/7) 10 6
- Appendix Table 8 — Audits per 100 Active Taxpayers (All):
  - All (43/38/23/45/43/39/23/46) 1.7 0.3 1.0 5.0 11.6 0.4 0.9 2.4 4.02
  - Nonsmall States (37/33/18/37/36/33/19/38) 1.7 0.4 1.2 9 4.0 11.6 0.5 4.28
  - Fragile States (1/1/1/2/1/1/1/2) ————————
- Appendix Table 9 — Proportion of Audits Leading to Adjustment (All):
  - All (43/40/31/47/42/41/31/47) 58 71 67 61 53 67 64 58
  - Small States (7/6/5/9/7/7/5/9) 67 98 100 78 54 89 100 76
  - Fragile States (1/1/1/2/1/1/1/2) ————————
- Appendix Table 10 — Median Assessments Raised through Audits as Percentage of Revenue (All):
  - All (45/41/46/44/39/44) 3.6 1.4 1.9 7.1 1.9 2.6
  - Small States (7/7/7/9/7/7) 7.9 3.5 1.7 18.5 2.0 2.5
  - Fragile States (1/1/1/1/1/1) ——————
- Appendix Table 11 — Value of Objections as Percentage of Total Tax Collected (All):
  - All (38/40) 1.99 1.50
  - LICs (6/6) 1.08 2.25
  - Fragile States (5/5) 0.36 1.44
- Appendix Table 12 — Cost of Collection (Percent) (All):
  - All (77/76) 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9
  - LICs (5/6) 2.0 1.3 1.5 0.7
  - Fragile States (2/2) ————
- Appendix Table 13 — Active Core Taxpayers per Full-time Equivalent (Median) (All):
  - All (95/100) 439 426
  - LICs (10/11) 11 23
  - HICs (39/41) 673 703
  - Fragile States (11/11) 11 23
- Appendix Table 14 — Citizens per Full-time Equivalent (Median) (All):
  - All (113/115) 2,167 2,192
  - LICs (13/15) 21,575 14,902
  - Fragile States (13/15) 13,075 13,044
  - Small States (25/26) 1,461 1,430
- Appendix Table 15 — Institutional Arrangements—Autonomy and Tax Only/Tax and Customs, 2015 (All):
  - All (135) 21.5 42.2 28.9 7.4 (Semiautonomous; Within Ministry; Semiautonomous (Tax and Customs); Within Ministry (Tax and Customs))
  - Fragile States (18) 5.6 55.6 38.9 0.0
- Appendix Table 16 — Institutional Arrangements—Type of Institution, 2015 (All):
  - All (135) 34.8 11.1 23.7 26.7 3.7 (Single Directorate in Ministry; Multiple Directorates in Ministry; Unified Semiautonomous Body; Unified Semiautonomous Body with Board; Other)
  - Fragile States (18) 33.3 22.2 5.6 38.9 0.0
- Appendix Table 17 — Proportion of Administrations Collecting Each Revenue Type (Total, percent):
  - Total (135) Taxes on Payroll and Workforce 56; Income Tax—Individuals 93; Income Tax—Corporate and Other Entities 98; VAT (domestic) 89; VAT (import) 50; Excises (domestic) 66; Excises (import) 37; Other Taxes on Goods and Services 58; Motor Vehicle Taxes 40; Real Property 46; Wealth Taxes 22; Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes 37; Other Taxes 59; Social Security Contributions 34; Nontax Revenue 61
  - Fragile States (18) Taxes on Payroll and Workforce 94; Income Tax—Individuals 89; Income Tax—Corporate and Other Entities 100; VAT (domestic) 89; VAT (import) 61; Excises (domestic) 72; Excises (import) 50; Other Taxes on Goods and Services 78; Motor Vehicle Taxes 39; Real Property 44; Wealth Taxes 28; Estate, Inheritance, Gift, and Other Taxes 28; Other Taxes 44; Social Security Contributions 28; Nontax Revenue 56
- Appendix Table 19 — Nontax Roles, 2015 (All):
  - All (135) Collection of SSC 28.9; Welfare Benefits 6.7; Child Support 5.2; Property Valuation 30.4; Student Loans 5.9; Population Register 2.2; Retirement Savings 6.7; Lotteries/Gambling/Gaming 37.0; Other 39.3
  - Fragile States (18) 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 22.2
- Appendix Table 20 — Average Percentage of Staff by Function, 2015 (All):
  - All (87) Registration and Taxpayer Service 14; Payment and Returns Processing 15; Audit and Verification 28; Enforcement and Debt Collection 11; Disputes and Appeals 3; Other Tax Operations 9; Support Functions 19
  - Fragile States (10) 12 12 22 12 3 20 18
- Appendix Table 21 — Average Percentage of Staff by Office Type, 2015 (All):
  - All (76) Headquarters 32; Regional Offices 20; Local/Branch Offices 39; Data Processing Centers 25; Service Centers (including call centers) 3; Other Offices
  - Fragile States (6) 33 20 26 23 16
- Appendix Table 22 — Age Distribution of Staff, 2015 (All):
  - All (108) Under 25 Years 4; 25 to 34 Years 23; 35 to 44 Years 30; 45 to 54 Years 27; 55 to 64 Years 16; 65 Years and Older 1
  - Fragile States (10) 1 26 42 21 11 10

*isorauraea - Box 7. Administrative and Operational Practices of Fragile States (continued)*

### Appendix Tables

### Appendix Tables

### Staff Composition and Diversity (2015)
- Appendix Table 23 — Average Percentage of Staff by Length of Service, 2015
  - LICs (9): Less than 5 Years 12, 5 to 9 Years 8, 10 to 19 Years 0, 20 Years or More 80
  - LMICs (21): Less than 5 Years 42, 5 to 9 Years 9, 10 to 19 Years 10, 20 Years or More 0
  - UMICs (31): Less than 5 Years 62, 5 to 9 Years 5, 10 to 19 Years 15, 20 Years or More 2
  - HICs (41): Less than 5 Years 21, 5 to 9 Years 6, 10 to 19 Years 23, 20 Years or More 32
  - All (102): Less than 5 Years 42, 5 to 9 Years 3, 10 to 19 Years 16, 20 Years or More 1
  - Small States (23): Less than 5 Years 8, 5 to 9 Years 2, 10 to 19 Years 7, 20 Years or More 12
  - Nonsmall States (79): Less than 5 Years 22, 5 to 9 Years 1, 10 to 19 Years 8, 20 Years or More 1
  - Fragile States (10): Less than 5 Years 12, 5 to 9 Years 6, 10 to 19 Years 1, 20 Years or More 10
  - Nonfragile States (92): Less than 5 Years 42, 5 to 9 Years 2, 10 to 19 Years 17, 20 Years or More 1

- Appendix Table 24 — Average Percentage of Female Staff, 2015
  - LICs (15/11): All Staff 32, Executives 30
  - LMICs (23/22): All Staff 42, Executives 32
  - UMICs (38/32): All Staff 54, Executives 44
  - HICs (45/38): All Staff 63, Executives 46
  - All (121/103): All Staff 52, Executives 41
  - Small States (29/23): All Staff 60, Executives 42
  - Nonsmall States (92/80): All Staff 50, Executives 40
  - Fragile States (13/12): All Staff 35, Executives 30
  - Nonfragile States (108/91): All Staff 54, Executives 42

### Differentiation of Taxpayer Segments and Simplified Regimes (2015)
- Appendix Table 25 — Differentiated Treatment of Taxpayer Segments
  - Percentage of Administrations with LTO/PHNWI Program and Simplified Tax Regime(s) for Small Taxpayers
  - LICs (22): LTO/PHNWI Program 100, Simplified Tax Regime(s) for Small Taxpayers 59, Other column 1? (table shows "100  591" formatting)
  - LMICs (26):  96 15 65? (source shows "  961565" — preserve exact grouping as in table)
  - UMICs (40):  83 18 55? (source shows "  831855")
  - HICs (47):  77 32 36? (source shows "  773236")
  - All (135): 86 20 56 (source shows " 862056")
  - Small States (31):  52 13 26 (source shows "  521326")
  - Nonsmall States (104):  96 22 65 (source shows " 962265")
  - Fragile States (18): 100 11 78 (source shows "1001178")
  - Nonfragile States (117):  84 21 53 (source shows "  842153")
  - Note: Table formatting in source groups multiple columns adjacent; values above are presented preserving exact numeric tokens as they appear.

- Appendix Table 29 — Incidence of Simplified Regimes in Tax Administrations, 2015
  - Proportion Administering Various Simplified Regimes
  - LICs (20): Flat Rate 75, Turnover Regime 15, Other Simplified 30, Participation in Regular Regimes 25, Forfait (Agreed) Regime 15, Simple Patent Indicator-based Regime 10
  - LMICs (17): Flat Rate 47, Turnover Regime 35, Other Simplified 18, Participation in Regular Regimes 24, Forfait 24, Simple Patent 0
  - UMICs (22): Flat Rate 50, Turnover Regime 18, Other Simplified 27, Participation in Regular Regimes 18, Forfait 14, Simple Patent 18
  - HICs (17): Flat Rate 47, Turnover Regime 35, Other Simplified 18, Participation in Regular Regimes 12, Forfait 24, Simple Patent 18
  - All (76): Flat Rate 55, Turnover Regime 25, Other Simplified 24, Participation in Regular Regimes 20, Forfait 18, Simple Patent 12
  - Small States (8): Flat Rate 75, Turnover Regime 0, Other Simplified 13, Participation in Regular Regimes 0, Forfait 13, Simple Patent 0
  - Nonsmall States (68): Flat Rate 53, Turnover Regime 28, Other Simplified 25, Participation in Regular Regimes 22, Forfait 19, Simple Patent 13
  - Fragile States (14): Flat Rate 71, Turnover Regime 0, Other Simplified 17, Participation in Regular Regimes 29, Forfait 36, Simple Patent 7
  - Nonfragile States (62): Flat Rate 52, Turnover Regime 29, Other Simplified 23, Participation in Regular Regimes 16, Forfait 21, Simple Patent 13

### Large Taxpayer Office/Program (LTO) Characteristics (2014–2015)
- Appendix Table 26 — Characteristics of the Large Taxpayer Office or Program
  - Median Percentage of Revenue Collected Through LTO
    - LICs (9/9): 2014 54, 2015 63
    - LMICs (14/10): 2014 39, 2015 37
    - UMICs (15/13): 2014 43, 2015 48
    - HICs (18/17): 2014 44, 2015 43
    - All (56/49): 2014 44, 2015 45
  - Median Percentage of Corporate Taxpayers Managed Through LTO
    - LICs (12/12): 2014 11.2, 2015 8.5
    - LMICs (14/17): 2014 4.3, 2015 4.1
    - UMICs (25/24): 2014 0.5, 2015 0.4
    - HICs (25/25): 2014 0.5, 2015 0.4
    - All (76/78): 2014 1.6, 2015 2.0
  - Median Number of Corporate Taxpayers per FTE
    - LICs (15/16): 2014 6.0, 2015 5.7
    - LMICs (21/20): 2014 9.6, 2015 7.0
    - UMICs (29/28): 2014 8.5, 2015 8.0
    - HICs (31/31): 2014 11.0, 2015 9.9
    - All (96/95): 2014 8.5, 2015 7.8
  - Small States (2/2/6/7/13/13): Median values show blanks and then 2.2, 2.7, 16.3, 18.8 in corresponding columns per source table.
  - Nonsmall States (54/47/70/71/83/82): Median Percentage of Revenue Collected Through LTO 44/45; Median Percentage Corporate Taxpayers Managed Through LTO 1.6/1.9; Median Number Corporate Taxpayers per FTE 7.4/7.3
  - Fragile States (5/4/11/11/14/17) and Nonfragile States (51/45/65/67/82/78) entries preserved as listed in source.

- Appendix Table 27 — Criteria Used to Identify Large Taxpayers, 2015
  - Percentage of Administrations Identifying Large Taxpayer Through:
    - Turnover/Revenue, Economic Sector/Activity, Other Criteria (Taxes (assessed/paid), Assets, Income)
  - LICs (22): Turnover/Revenue 100, Economic Sector/Activity 3, Taxes 2, Assets 2, Income 7, Other 9, 5, 0 (table grouping preserved)
  - LMICs (25): 96 36 24 32 4 8 (preserve exact column tokens from source)
  - UMICs (33): 79 45 39 39 12 15
  - HICs (36): 86 53 58 22 17 14
  - All (116): 89 43 40 27 10 10
  - Small States (16): 94 19 19 19 0 13
  - Nonsmall States (100): 88 47 43 28 12 10
  - Fragile States (18): 100 22 22 21 11 6 0
  - Nonfragile States (98): 87 47 43 30 11 12

### LTO Functions and Case Selection (2015)
- Appendix Table 28 — Functions Carried Out in Large Taxpayer Office or Program
  - Percentage Executing Various Functions Within LTO (Audit Services; Collection, Enforcement, and Management of Arrears; Return and Payment Processing; Dispute Resolution; Registration)
  - LICs (22): Audit Services 82, Collection 82, Return and Payment Processing 10, Dispute Resolution 0, Registration 95, (additional columns show 45, 41 grouping preserved)
  - LMICs (25): Audit Services 84, Collection 88, Return and Payment Processing 84, Dispute Resolution 64, Registration 40, 52
  - UMICs (33): Audit Services 94, Collection 85, Return/Payment 67, Dispute Resolution 58, Registration 39, 48
  - HICs (36): Audit Services 97, Collection 83, Return/Payment 42, Dispute Resolution 56, Registration 61, 42
  - All (116): Audit Services 91, Collection 84, Return/Payment 69, Dispute Resolution 66, Registration 47, 46
  - Small States (16): 88, 81, 69, 50, 50, 25
  - Nonsmall States (100): 91, 85, 69, 68, 47, 49
  - Fragile States (18): 72, 78, 89, 94, 39, 44
  - Nonfragile States (98): 94, 86, 65, 60, 49, 46

- Appendix Table 39 — Administrations Using Specified Case Selection Criteria, 2015 (Percent)
  - Selected criteria and All (135) values:
    - Economic Sector 89
    - Third-Party Information 88
    - Taxpayer Behavior 84
    - Taxpayer Category 81
    - Information Cross-checking 80
    - Significant Changes to Taxpayer 79
    - Selected Based on Judgment 73
    - Internal Intelligence Function 73
    - Risk Profiling—Business Rules 69
    - Compliance Checks 68
    - Collected Tax 64
    - Frequency (time between audits) 61
    - BEPS or Aggressive Tax Planning 53
    - Random 53
    - Location 52
    - International Exchange of Information 52
    - Tax Control Framework 48
    - Ownership in a Corporate Entity 45
    - Risk Profiling—Predictive Modelling 41
    - Commercial Register 31
    - Other 8

### Compliance Risk, Audit Practices, and Electronic Methods (2015)
- Appendix Table 35 — Formal Approaches to Compliance Risk, 2015 (Percent)
  - Formal Approach for Identifying, Assessing, and Prioritizing Key Compliance Risks: All (135) 74
  - Return Filing 64, Payment Processing 53, Collection Enforcement 58, Verification/Audit 73, Taxpayer Service 52

- Appendix Table 36 — High-Priority Compliance Approaches, 2015 (Percent)
  - All (133): Cooperative Compliance 60, Leveraging Compliance through Tax Intermediaries/Agents 30, Making Third-Party Data Visible to Taxpayers 35, Preassessment Verification 39, Exchange of Information 57, Tax Compliance by Design 46

- Appendix Table 38 — Tax Gap Estimates and Conduct of Random Audits and Uses, 2015 (Percent)
  - Tax Gap—PIT All (135) 27
  - Tax Gap—CIT All (135) 28
  - Tax Gap—VAT All (135) 35
  - Tax Gap—Other All (135) 24
  - Random Audits Conducted All (135) 66
  - Test Compliance in Targeted Sectors All (135) 59
  - Enhance Risk Profiling Systems All (135) 50
  - Produce Tax Gap Estimates All (135) 16
  - Measure the Behavioral Effects of Audits All (135) 33

- Appendix Table 40 — Electronic Methods in Audit and Specific Uses, 2015 (Percent)
  - Electronic Audit Methods Used All (135) 57
  - Behavioral or Predictive Models and Analysis for Risk Assessment All (135) 28
  - Electronic Methods Used for Risk Profiling All (135) 45
  - Electronic Methods Used in Case Selection All (135) 50
  - Electronic Methods Used for Audit Case Management All (135) 37

- Appendix Table 41 — Meeting Performance Standards Index
  - Mean Performance Indicator Value 2014 / 2015
    - LICs (21/22): 48.1 / 42.3
    - LMICs (25/24): 58.0 / 58.3
    - UMICs (36): 59.4 / 60.6
    - HICs (45): 65.3 / 64.4
    - All (127): 59.4 / 58.3
    - Small States (28): 50.7 / 51.8
    - Nonsmall States (99): 61.8 / 60.2
    - Fragile States (17): 44.7 / 42.9
    - Nonfragile States (110): 61.6 / 60.7

### Governance, Accountability, and Service Orientation Indices (2015)
- Appendix Table 42 — Autonomy Index, 2015 Averages
  - Semiautonomous / Within Ministry / All
  - LICs (22): 94.7 / 61.8 / 79.8
  - LMICs (26): 87.0 / 62.9 / 75.9
  - UMICs (40): 86.4 / 55.0 / 69.1
  - HICs (47): 89.8 / 71.9 / 81.0
  - All (135): 89.2 / 63.2 / 76.3
  - Small States (8/23/31): 89.8 / 51.0 / 61.0
  - Nonsmall States (60/44/104): 89.1 / 69.6 / 80.9
  - Fragile States (8/10/18): 84.1 / 57.3 / 69.2
  - Nonfragile States (60/57/117): 89.8 / 64.4 / 77.4

- Appendix Table 43 — Public Accountability Index (2015 Average)
  - LICs (22) 42.0
  - LMICs (26) 51.9
  - UMICs (40) 44.6
  - HICs (47) 55.1
  - All (135) 49.3
  - Small States (31) 31.2
  - Nonsmall States (104) 54.6
  - Fragile States (18) 32.4
  - Nonfragile States (117) 51.9

- Appendix Table 44 — Service Orientation Index (2015 Average)
  - LICs (22) 51.7
  - LMICs (26) 64.2
  - UMICs (40) 65.0
  - HICs (47) 74.0
  - All (135) 65.8
  - Small States (31) 50.4
  - Nonsmall States (104) 70.4
  - Fragile States (18) 43.6
  - Nonfragile States (117) 69.2

- Appendix Table 45 — Consolidation of All Indices, 2015
  - Index Averages for 2015 (Meeting Performance Standards / Management and Human Resource Autonomy / Public Accountability / Service Orientation)
  - LICs (22/22/22/22): 42.3 / 79.8 / 42.0 / 51.7
  - LMICs (24/26/26/26): 58.3 / 75.9 / 51.9 / 64.2
  - UMICs (36/40/40/40): 60.6 / 69.1 / 44.6 / 65.0
  - HICs (45/47/47/47): 64.4 / 81.0 / 55.1 / 74.0
  - All (127/135/135/135): 58.3 / 76.3 / 49.3 / 65.8
  - Small States (28/31/31/31): 51.8 / 61.0 / 31.2 / 50.4
  - Nonsmall States (99/104/104/104): 60.2 / 80.9 / 54.6 / 70.4
  - Fragile States (17/18/18/18): 42.9 / 69.2 / 32.4 / 43.6
  - Nonfragile States (110/117/117/117): 60.7 / 77.4 / 51.9 / 69.2

*Source: isorauraea - Appendix Tables (PDF chapter).*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/dp/2019/english/isorauraea.pdf_