## _fad1501

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_fad1501](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/dp/2015/_fad1501.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/dp/2015/_fad1501.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/dp/2015/_fad1501.pdf.json)

---

### Data quality, scope, and purpose
- RA-FIT: first round country survey; data are preliminary, "not fully complete" and "suffer from a number of shortcomings in terms of quality."
- Purpose of RA-FIT:
  - Gather and analyze core tax and customs administration data annually.
  - Make data and analysis available to member countries for benchmarking.
  - Establish baseline measures (key performance indicators) for TA programs and Results Based Management.
  - Help target TA strategies and improve the quality of TA.
- Round 1 (pilot):
  - Piloted in 2012 with an Excel Workbook™; Round 2 commenced in May 2014 as a web-based platform.
  - Targeted 119 countries; responses included in analysis: 86 countries (overall response rate 72 percent).
  - Average completion rate: 70 percent.
  - Completion rates by worksheet: institutional arrangements (general) 86 percent; revenue statistics 87 percent; tax operations average completion 62 percent; customs operations average completion 58 percent.
- Major limitations and caveats:
  - Responder bias (72 percent response rate; HICs only seven respondents).
  - Structural data issues: skewed numeric values, outliers, cross-country fiscal year misalignment.
  - Common missing items in tax operations: age of tax arrears (53 percent unable), objections and appeals stock/flow (45 and 43 percent unable), VAT stratification (37 percent unable), VAT returns by type (35 percent unable), stock/flow of arrears by tax type (30 percent unable).
  - Customs questionnaire challenges: details of other agencies involved in import/export processes (52 percent failed), customs appeals (36 percent unable), post-clearance activity (23 percent unable), violation/penalty information (23 percent unable), revenue foregone due to relief granted (21 percent unable).

### Value-added tax (VAT) and returns/refunds
- VAT trends:
  - VAT's relative importance as a share of total revenue has increased over the past decade for all income groupings, particularly for low-income countries (LICs).
- VAT return composition (2010, by income group; percentage of total returns received):
  - LIC: Debit 40% / Credit 42% / Nil 19%
  - LMIC: Debit 47% / Credit 32% / Nil 21%
  - UMIC: Debit 47% / Credit 33% / Nil 20%
  - HIC: Debit 61% / Credit 29% / Nil 10%
- Refunds:
  - LICs: credit VAT returns (refund requests) represent 42 percent of total returns received.
  - LICs make the least refunds as a percentage of total gross VAT: 7 percent.
  - 36-country mean refund percentage: 18 percent.

### Tax and customs institutional organization and autonomy
- Institutional models:
  - Traditional: tax and customs administrations organized as separate administrations within the Ministry of Finance (MoF).
  - 60 percent (53/85) reported tax and customs conducted by single or multiple directorates of the MoF.
  - 40 percent (32/85) adopted institutional arrangements outside the MoF (semi-autonomous/unified bodies).
  - Regional pattern: Anglophone Africa: 85 percent (17/20) of surveyed respondents indicated they have a revenue authority with tax and customs combined.
- Functional combination:
  - 72 percent of surveyed respondents have separate tax and customs administrations.
  - 82 percent of surveyed tax administrations have no social security contribution (SSC) collection responsibility.
  - Most tax administrations collecting SSCs: 11/15 are in upper-middle-income countries (9) and high-income countries (2).
- Administrative autonomy (tax administrations, total sample):
  - Design internal structure? 68% (54/80).
  - Set remuneration? 35% (29/82).
  - Exercise discretion over operating expenditure? 65% (52/80).
  - Exercise discretion over capital expenditure? 49% (39/80).
  - Set staffing levels? 49% (40/81).
  - Hire and fire staff? 51% (41/81).
- Autonomy classification (clockwise, in order of decreasing autonomy):
  - 1. Not integrated; have autonomy — 6%
  - 2. Integrated; have autonomy — 23%
  - 3. Integrated; have autonomy except for setting remuneration — 4%
  - 4. Not integrated; can design internal structure, exercise discretion over operating expenditure and set staffing levels — 10%
  - 5. Not integrated; can design internal structure, exercise discretion over capital and operating expenditure — 7%
  - 6. Not integrated; can design internal structure, set staffing levels and hire and fire staff — 13%
  - 7. Not integrated; can design internal structure, exercise discretion over operating expenditure, and hire and fire staff — 5%
  - 8. Not integrated; can exercise discretion over operating expenditure — 8%
  - 9. Integrated; but can only design internal structure — 4%
  - 10. Not integrated; have no autonomy — 20%

### Large Taxpayer Offices (LTOs) and small taxpayer regimes (STRs)
- LTO coverage and performance:
  - 77 percent (62/81) of RA-FIT respondents reported having a large taxpayer office.
  - Average revenue under LTO management as a percentage of total domestic revenue: around 48 percent.
  - Table 2 (2010) LTO indicators by income group:
    - LOW INCOME COUNTRIES (20): LTO Taxpayers as % of Total Taxpayers = 12; Tax Revenue Contribution of the LTO (%) = 50; LTO Staff as % of Total Staff = 5; Taxpayers to Staff Ratio = 8:1
    - LOWER MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES (29): 4; 45; 6; 13:1
    - UPPER MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES (26): 4; 48; 4; 13:1
    - HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES (6): 15; 65; 2; 40:1
    - Respondent TOTAL (81): 9; 48; 5; 13:1
  - Observation: Average taxpayer-to-LTO-staff ratio is 13 taxpayers to 1 staff; concerns that LTO staff may be insufficient given complexity.
- Small taxpayer regimes:
  - Slightly more than half of RA-FIT respondents have implemented a simplified regime for small taxpayers (42 out of 79 respondents).
  - STR prevalence: 85 percent of administrations in LICs have special simplified small taxpayer regimes.
  - Drivers: higher informality, cash economies, large numbers seeking income in limited employment environments, and weaker tax administration capacity.

### Taxpayer registers, filing performance, audits, dispute resolution, and arrears
- Taxpayer register profile:
  - More than two-thirds of taxpayer registers in LICs contain PIT payers for salaried employees.
  - Universal filing is often a prerequisite for inclusion, despite most of this tax being withheld by the employer and paid directly to the tax administration.
- On-time return filing rates (averages across sample, 2010):
  - VAT: 69 percent.
  - CIT: 49 percent.
  - PIT: 45 percent.
  - VAT on-time filing higher possibly due to filing frequency, self-enforcing mechanism, newer IT systems, and VAT being more recently introduced.
  - VAT filing rates higher in HICs (78 percent).
  - Very low reported PIT on-time filing rates in LICs (31 percent).
- Audit and verification:
  - LICs rely more on comprehensive audits (around 53 percent of total audits in LICs).
  - Issue-oriented audits account for about half of total audits in more developed economies.
  - 18 percent of respondents indicated they do not perform comprehensive audits.
  - 58 percent of respondents reported that no desk audits were carried out.
  - 19 percent reported performing no issue-oriented audits.
  - Audit assessments account for less than 5 percent of total tax revenue for 63 percent of respondents.
  - Direct impact of audit activity on tax revenues for a large majority possibly no greater than 2–3 percent of total revenue collections for that year.
- Arrears:
  - From 17 administrations responding fully on arrears:
    - Five countries indicated arrears account for more than 20 percent of total annual collections.
    - Five African respondents reported arrears below 10 percent of total annual collections.
  - CIT arrears as a percentage of CIT collections are generally much higher than for PIT and VAT.
  - Average for 11 LMICs: CIT arrears exceed 100 percent of CIT collection.
  - Seven UMICs: CIT arrears about 70 percent of CIT collection.
  - CIT arrears represent the largest share of total outstanding arrears for 65 percent of administrations; VAT arrears largest for about 30 percent; PIT arrears largest for 1 administration.
  - Almost 70 percent of administrations supplying information have half or more of their arrears in stock for longer than one year.
- Disputes:
  - Objections: in slightly less than 90 percent of 29 responding administrations, less than 5 percent of total annual collections by value are currently under dispute.
  - Appeals: nearly 70 percent of 25 respondents reported having a stock of less than 5 percent of total collections under appeal.

### Customs operations: release times, control selectivity, and post-clearance audit
- Release times for imported goods undergoing physical inspection (Days, 2010):
  - LIC sea: 5.2 days
  - LIC air: 3.7 days
  - LIC land: 2.1 days
  - LMIC sea: 2.4 days
  - LMIC air: 1.4 days
  - LMIC land: 1.4 days
  - UMIC/HIC sea: 1.4 days
  - UMIC/HIC air: 0.6 days
  - UMIC/HIC land: 0.5 days
- Release times for imports not undergoing physical inspection (Days, 2010):
  - LIC sea: 1.6 days
  - LIC air: 2.3 days
  - LIC land: 0.5 days
  - LMIC sea: 1.5 days
  - LMIC air: 1.0 day
  - LMIC land: 1.3 days
  - UMIC/HIC sea: 1.9 days
  - UMIC/HIC air: 1.2 days
  - UMIC/HIC land: 1.0 day
- Customs control selectivity — red channel physical inspection incidence (2010):
  - LICs inspect on average 52 percent of imported goods (red channel).
  - LMICs: 34 percent.
  - UMICs: 26 percent.
  - HICs: 20 percent.
- Documentary checks (yellow channel): UMICs report higher use of documentary checks (51.7 percent).
- Regional example: Sub-Saharan Africa: yellow channel ~40 percent, red channel ~43 percent.
- Post-Clearance Audit (PCA):
  - Of 63 customs respondents, 44 reported conducting PCAs.
  - Over 2009–11, respondents on average increased the number of PCAs conducted.
- Implication: RA-FIT data suggest excessive physical inspection in developing economies, indicating weak risk management and control selectivity with potential increases in trading costs and reductions in trade competitiveness.

### Human resources, information technology, budgets, costs, and outsourcing
- Human resources (averages and regional comparisons):
  - A single member of staff “covers” about 2,200 citizens.
  - A single member of staff “covers” about 2,000 employees who are in the active labor force.
  - A single member of staff “covers” about 150 registered PIT taxpayers.
  - Regional comparisons:
    - An African staff member covers about 3,100 active employees on average.
    - A European staff member is responsible for about 600 active employees.
    - When measured against registered PIT taxpayers, an African staff member covers fewer than 100 registered taxpayers.
  - Staffing distribution by function:
    - On average nearly 60 percent of the workforce work in support functions.
    - The other 40 percent cover core functions (debt collection, audit, and taxpayer account management).
  - Staff costs:
    - On average, staff costs represent 65 percent of the total budget.
    - Reported country variation ranges from 30-40 percent to figures above 80 percent.
- Information Technology (IT):
  - Most respondents employ external rather than internally developed IT systems.
  - LICs reliance on external suppliers: 29/48 tax administrations; 28/36 customs administrations.
  - Customs: 44 out of 58 countries rely on external IT systems, with a dominance of ASYCUDA across respondents.
  - Among tax administrations with in-house IT (34 total; 10 LIC or LMIC):
    - 12 supported customized systems.
    - 19 did not state system nature.
    - 3 noted internal IT resources supported packaged systems from an external source.
  - Among tax administrations using external vendors (42 total):
    - 28 support customized systems.
    - 13 support commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions.
    - 1 did not specify.
  - Packaged IT solution usage concentrated in LICs:
    - Of 17 reported tax administration COTS implementations, 16 were in LICs.
    - Of 20 reported customs administration COTS implementations, 17 were in LICs.
- Budget and administration cost (cost of collection indicators, 2010):
  - Tax administration cost of collection tends to decrease with income:
    - LICs: 2.4 percent
    - LMIC: 2.2 percent (median implied)
    - UMIC: 1.9 percent (median implied)
    - HICs: 1.2 percent
    - OECD HICs (32) average in 2010: 1.1 percent
  - Customs administration cost of collection tends to increase with income:
    - LICs: 2.6 percent
    - LMIC: 2.8 percent (median implied)
    - UMIC: 4.1 percent (median implied)
    - HICs: 5.5 percent
  - HICs spend on average 17 percent of their total budget on investment, while LICs spend about 5 percent.
- Outsourced services:
  - Tax administration (total respondents 60): Security 83%; Cleaning 70%; Cash/Banking 42%; IT 40%; Debt Collection 8%; Audit 2%.
  - Customs administration (total respondents 44): Cleaning 77%; Security 73%; Cash/Banking 41%; IT 41%; Debt Collection 7%; Audit 5%.
  - Outsourcing of tax collection to banks more common in Middle Eastern countries; outsourced cash/banking services decline from 77 percent in LICs through to zero percent for HICs.

### Institutional and operational themes for further research and technical assistance focus
- Improve data completeness and quality in future RA-FIT rounds to enable more robust cross-country comparisons.
- Strengthen arrears recording and aging systems to inform recovery strategies.
- Enhance risk management and control selectivity in customs to reduce excessive physical inspections and lower trading costs.
- Support capacity building for LTOs to improve staff-to-taxpayer ratios and LTO revenue capture effectiveness.
- Consider policy and administrative design of small taxpayer regimes in LICs given economic structure and tax administration capacity.
- Further analyze the relationship between different IT solutions (COTS versus customized, in-house versus external) and performance in core business functions such as returns processing and payment.

*Source: _fad1501 - 1. Tax and Revenue Administration – Cross-country. I. Masters, Andrew. II. International Monetary Fund. Fiscal Affairs Department departmental paper series._*

### 1. Tax and Revenue Administration – Cross-country. I. Masters, Andrew. II. International

### 1. Tax and Revenue Administration – Cross-country. I. Masters, Andrew. II. International Monetary Fund. Fiscal Affairs Department departmental paper series.

### Data quality, scope, and purpose
- RA-FIT: first round country survey; data are preliminary, "not fully complete" and "suffer from a number of shortcomings in terms of quality."
- Purpose of RA-FIT:
  - Gather and analyze core tax and customs administration data annually.
  - Make data and analysis available to member countries for benchmarking.
  - Establish baseline measures (key performance indicators) for TA programs and Results Based Management.
  - Help target TA strategies and improve the quality of TA.

### Value-added tax (VAT)
- VAT's relative importance as a share of total revenue has increased over the past decade for all income groupings, particularly for low-income countries (LICs).
- LICs: on average, credit VAT returns (refund requests) represent 42 percent of total returns received.
- LICs make the least refunds as a percentage of total gross VAT: 7 percent.
- 36-country mean refund percentage: 18 percent.

### Tax and customs organization
- Traditional arrangement: tax and customs administrations organized as separate administrations within the Ministry of Finance (MoF).
- 40 percent of surveyed respondents have adopted an institutional arrangement outside of the Ministry, mainly as semi-autonomous bodies.
- Anglophone Africa: 85 percent (17/20) of surveyed respondents indicated they have a revenue authority with tax and customs combined into a single organization.

### Tax and social security contribution (SSC) collections
- Most tax administrations collecting SSCs: 11/15 are in upper-middle-income countries (9) and high-income countries (2).
- Rationale: similarities in administering PIT and SSC (taxes on labor income) may catalyze combining tax and social security collection functions.

### Large Taxpayer Office (LTO) administration
- 77 percent (62/81) of RA-FIT respondents reported having a large taxpayer office.
- Average revenue under LTO management as a percentage of total domestic revenue: around 48 percent.
- Ratios of LTO staff to LTO taxpayers reported as lower than expected.

### Small taxpayer regimes (STRs)
- Slightly more than half of RA-FIT respondents have implemented a simplified regime for small taxpayers.
- STR prevalence: 85 percent of administrations in LICs have special simplified small taxpayer regimes.
- Possible drivers: higher informality, cash economies, large numbers seeking income in limited employment environments, and weaker tax administration capacity.

### Taxpayer register profile
- More than two-thirds of taxpayer registers in LICs contain PIT payers for salaried employees.
- Universal filing is often a prerequisite for inclusion, despite most of this tax being withheld by the employer and paid directly to the tax administration.

### Return filing performance
- On-time filing rates (averages across sample):
  - Corporate income tax (CIT): 49 percent.
  - Personal income tax (PIT): 45 percent.
  - VAT: 69 percent.
- Possible reasons for higher VAT on-time filing: greater frequency of filing, self-enforcing nature through input tax credit mechanism, more modern systems and processes, and VAT being more recently introduced in many countries.

### Arrears and arrears reporting
- Corporate income tax arrears as a percentage of total CIT annual collections are much greater than for PIT and VAT.
- Total tax arrears as a percentage of total domestic revenue: lower for LICs than for low middle-income countries (LMICs) and upper middle-income countries (UMICs).
- Possible explanation: poor overall return filing rates in LICs leading to taxes due not yet recorded as outstanding and not subjected to recovery action.
- Many administrations were unable to answer RA-FIT questions on arrears age; need improved arrears reporting.

### Release times for imported goods
- Release times for imported goods subjected to physical inspection tended to decrease with income level from LICs to high-income countries (HICs).
- Release times for goods not undergoing physical inspection in LICs (air, land, sea) were lower than their LMIC counterparts.

### Customs control, selectivity, and traffic by channel
- Physical inspection use:
  - LICs inspect on average 52 percent of imported goods (red channel).
  - LMICs: 34 percent.
  - UMICs: 26 percent.
  - HICs: 20 percent.
- Interpretation: RA-FIT data suggest excessive physical inspection in developing economies, indicating weak risk management and control selectivity with potential increases in trading costs and reductions in trade competitiveness.

### Institutional and operational themes highlighted for further research and TA focus
- Improve data completeness and quality in future RA-FIT rounds to enable more robust cross-country comparisons.
- Strengthen arrears recording and aging systems to inform recovery strategies.
- Enhance risk management and control selectivity in customs to reduce excessive physical inspections.
- Support capacity building for LTOs to improve staff-to-taxpayer ratios and LTO revenue capture effectiveness.
- Consider policy and administrative design of small taxpayer regimes in LICs given economic structure and tax administration capacity.

*Source: _fad1501 - 1. Tax and Revenue Administration – Cross-country. I. Masters, Andrew. II. International Monetary Fund. Fiscal Affairs Department departmental paper series._*

### Introduction

### Introduction

### RA-FIT overview
- RA-FIT is a data-gathering initiative designed to collect tax and customs information, including both quantitative and qualitative information and encompassing a mixture of tax-administration baseline and profile data, inputs, and performance-related data.
- Information is provided directly by IMF member countries.
- Purposes/users: multiple, including the countries themselves.
- Round 1 piloted in 2012 with an Excel Workbook™ sent to some 120 IMF member countries; Round 2 commenced in May 2014 as a web-based platform.
- One key use: analyze trends and revenue administration performance; this report analyzes Round 1 results in an aggregated manner, mostly by income group and sometimes by IMF region.

### RA-FIT and performance measurement
- RA-FIT consolidates country data into tables usable to analyze emerging challenges and trends and to establish baselines to monitor and assess performance.
- Strategic management process components:
  - (1) set long-term goals,
  - (2) design and implement business plans to achieve goals,
  - (3) regularly monitor performance against targets and adjust plans as needed.
- Performance measurement is central but often lacking in many developing countries; RA-FIT aims to close this gap by providing a standard reporting and benchmarking platform.

### Round 1 survey structure (four parts)
- Revenue statistics (revenue): seven questions requiring values for GDP and revenue by tax type for a three-year period; used as basis for some indicators (e.g., taxpayer stratification and segmentation).
- Institutional arrangements (general): 19 mostly qualitative questions across functional administration categories; used to analyze correlations among structural choices, degree of administrative autonomy, and the use of information technology.
- Tax operations: 26 main questions (many multi-part) across categories designed to establish baseline indicators. Key subcategories and purposes:
  - Overview: expenditures and staffing levels → collection efficiency baseline indicators.
  - Tax Office Activity: staffing and revenue at specific offices → office-specific collection efficiency baselines.
  - Large Taxpayer Office (LTO): structural design, revenue and staffing → compare effectiveness/efficiency of large taxpayer administration and identify LTO trends.
  - Taxpayer Registration: breakdown and numbers by taxpayer type → filing rates and yield per taxpayer baseline indicators.
  - Income Tax Filing: on-time and late filing rate baseline indicators.
  - VAT Threshold and Taxpayer Stratification: distribution of revenue across VAT taxpayer groups → baseline indicator construction.
  - VAT Filing: on-time/late VAT return filing and composition (credit, debit, nil) → baseline indicators.
  - VAT Refunds: claims and refunds authorized per period → refund process efficacy indicators.
  - Arrears, Audit, Objections and Appeals: stock and flow → range of baseline indicators.
- Customs operations: 19 questions divided into six categories tied to baseline indicators:
  - Overview: expenditures and staffing → collection efficiency baseline indicators.
  - Border Post Activities: staffing and collections at customs posts → post-specific collection efficiency baselines.
  - Importers/Exporters: distribution of revenue across trader sizes → related baseline indicators.
  - Processing and Inspection: process and inspection information → baseline indicators of operational efficiency.
  - Arrears, Audits, Appeals: stock and flow → associated baseline indicators.
  - Transactions: breakdown by nature (import vs export) and tax treatment (fully taxable vs exemptions) → baseline indicators related to effective level of collections.

### Response rates and sample for Round 1
- Targeted: 119 countries; responses included in analysis: 86 countries (overall response rate 72 percent).
- Average completion rate: 70 percent.
- Completion rates by worksheet: institutional arrangements (general) 86 percent; revenue statistics 87 percent; tax operations average completion 62 percent; customs operations average completion 58 percent.
- Sample composition: largely low-income and lower middle-income countries (around 59 percent of the total), mainly from Africa, Central America, and the Caribbean.
- RTAC focus: Round 1 targeted countries covered by the IMF’s Regional Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs).
- Customs returns: 63 included customs operations (73 percent of 86 respondents submitted customs returns); fewer customs returns because RTACs are not always engaged with customs administrations.

### Response and completion statistics (from Table 1)
- Low-Income Countries (LICs):
  - General Completion Rate: 89 percent; Respondents: 20
  - Revenue Completion Rate: 92 percent; Respondents: 21
  - Tax Ops Completion Rate: 59 percent; Respondents: 21
  - Customs Ops Completion Rate: 52 percent; Respondents: 16
  - Overall Completion Rate: 68 percent; Respondents: 21
- Lower Middle-Income Countries (LMICs):
  - General: 85 percent; Respondents: 30
  - Revenue: 85 percent; Respondents: 30
  - Tax Ops: 62 percent; Respondents: 29
  - Customs Ops: 60 percent; Respondents: 20
  - Overall: 70 percent; Respondents: 30
- Upper Middle-Income Countries (UMICs):
  - General: 84 percent; Respondents: 28
  - Revenue: 91 percent; Respondents: 28
  - Tax Ops: 62 percent; Respondents: 28
  - Customs Ops: 61 percent; Respondents: 21
  - Overall: 71 percent; Respondents: 28
- High-Income Countries (HICs):
  - General: 88 percent; Respondents: 7
  - Revenue: 69 percent; Respondents: 7
  - Tax Ops: 67 percent; Respondents: 7
  - Customs Ops: 60 percent; Respondents: 6
  - Overall: 70 percent; Respondents: 7
- Average (all respondents):
  - General: 86 percent; Respondents: 85
  - Revenue: 87 percent; Respondents: 86
  - Tax Ops: 62 percent; Respondents: 85
  - Customs Ops: 58 percent; Respondents: 63
  - Overall: 70 percent; Respondents: 86
- Source cited: RA-FIT Database, 2010.

### Limitations and caveats regarding Round 1 data
- Round 1 is the start of an evolving data-gathering effort; data provide fresh insight but are not perfect.
- Two main data-quality areas: responder bias and structural data issues.
- Responder-related bias:
  - 72 percent (86/119) responded; average completion 70 percent; sample not necessarily representative of all IMF member countries.
  - HICs: only seven respondents participated.
  - Missing sections often due to absence of available information or lack of basic IT systems; separate tax and customs administrations often led to missing customs elements (customs completed in 73 percent (63/86) of returns).
  - Some countries unable to provide data for all years requested.
  - Interpretation uncertainty for definitions (audit, tax arrears, active taxpayer, staff function categories, numeric scale thousands vs millions).
  - Many issues addressed in Round 2 via clearer instructions and online interface; issues will continue to surface and need resolution.
- Structural data issues:
  - Respondent diversity affects distribution of numeric values and ratios (staff numbers, audit yield, GDP, taxpayer population).
  - Outliers identified; some adjusted or transformed after consultation with country officials.
  - Numeric values often highly skewed with extreme values; effect on averages and totals noted.
- Fiscal year alignment:
  - Differences in fiscal year-ends complicate comparability (no adjustment to a single matching point will be attempted in future RA-FIT rounds).
- Specific completion challenges:
  - General worksheet: average completion rate 86 percent; staff distributions by function missing for 16 percent of respondents.
  - Tax Operations worksheet: completion rate 62 percent. Five most challenging aspects (percent of respondents unable to supply):
    - determining age of tax arrears—53 percent unable to supply any information;
    - objection and appeal stock and flow—45 and 43 percent respectively unable to supply;
    - basic VAT stratification—37 percent unable to supply any information;
    - VAT returns by type (debit, credit, nil)—35 percent unable to supply;
    - stock and flow of tax arrears by tax type—30 percent unable to supply.
  - Customs Operations worksheet: completion rate 58 percent. Five most challenging aspects (percent unable to supply):
    - details of other agencies involved in import/export processes—52 percent failed to furnish any information;
    - customs appeals—36 percent unable to supply;
    - post clearance activity—23 percent unable to supply;
    - violation and penalty information—23 percent unable to supply;
    - revenue foregone due to relief granted—21 percent unable to supply.

### Revenue administration institutional frameworks — key characteristics
- Key characteristics of effective revenue administrations (listed as recognized building blocks):
  - (1) sufficient legal authority to exercise its mandate in full;
  - (2) a well-defined and lean organizational structure;
  - (3) clear separation between the HQ-policy/planning level and the local offices/operational level;
  - (4) adequate administrative autonomy to implement its mandate effectively and without unwarranted political influence;
  - (5) skilled work force receiving appropriate remuneration and benefiting from stable career paths;
  - (6) adequate budget to finance operational and capital needs;
  - (7) investment in integrated, modern, and secure information technology (IT) systems.
- RA-FIT survey-forms obtain information in these areas to identify international baselines by income grouping.

### Institutional arrangements and organizational models (2010)
- Traditional model: organized within Ministry of Finance (MoF) structures; many administrations operate effectively under this model.
- Alternative model: revenue authorities outside regular civil service structure (semi-autonomous/unified bodies) intended to reduce political influence and increase operational independence; effectiveness debatable and not assessed here.
- Survey findings (85 responses on organizational model):
  - 60 percent (53/85) reported tax and customs administration conducted by single or multiple directorates of the MoF:
    - of these multiple directorates: 43 countries (81 percent) implemented through multiple directorates;
    - single directorate: 10 countries (19 percent).
  - 40 percent (32/85) adopted institutional arrangements outside the MoF, including:
    - unified semi-autonomous body with head reporting to a government minister (6 countries—7 percent);
    - unified semi-autonomous body with head reporting to a government minister and an oversight body/board of management including external representatives (21 countries—25 percent);
    - other separate autonomous bodies not fitting categories (5 countries—6 percent).
- Regional patterns:
  - Unified semi-autonomous bodies predominate in Anglophone Africa: 85 percent (17/20) surveyed respondents.
  - Semi-autonomous institutions present in southeastern Europe (4/8) and Latin America (3/10).
  - Arrangements within Ministry directorates are common in Francophone Africa (11/12), Asia and Pacific (9/10), Middle East and Central Asia (all 6 surveyed), and the Caribbean (14/16).
- Income group perspective:
  - Adoption of frameworks outside the MoF tilted toward LICs: 50 percent of LIC respondents (10/21) moved in this direction.
  - Most LMICs (18/30) and UMICs (17/27) favor governance models within Ministry directorates; all seven surveyed HIC respondents are within MoF directorates.
  - Explanation: more advanced economies may grant increased administrative autonomy within civil service rules.

### Functional responsibilities: tax, customs, and social security collection models
- Majority do not have tax and customs combined: 72 percent of surveyed respondents have separate tax and customs administrations.
- 82 percent of surveyed tax administrations have no social security contribution (SSC) collection responsibility.
- Combining tax and customs is more common in Africa (21 percent of surveyed respondents) and present to a lesser degree in Latin America (30 percent of surveyed respondents).
- Combining tax and SSC is more common in Eastern Europe; most tax administrations collecting SSCs (11/15) are in UMICs (9) and HICs (2).

### Taxpayer segmentation: large and small taxpayers
- Common segmentation into three segments: (1) small number of large taxpayers contributing up to 75 percent of revenue; (2) moderate number of medium taxpayers (turnover often above VAT registration threshold); (3) large number of small taxpayers contributing little to revenue but important for compliance culture.
- Managing large taxpayers:
  - Non-compliance by large taxpayers can significantly impact total revenue due to scale and complexity.
  - 62 countries (slightly more than three-quarters of respondents) have established a large taxpayer office (LTO).
  - Of the 19 countries without LTOs, 11 are small island Caribbean HICs and six are countries in Asia Pacific/Africa where economies of scale may not support LTOs.
  - Only two African survey respondents were without an LTO in 2010; one introduced an LTO in 2012.
  - LTO revenue concentration and staffing (Table 2, 2010):
    - Low-Income Countries (20): LTO Taxpayers as % of Total Taxpayers = 12; Tax Revenue Contribution of the LTO (%) = 50; LTO Staff as % of Total Staff = 5; Taxpayers to Staff Ratio = 8:1
    - Lower Middle-Income Countries (29): 4; 45; 6; 13:1
    - Upper Middle-Income Countries (26): 4; 48; 4; 13:1
    - High-Income Countries (6): 15; 65; 2; 40:1
    - Respondent TOTAL (81): 9; 48; 5; 13:1
  - Observations:
    - LTOs in LICs, LMICs, UMICs accounted for about 50 percent of domestic tax revenue in 2010; in HICs LTOs manage about 65 percent.
    - Tax administrations allocate on average 5 percent of total staff to manage large taxpayers; HICs allocate 2 percent.
    - Average taxpayer-to-LTO-staff ratio is 13 taxpayers to 1 staff (concern that LTO staff may be insufficient given complexity).
- Managing small taxpayers:
  - Small enterprises present compliance challenges: many operate in cash, keep few records, and may operate outside the tax system.
  - 42 out of 79 respondents have implemented a simplified regime for small taxpayers.
  - Small taxpayer regimes more common in LICs: 85 percent of LIC administrations have special simplified small taxpayer regimes.
  - Ensuring simple, easy-to-administer taxes for small taxpayers that reduce both compliance and administration costs remains an ongoing challenge.

### Adoption of a Tax Procedures Code (TPC)
- TPCs consolidate powers, authorities, and common regulations into a single code to ensure consistency, transparency, and reduced administrative/compliance costs.
- Slightly more than half of surveyed respondents have a TPC: 45/83.
- Regional distribution:
  - Southeastern Europe: 87 percent reported having a TPC.
  - Middle East and Central Asia: similar results (small sample).
  - Western Hemisphere: approximately 60 percent reported having a TPC.
  - Africa: about 40 percent reported having a TPC (Anglophone Africa ~50 percent; Francophone Africa ~30 percent).

### Administrative powers and autonomy (tax and customs)
- Tax administrations (80 survey responses) show:
  - Relatively high autonomy in designing internal structures and discretion over operational spending.
  - Far less autonomy in setting staff remuneration: 66 percent (53/80) of surveyed respondents do not give this power to their tax administration.
  - Even split on discretion over capital expenditure, setting staffing levels, and hiring/firing staff.
  - Tax administrations in Anglophone Africa (where semi-autonomous bodies dominate) reported the highest levels of autonomy across specific areas surveyed.
- Multivariate clustering (hierarchical agglomerative clustering with Ward’s method) used to group countries by autonomy attributes and integration of tax/customs; results suggest 10 clusters (examples):
  - Cluster 2: mainly autonomous across attributes and have tax and customs combined (mainly Anglophone African countries).
  - Cluster 10: have no autonomy; tax and customs separate (mainly Caribbean and Pacific Island countries).
- Customs administrations (63 survey responses) show a similar pattern:
  - Approximately 70 percent have powers to design internal structures.
  - Approximately 60 percent can exercise discretion over administrative spending.

_Italic: Source: _fad1501 - Introduction_ (RA-FIT Round 1 material)._

### 1. Not integrated; have

### _fad1501 - 1. Not integrated; have

### Autonomy classification (clockwise, in order of decreasing autonomy)
- 1. Not integrated; have autonomy — 6%
- 2. Integrated; have autonomy — 23%
- 3. Integrated; have autonomy except for setting remuneration — 4%
- 4. Not integrated; can design internal structure, exercise discretion over operating expenditure and set staffing levels — 10%
- 5. Not integrated; can design internal structure, exercise discretion over capital and operating expenditure — 7%
- 6. Not integrated; can design internal structure, set staffing levels and hire and fire staff — 13%
- 7. Not integrated; can design internal structure, exercise discretion over operating expenditure, and hire and fire staff — 5%
- 8. Not integrated; can exercise discretion over operating expenditure — 8%
- 9. Integrated; but can only design internal structure — 4%
- 10. Not integrated; have no autonomy — 20%
- Note: Arranged clockwise in order of decreasing autonomy.

### Governance and remuneration authority
- Most (64 percent) have no authority in setting staff remuneration levels.
- Results are evenly split in relation to discretion over capital expenditure, setting of staffing levels, and hiring and firing.

### Human resources (HR) — size, composition, and costs
- Optimal workforce size depends on organizational model, types of revenue administered, complexity of legislation, size of territory and population, and level of automation.
- RA-FIT survey metrics (averages):
  - A single member of staff “covers” about 2,200 citizens.
  - A single member of staff “covers” about 2,000 employees who are in the active labor force.
  - A single member of staff “covers” about 150 registered PIT taxpayers.
- Regional comparisons (selected):
  - An African staff member covers about 3,100 active employees on average.
  - A European staff member is responsible for about 600 active employees.
  - When measured against registered PIT taxpayers, an African staff member covers fewer than 100 registered taxpayers.
- Staffing distribution by function (Figure 7):
  - On average nearly 60 percent of the workforce work in support functions (HR management, finance and administration, IT, public relations, internal affairs, and possibly cross-cutting functions such as risk management, strategic planning, and international relations).
  - The other 40 percent cover core functions (debt collection, audit, and taxpayer account management).
- Staff costs:
  - On average, staff costs represent 65 percent of the total budget.
  - Reported country variation ranges from 30-40 percent to figures above 80 percent.

### Information Technology (IT)
- Most survey respondents employ external rather than internally developed IT systems.
- LICs: pronounced reliance on external suppliers (29/48 tax administrations; 28/36 customs administrations).
- Customs: 44 out of 58 countries rely on external IT systems, with a dominance of ASYCUDA across respondents.
- UMICs: majority of tax administrations favored in-house IT capacity (15/23 countries).
- Among tax administrations with in-house IT (34 total; 10 LIC or LMIC):
  - 12 supported customized systems.
  - 19 did not state the nature of their systems.
  - 3 noted internal IT resources supported packaged systems from an external source.
- Among tax administrations using external vendors (42 total):
  - 28 support customized systems.
  - 13 support commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions.
  - 1 did not specify.
- Among customs administrations:
  - 13 reported they develop their own IT solutions.
  - 44 indicated they use external developers.
- COTS versus customized:
  - Tax administration: 40 customized versus 17 COTS.
  - Customs administration: 44 customized versus 13 COTS.
- Packaged IT solution usage concentrated in LICs:
  - Of 17 reported tax administration COTS implementations, 16 were in LICs.
  - Of 20 reported customs administration COTS implementations, 17 were in LICs.
- Classification inconsistencies noted (examples: SIGTAS and Oracle classified variably as COTS or custom-built).
- Topic for further analysis: whether different IT solutions have led to better/worse performance in core business functions, such as returns processing and payment.

### Budget and administration cost
- Cost of administration indicator: ratio between total budget (operating and capital) and the revenue collected.
- Cautions on cross-country comparisons include differences in scope (tax vs tax+customs+social security), number of taxes/fees collected, periods of expansion/modernization, and tax policy changes affecting revenue.
- RA-FIT survey trends (2010):
  - Tax administration cost of collection tends to decrease from LICs through HICs:
    - 2.4 percent (LICs)
    - 2.2 percent (LMIC median implied in chart)
    - 1.9 percent (UMIC median implied in chart)
    - 1.2 percent (HICs)
    - The average for 32 OECD HICs in 2010 was 1.1 percent.
  - Customs administration cost of collection tends to increase from LICs through HICs:
    - 2.6 percent (LICs)
    - 2.8 percent (LMIC median implied in chart)
    - 4.1 percent (UMIC median implied in chart)
    - 5.5 percent (HICs)
- Possible explanations:
  - Tax as a percentage of GDP generally increases across income groups, with more mature administrations better positioned to curb avoidance and evasion.
  - Advanced economies have lesser dependency on trade taxation; customs administrations in HICs invest more in security/control systems and IT (HICs spend on average 17 percent of their total budget on investment, while LICs spend about 5 percent), but do not collect significant revenues from trade relative to their budgets.

### Outsourced services
- Outsourcing is more common for “non-core” functions (security, cleaning, IT support) and payment processing (shifted to banks).
- Tax administration outsourcing (responses from 60 tax administrations):
  - Slightly more than 40 percent (25 tax administrations) outsource collection and processing of tax payments to banks and IT support.
  - Outsourcing of tax collection to banks is more common in Middle Eastern countries and less common in Asian and European countries.
  - European countries rely mostly on outsourced IT services.
  - 8 percent of countries reported outsourcing debt collection.
  - Outsourcing of audit functions was reported by one African country.
- Customs administration outsourcing (44 respondents):
  - 18 countries (slightly more than 40 percent) outsource collection and processing of payments to banks and IT support.
  - Outsourced cash/banking services decline from 77 percent in LICs through to zero percent for HICs.
  - Three countries outsource debt collection tasks (one in Africa, and two in the Caribbean).
  - Outsourcing of audits was reported by two African countries.

*Source: RA-FIT Database, 2010.*

### Appendix I provide further detail.

### _fad1501 - Appendix I provide further detail.

### Tax Administration — Operations: Taxpayer Registration
- Taxpayer registration is fundamental to bringing individuals (natural persons) and business entities (legal persons) into the tax net; non registration can significantly contribute to the compliance gap.
- Important characteristics for an effective taxpayer register:
  - (1) a clear legislative requirement to register for tax purposes;
  - (2) an identifiable taxpayer population for each tax type;
  - (3) the use of a unique identification number that is the backbone of all tax administration systems;
  - (4) clear procedures to update and maintain the integrity and completeness of the register.
- A total of 59 countries responded to questions on taxpayer registration, identifying their registries’ tax composition (Figure 9, 2010).
- Key profile observations from RA-FIT respondents:
  - PIT (salaried) taxpayers are relatively important across income groups, especially for LICs (67 percent of their registries).
  - VAT and CIT taxpayers account for 12 percent of the register in LICs but 53 percent of the register in HICs.
  - The percentage of other PIT (non-salaried) taxpayers appears to increase with economic level except for UMICs in the RA-FIT respondents.
  - Possible interpretations: development correlates with more registered business entities (VAT and CIT taxpayers) and self-employed individuals; or LIC tax administrations may be missing potential taxpayers.

### Return Filing
- Filing is a mandatory obligation and a relevant indicator of compliance in self-assessment systems; filing rates vary by taxpayer category and tax type.
- Reported on-time filing averages (2010):
  - VAT: 69 percent of total, on average.
  - PIT: 45 percent (average).
  - CIT: 49 percent (average).
- Observed differences and potential causes between VAT and PIT on-time filing:
  - (1) Filing frequency differences (e.g., monthly for VAT vs annual for PIT);
  - (2) Self-enforcing nature of VAT via input tax credit mechanism;
  - (3) Later introduction of VAT, often with newer IT systems;
  - (4) Less attention to PIT because most salaried PIT is withheld and paid by employers.
- Regional and income-group patterns:
  - On-time filing rates mostly higher in Europe than other regions; Middle Eastern countries reported better on-time filing compliance for CIT.
  - VAT filing rates higher in HICs (78 percent) than other income groups.
  - Very low reported PIT on-time filing rates in LICs (31 percent).

### VAT Returns — Types and Refunds
- VAT return composition (2010, 38 administrations provided return information):
  - Roughly two-thirds of respondents reported more than 50 percent of VAT returns received in 2010 were either credit or nil returns.
- VAT return type shares by income group (percentage of total returns received):
  - LIC: Debit 40% / Credit 42% / Nil 19%
  - LMIC: Debit 47% / Credit 32% / Nil 21%
  - UMIC: Debit 47% / Credit 33% / Nil 20%
  - HIC: Debit 61% / Credit 29% / Nil 10%
- Notable observation:
  - LICs receive a larger proportion of credit returns (about 42 percent) but have much lower refund rates at approximately 7 percent of gross VAT.

### Taxpayer Audit and Verification
- Audit function is essential for enforcement and deterrence; modern administrations use risk management to target audits (comprehensive, issue-oriented, desk audits).
- Audit mix and coverage observations:
  - LICs rely more on comprehensive audits: comprehensive audits account for around 53 percent of total audits in LICs, while less than 1 percent in HICs.
  - More developed economies place greater reliance on issue-oriented audits (about half of total audits).
  - 18 percent of respondents indicated they do not perform comprehensive audits.
  - 58 percent of respondents reported that no desk audits were carried out.
  - 19 percent reported performing no issue-oriented audits.
- Audit coverage (2010, 40 respondents providing data):
  - About one-third of LICs have audit coverage greater than 3 percent of total taxpayer population.
  - Slightly more than half of the UMICs and HICs (combined) audit more than 3 percent of their taxpayer universe.
  - Possible causes for low coverage: (1) poor risk management; (2) insufficient audit resources (auditors); (3) low productivity rates; (4) lack of audit skills and methodology.
- Audit assessments and revenue impact:
  - Audit assessments account for less than 5 percent of total tax revenue for 63 percent of respondents.
  - It can be reasonably assumed that the direct impact of audit activity on tax revenues for a large majority of RA-FIT respondents is possibly no greater than 2–3 percent of total revenue collections for that year.

### Arrears
- Managing tax arrears is crucial; strategies should include prompt detection, classification by size and age, and use of enforcement powers.
- Only 17 administrations responded fully on tax arrears for core taxes (CIT, PIT, VAT), suggesting many administrations lack good arrears data.
- From the 17-country reduced sample (2010):
  - Five countries indicated arrears account for more than 20 percent of total annual collections (these countries in Asia and Europe).
  - The five African respondents reported arrears below 10 percent of total annual collections.
- Arrears by tax type as percentage of that tax’s collection (2010):
  - CIT arrears as a percentage of CIT collections are generally much higher than for PIT and VAT.
  - Average for 11 LMICs: CIT arrears exceed 100 percent of CIT collection.
  - Seven UMICs: CIT arrears about 70 percent of CIT collection.
- Importance of tax types in total arrears (2010):
  - CIT arrears represent the largest share of total outstanding arrears for 65 percent of administrations.
  - VAT arrears are the largest portion of arrears for about 30 percent of administrations.
  - Only one administration reported PIT arrears as the most significant share of its total arrears stock.
- Age of arrears:
  - Almost 70 percent of administrations supplying information have half or more of their arrears in stock for longer than one year.

### Dispute Resolution
- A fair, fast, and effective dispute resolution system is important for taxpayer confidence and voluntary compliance.
- Responses (2010):
  - Objections: 29 countries responded on administrative objection systems.
    - In slightly less than 90 percent of these administrations, less than 5 percent of total annual collections by value are currently under dispute.
  - Appeals: 25 responses received.
    - Nearly 70 percent of respondents reported having a stock of less than 5 percent of total collections under appeal.
- Possible interpretations of low or high dispute volumes:
  - Low dispute volumes may indicate cases not recorded, weak audit function, or informal settlements outside official channels.
  - High dispute volumes may reflect unclear tax legislation, inconsistent administrative practices, aggressive taxpayer avoidance, or revenue-driven aggressive assessments requiring upfront payments.

### Customs Administration — Operations: Release Time of Goods
- Release time of imported goods measured from arrival at customs to release; split into goods undergoing physical examination (red channel) and those not (yellow/green channels); differentiated by arrival mode: air, sea, land.
- Release times for imports undergoing physical inspection (Days, 2010):
  - LIC sea: 5.2 days
  - LIC air: 3.7 days
  - LIC land: 2.1 days
  - LMIC sea: 2.4 days
  - LMIC air: 1.4 days
  - LMIC land: 1.4 days
  - UMIC/HIC sea: 1.4 days
  - UMIC/HIC air: 0.6 days
  - UMIC/HIC land: 0.5 days
- Release times for imports not undergoing physical inspection (Days, 2010):
  - LIC sea: 1.6 days
  - LIC air: 2.3 days
  - LIC land: 0.5 days
  - LMIC sea: 1.5 days
  - LMIC air: 1.0 day
  - LMIC land: 1.3 days
  - UMIC/HIC sea: 1.9 days
  - UMIC/HIC air: 1.2 days
  - UMIC/HIC land: 1.0 day
- Observations:
  - Clearance efficiency tends to increase by income grouping from LICs through HICs, notably for maritime traffic (LICs slightly more than five days for inspected sea containers vs UMICs/HICs fewer than two days).
  - Overall release times could be improved; suboptimal release times raise costs and act as hidden tariffs.
- Suggested measures to improve clearance procedures:
  - (1) better coordination among all border control agencies;
  - (2) publication and availability of import/export requirements and declaration formats;
  - (3) traceability of goods;
  - (4) special programs for compliant operators;
  - (5) alignment of legal framework with customs IT systems and operations;
  - (6) implementation of a coherent risk management system.

### Customs Control Selectivity and Inspections
- High rates of physical inspection may indicate weak risk management, insufficient use of documentary reviews, or practices increasing corruption risk.
- RA-FIT data (2010) show negative correlation between red channel physical inspection incidence and income level:
  - LICs physically inspect about half of customs declarations.
  - HICs select about 20 percent of declarations for red channel control.
- Documentary checks (yellow channel):
  - UMICs report higher use of documentary checks (51.7 percent).
- Regional observations:
  - Sub-Saharan Africa: yellow channel ~40 percent, red channel ~43 percent.
  - Europe, Western Hemisphere, Asia and Pacific: lower selection rates for physical inspection, but Europe’s yellow channel selection relatively high (~41 percent).
- Implication: high selection rates for inspections may reflect a culture of checking everything rather than adopting risk-based selectivity, negatively affecting efficiency.

### Post-Clearance Audit (PCA)
- PCA objectives: verify customs declaration compliance, revenue due, facilitate compliant traders, ensure controls on restricted goods, and ensure conditions for approvals are observed.
- PCA development:
  - PCA is not yet strongly developed in developing countries.
  - Of 63 customs respondents, 44 reported conducting PCAs.
  - Over the period 2009–11, respondents on average increased the number of PCAs conducted.
- Increase in PCAs by region and income group reported (2009–11; Figure 21).

*Source: RA-FIT Database, 2010, as reported in Appendix I.*

### Appendix Tables

### _fad1501 - Appendix Tables

### Institutional arrangements by region and income group (2010)
- Table 1: Revenue Administration Institutional Arrangements by Region, 2010
  - AFRICA (35): Unified 3; Semi-Autonomous Body 16; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 3; Single Directorate in Ministry 13; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - Anglophone (20): Unified 3; Semi-Autonomous Body 14; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 1; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - Francophone (12): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 1; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 1; Single Directorate in Ministry 10; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - Lusophone (3): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 1; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 2; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - ASIA AND PACIFIC (10): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 1; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 7; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - Asia (3): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 3; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - Pacific (7): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 1; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 4; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - EUROPE (8) / South East (8): Unified 2; Semi-Autonomous Body 1; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 2; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 1; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA (6): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 6; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Central Asia (1): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 1; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Middle East (3): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 3; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - North Africa (2): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 2; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - WESTERN HEMISPHERE (26): Unified 1; Semi-Autonomous Body 3; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 3; Single Directorate in Ministry 15; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 4; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Caribbean (16): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 1; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 3; Single Directorate in Ministry 11; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 1; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Central (8): Unified 1; Semi-Autonomous Body 2; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 4; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 1; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - South (2): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 0; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 2; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - Total Respondents (85): Unified 6; Semi-Autonomous Body 21; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 10; Single Directorate in Ministry 43; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 5; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - Source line in table: RA-FIT Database, 2010.

- Table 2: Revenue Administration Institutional Arrangements by Income Group, 2010
  - LOW INCOME COUNTRIES (21): Unified 1; Semi-Autonomous Body 9; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 9; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Africa (19): Unified 1; Semi-Autonomous Body 9; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 7; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Middle East and Central Asia (2): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 2; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - LOWER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES (30): Unified 2; Semi-Autonomous Body 9; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 16; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 1; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Africa (9): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 5; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 4; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Asia and Pacific (10): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 1; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 7; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Europe (2): Unified 1; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 1; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Middle East and Central Asia (2): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 2; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Western Hemisphere (7): Unified 1; Semi-Autonomous Body 3; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 2; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 1; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - UPPER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES (27): Unified 3; Semi-Autonomous Body 3; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 4; Single Directorate in Ministry 13; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 4; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Africa (7): Unified 2; Semi-Autonomous Body 2; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 1; Single Directorate in Ministry 2; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Europe (5): Unified 1; Semi-Autonomous Body 1; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 0; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 1; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Middle East and Central Asia (2): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 2; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Western Hemisphere (13): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 1; Single Directorate in Ministry 9; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 3; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - HIGH INCOME COUNTRIES (7): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 5; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Europe (1): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 0; Single Directorate in Ministry 1; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
    - Western Hemisphere (6): Unified 0; Semi-Autonomous Body 0; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 2; Single Directorate in Ministry 4; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 0; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - Total Respondents (85): Unified 6; Semi-Autonomous Body 21; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 10; Single Directorate in Ministry 43; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 5; Separate Autonomous Bodies 0
  - Source line in table: RA-FIT Database, 2010.

### Tax administration — administrative powers (2010)
- Table 3: Tax Administration Administrative Powers by Region, 2010 (percentages refer to "Yes" responses)
  - Regional totals:
    - AFRICA: Design Internal Structure? 74%; Set Remuneration? 44%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 70%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 61%; Set Staffing Levels? 64%; Hire and Fire Staff? 58%
    - ASIA AND PACIFIC: Design Internal Structure? 40%; Set Remuneration? 10%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 70%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 30%; Set Staffing Levels? 30%; Hire and Fire Staff? 30%
    - EUROPE: Design Internal Structure? 63%; Set Remuneration? 38%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 63%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 50%; Set Staffing Levels? 38%; Hire and Fire Staff? 100%
    - MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA: Design Internal Structure? 40%; Set Remuneration? 40%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 40%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 20%; Set Staffing Levels? 0%; Hire and Fire Staff? 20%
    - WESTERN HEMISPHERE: Design Internal Structure? 78%; Set Remuneration? 32%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 63%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 46%; Set Staffing Levels? 52%; Hire and Fire Staff? 40%
  - Subregional examples:
    - Anglophone (Africa): Design Internal Structure? 90%; Set Remuneration? 65%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 84%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 74%; Set Staffing Levels? 84%; Hire and Fire Staff? 84%
    - Francophone (Africa): Design Internal Structure? 55%; Set Remuneration? 18%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 55%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 45%; Set Staffing Levels? 36%; Hire and Fire Staff? 27%
    - Central Asia: Design Internal Structure? 100%; Set Remuneration? 0%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 100%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 0%; Set Staffing Levels? 0%; Hire and Fire Staff? 100%
    - North Africa: Design Internal Structure? 0%; Set Remuneration? 0%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 0%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 0%; Set Staffing Levels? 0%; Hire and Fire Staff? 0%
    - Central (Western Hemisphere): Design Internal Structure? 88%; Set Remuneration? 63%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 63%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 50%; Set Staffing Levels? 88%; Hire and Fire Staff? 88%
  - Totals and sample sizes:
    - Total Respondents: Design Internal Structure? 68%; Set Remuneration? 35%; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 65%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 49%; Set Staffing Levels? 49%; Hire and Fire Staff? 51%
    - # of Yes/Total: Design Internal Structure? 54/80; Set Remuneration? 29/82; Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 52/80; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 39/80; Set Staffing Levels? 40/81; Hire and Fire Staff? 41/81
  - Source line in table: RA-FIT Database, 2010.

### Customs administration — administrative powers (2010)
- Table 4: Customs Administration Administrative Powers by Region, 2010 (percentages refer to "Yes" responses)
  - Regional totals:
    - AFRICA: Design Internal Structure? 72%; Set Remuneration Levels? 48%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 74%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 65%; Set Staffing Levels? 74%; Hire and Fire Staff? 70%
    - ASIA AND PACIFIC: Design Internal Structure? 29%; Set Remuneration Levels? 14%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 57%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 29%; Set Staffing Levels? 29%; Hire and Fire Staff? 29%
    - EUROPE: Design Internal Structure? 67%; Set Remuneration Levels? 33%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 100%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 100%; Set Staffing Levels? 0%; Hire and Fire Staff? 100%
    - MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA: Design Internal Structure? 100%; Set Remuneration Levels? 50%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 100%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 100%; Set Staffing Levels? 50%; Hire and Fire Staff? 50%
    - WESTERN HEMISPHERE: Design Internal Structure? 77%; Set Remuneration Levels? 38%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 48%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 33%; Set Staffing Levels? 43%; Hire and Fire Staff? 48%
  - Subregional examples:
    - Anglophone (Africa): Design Internal Structure? 83%; Set Remuneration Levels? 63%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 88%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 81%; Set Staffing Levels? 88%; Hire and Fire Staff? 88%
    - Lusophone (Africa): Design Internal Structure? 0%; Set Remuneration Levels? 0%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 0%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 0%; Set Staffing Levels? 0%; Hire and Fire Staff? 0%
    - Central Asia: Design Internal Structure? 100%; Set Remuneration Levels? 0%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 100%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 100%; Set Staffing Levels? 0%; Hire and Fire Staff? 100%
    - North Africa: Design Internal Structure? 100%; Set Remuneration Levels? 0%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 0%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 100%; Set Staffing Levels? 100%; Hire and Fire Staff? 100%
    - Central (Western Hemisphere): Design Internal Structure? 88%; Set Remuneration Levels? 63%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 38%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 38%; Set Staffing Levels? 88%; Hire and Fire Staff? 100%
  - Totals and sample sizes:
    - Total Respondents: Design Internal Structure? 70%; Set Remuneration Levels? 40%; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 65%; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 53%; Set Staffing Levels? 52%; Hire and Fire Staff? 57%
    - # of Yes/Total: Design Internal Structure? 43/61; Set Remuneration Levels? 23/58; Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 37/57; Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 31/58; Set Staffing Levels? 30/58; Hire and Fire Staff? 33/58
  - Source line in table: RA-FIT Database, 2010.

### Tax administration — outsourced functions/services (2010)
- Table 5: Tax Administration Outsourced Functions/Services by Region, 2010
  - Outsourced categories: Security; Cleaning; Cash/Banking; IT; Debt Collection; Audit
  - AFRICA (28): Security 79%; Cleaning 79%; Cash/Banking 50%; IT 32%; Debt Collection 4%; Audit 4%
  - ASIA AND PACIFIC (7): Security 86%; Cleaning 71%; Cash/Banking 29%; IT 29%; Debt Collection 0%; Audit 0%
  - EUROPE (7): Security 86%; Cleaning 57%; Cash/Banking 29%; IT 86%; Debt Collection 14%; Audit 0%
  - MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA (3): Security 100%; Cleaning 33%; Cash/Banking 67%; IT 67%; Debt Collection 33%; Audit 0%
  - WESTERN HEMISPHERE (15): Security 87%; Cleaning 67%; Cash/Banking 33%; IT 33%; Debt Collection 13%; Audit 0%
  - Total Respondents (60): Security 83%; Cleaning 70%; Cash/Banking 42%; IT 40%; Debt Collection 8%; Audit 2%
  - Note: Percentages refer to the number of "Yes" responses/the total number of administrations responding to the survey.

- Table 6: Tax Administration Outsourced Functions/Services by Income Group, 2010
  - LOW INCOME COUNTRIES (17): Security 65%; Cleaning 71%; Cash/Banking 71%; IT 35%; Debt Collection 6%; Audit 0%
  - LOWER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES (22): Security 91%; Cleaning 73%; Cash/Banking 32%; IT 32%; Debt Collection 9%; Audit 0%
  - UPPER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES (19): Security 89%; Cleaning 68%; Cash/Banking 21%; IT 47%; Debt Collection 11%; Audit 5%
  - HIGH INCOME COUNTRIES (2): Security 100%; Cleaning 50%; Cash/Banking 100%; IT 100%; Debt Collection 0%; Audit 0%
  - Total Respondents (60): Security 83%; Cleaning 70%; Cash/Banking 42%; IT 40%; Debt Collection 8%; Audit 2%
  - Note: Percentages refer to the number of "Yes" responses/the total number of administrations responding to the survey.

### Customs administration — outsourced functions/services (2010)
- Table 7: Customs Administration Outsourced Functions/Services by Region, 2010
  - Outsourced categories: Cleaning; Security; Cash/Banking; IT; Debt Collection; Audit
  - AFRICA (23): Cleaning 83%; Security 78%; Cash/Banking 57%; IT 30%; Debt Collection 4%; Audit 9%
  - ASIA AND PACIFIC (2): Cleaning 50%; Security 50%; Cash/Banking 0%; IT 50%; Debt Collection 0%; Audit 0%
  - EUROPE (3): Cleaning 67%; Security 67%; Cash/Banking 67%; IT 100%; Debt Collection 0%; Audit 0%
  - MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA (3): Cleaning 100%; Security 33%; Cash/Banking 0%; IT 33%; Debt Collection 0%; Audit 0%
  - WESTERN HEMISPHERE (13): Cleaning 69%; Security 77%; Cash/Banking 23%; IT 46%; Debt Collection 15%; Audit 0%
  - Total Respondents (44): Cleaning 77%; Security 73%; Cash/Banking 41%; IT 41%; Debt Collection 7%; Audit 5%
  - Note: Percentages refer to the number of "Yes" responses/the total number of administrations responding to the survey.

- Table 8: Customs Administration Outsourced Functions/Services by Income Group, 2010
  - LOW INCOME COUNTRIES (13): Cleaning 77%; Security 62%; Cash/Banking 77%; IT 54%; Debt Collection 8%; Audit 15%
  - LOWER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES (14): Cleaning 79%; Security 71%; Cash/Banking 36%; IT 21%; Debt Collection 0%; Audit 0%
  - UPPER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES (14): Cleaning 79%; Security 86%; Cash/Banking 21%; IT 36%; Debt Collection 7%; Audit 0%
  - HIGH INCOME COUNTRIES (3): Cleaning 67%; Security 67%; Cash/Banking 0%; IT 100%; Debt Collection 33%; Audit 0%
  - Total Respondents (44): Cleaning 77%; Security 73%; Cash/Banking 41%; IT 41%; Debt Collection 7%; Audit 5%
  - Note: Percentages refer to the number of "Yes" responses/the total number of administrations responding to the survey.

### Key statistical observations from the appendix tables
- Institutional arrangements: Total Respondents (85) show majority Single Directorate in Ministry 43; Semi-Autonomous Body 21; Unified 6; Unified Semi-Autonomous Body with Board 10; Multiple Directorates in Ministry 5.
- Tax administrative powers (total sample): Design Internal Structure? 68% (54/80); Set Remuneration? 35% (29/82); Exercise Discretion over Op Expenditure? 65% (52/80); Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 49% (39/80); Set Staffing Levels? 49% (40/81); Hire and Fire Staff? 51% (41/81).
- Customs administrative powers (total sample): Design Internal Structure? 70% (43/61); Set Remuneration Levels? 40% (23/58); Exercise Discretion over Op Ex? 65% (37/57); Exercise Discretion over Cap Ex? 53% (31/58); Set Staffing Levels? 52% (30/58); Hire and Fire Staff? 57% (33/58).
- Outsourcing prevalence (tax administrations, total respondents 60): Security 83%; Cleaning 70%; Cash/Banking 42%; IT 40%; Debt Collection 8%; Audit 2%.
- Outsourcing prevalence (customs administrations, total respondents 44): Cleaning 77%; Security 73%; Cash/Banking 41%; IT 41%; Debt Collection 7%; Audit 5%.

*Source: RA-FIT Database, 2010.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/dp/2015/_fad1501.pdf_