## Revenue Administration: Autonomy in Tax Administration and the Revenue Authority Model (Technical Note _tnm1012)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Revenue Administration: Autonomy in Tax Administration and the Revenue Authority Model (Technical Note _tnm1012)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/tnm/2010/_tnm1012.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/tnm/2010/_tnm1012.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/tnm/2010/_tnm1012.pdf.json)

---

### What is autonomy and why it is important
- Autonomy: "the degree to which a government department or agency is able to operate independently from government, in terms of legal form and status, funding and budget, and financial, human resources and administrative practices."
- Rationale for increased autonomy:
  - deliver services more effectively and at a lower cost as expenditure budgets decline;
  - address deficiencies in traditional procedures and structures seen as too rigid for rapidly changing needs;
  - adapt private sector management practices to public sector institutions.
- Institutional spectrum (decreasing government control, increasing autonomy):
  - Traditional department (within a ministry) → Semi-autonomous agencies (including Revenue Authorities) → Autonomous agencies and regulatory bodies (central banks) → State-owned enterprises → Fully privatized activities.
- Increased managerial authority is typically accompanied by greater accountability, reporting, and transparency requirements.

### Relevance of autonomy for revenue administration and observed range
- Revenue administrations administer and enforce extensive revenue laws and collect the bulk of government revenue; sufficient autonomy is required to exercise powers and responsibilities, though limits to autonomy exist given the pervasive nature of revenue-law powers.
- Typical institutional forms:
  - Traditional departments of government; or
  - Semi-autonomous agencies (including various forms of Revenue Authorities).
- IMF 2006 survey illustrative range among semi-autonomous revenue agencies: Less autonomy — Mexico; then South Africa; then United Kingdom; then Canada; then Kenya and Peru representing greater autonomy among the semi-autonomous group.
- Observations:
  - Revenue administration has been at the forefront of the trend toward increased autonomy.
  - Arguments for increased autonomy emphasize the revenue administration’s specialized skills and central revenue-producing role, though the "uniqueness" argument is questioned in light of broader public service reforms.

### Key measures of autonomy in revenue administration
- Autonomy reflected in:
  - provisions in the revenue laws (including tax procedures codes and references to institutional or governance issues);
  - reporting relationships (to the minister of finance, to the financial secretary, etc.);
  - ability to design and implement operational policy; and
  - organizational structure and operational responsibilities.
- OECD 2008 tax administration survey (data for 43 countries - 30 OECD and 13 non-OECD):
  - 19 described as single or multiple directorates within the ministry of finance;
  - 24 described as a unified semi-autonomous body (with or without a board).
- Areas of powers identified:
  - Organization and planning: responsibility for internal organization structure, including size and geographical location of operational offices (some exceptions), and authority to formulate and implement strategic and operational plans.
  - Budget management: discretion to allocate/reallocate budgeted funds across administrative functions to meet emerging/changed priorities.
  - Performance standards: discretion to set its own administrative performance standards (e.g., for taxpayer service delivery).
  - Human resources: set academic/technical qualification standards for categories of recruits; recruit and dismiss staff; establish and operate staff training/development programs; negotiate staff remuneration levels (often within broader public sector policies).
- Key survey conclusions:
  - The degree of autonomy varies significantly across surveyed revenue administrations.
  - The powers least frequently devolved are:
    - to design internal structure (5 countries);
    - budget discretion (7 countries);
    - to negotiate staff remuneration levels (13 countries).
  - Autonomy has increased in all areas relative to a decade or two earlier.
  - Semi-autonomous bodies generally have greater autonomy, though margins are sometimes small.
  - Increased autonomy is accompanied by commensurate increases in accountability, transparency, and oversight requirements.

- Excerpted table figures (as presented):
  - Directorate(s) within MoF%  Semi-autonomous body% Total%
  - Authority to establish organization and office networks
    - 17 of 19 8921 of 24 8838 of 43 88
  - Authority to allocate/re-allocate budget
    - 14 of 19 7422 of 24 9236 of 43 84
  - Authority to determine performance standards
    - 19 of 19 10024 of 24 10043 of 43 100
  - Human Resources authorities
    - Fix levels/mix of staff
      - 15 of 19 7921 of 24 8837 of 43 86
    - Influence staff recruitment criteria
      - 19 of 19 10024 of 24 10043 of 43 100
    - Hire and dismiss
      - 14 of 19 7423 of 24 9637 of 43 86
    - Negotiate staff pay levels
      - 10 of 19 5320 of 24 8330 of 43 70

### What is a Revenue Authority (RA): characteristics and features
- RA model: applies the executive agency concept to revenue administration (tax and customs), creating a dedicated separate organization with more autonomy than a normal ministry department.
- Arguments for the RA model:
  - a single-purpose agency can focus on a single task;
  - an autonomous organization can manage affairs in a businesslike way, free of political interference in day-to-day operations;
  - being outside the civil service proper, it can execute its own human resources strategy (recruit, retain, dismiss, motivate staff).
- Experience to date:
  - RA approach has been used for more than 20 years; there are close to 40 Revenue Authorities worldwide, largely clustered in Africa and Latin America.
  - Development agencies (e.g., DFID, USAID) and international organizations have promoted RAs in some contexts; private consulting firms have been active.
  - No single governance model exists; RAs lie along a continuum from close to civil service to greater autonomy. An RA is a means (not an end) to implement reforms and improve performance.
- Typical RA features (IMF survey):
  - A legislative instrument (law or decree) was used to establish the RA in all cases.
  - About 80 percent of RAs have separate legal status.
  - Almost all RAs have the mandate of assessing and collecting tax and duties and administering and enforcing the revenue laws; almost all also provide advice on tax laws to the minister of finance.
  - In all cases, the minister of finance (or equivalent minister) is considered to have at least general supervision and oversight of the RA.
  - About 70 percent of RAs are outside the normal public service.
  - Funding arrangements:
    - Normal budget and appropriation funding only (PEM)—40 percent.
    - Normal budget and appropriation funding with an option for a percentage of revenue above target as incentive payment—30 percent.
    - Funding based on a percentage of tax collection—30 percent.
  - All RAs have arrangements for external audit, usually by the auditor general.
  - About 75 percent of RAs have boards, and all of these are empowered management boards with specific responsibilities and oversight functions.

### Board composition and executive authority
- Board characteristics:
  - Boards range in size from 5 to 15, and all have private sector representation.
  - Of the 15 RAs with boards:
    - the chair of the board is named by the government in ten cases,
    - the chair is specified in the legislation in four cases,
    - and in one case the board elects its own chairperson.
  - An empowered management board is a board that is more than advisory, which has real powers under the law (usually for matters related to human resources, finance, and administration, and other non-operational matters).
- CEO arrangements:
  - In all cases except one, the CEOs (commissioner-general or director-general) of the RAs are fully vested with the powers established in the revenue laws, with authority to delegate these powers.
  - CEO appointment arrangements:
    - In most cases, the CEO is appointed by the government;
    - in some cases, the appointment is made by the government on the recommendation of the board;
    - and in a few cases, the board itself makes the appointment of the CEO.
- Tax and customs scope:
  - All RAs administer income tax and a value-added tax.
  - Almost all RAs administer some other types of tax, including stamp tax, gaming tax, property tax, as well as a combination of various other taxes, including motor vehicle licensing and transport fees.
  - RAs generally include customs administration.

### Pre-establishment framework and critical questions
- Framework components commonly encompassed:
  - degree of autonomy;
  - governance framework;
  - accountability;
  - scope.
- Critical questions governments should ask before establishing an RA (for cost/benefit analysis):
  1. Are the problems facing revenue administration known?
  2. Is there a reform and modernization strategy in place?
  3. Is there a risk that creating the RA will overwhelm other reform efforts?
  4. Are the benefits and downsides of revenue authorities well understood?
  5. Are the experiences of other countries relevant?
  6. Is a lengthy timeframe acceptable?
  7. Are requisite skills and other resources available?
  8. Is the government prepared to deal with possible labor relations upheaval in a move to a revenue authority?
  9. Are there any reasonable and practical alternatives?
  10. Are the conditions for success and sustainability present?

### Design considerations for a Revenue Authority (Box 1)
- Degree of autonomy — assess range of possibilities for:
  - Legal form and status — from an agency relatively close to a normal government organization, to a corporate body with considerable independence.
  - Funding — from normal funding via parliamentary appropriations to direct retention of a percentage of collected revenues.
  - Budget flexibility — from limited flexibility to the complete flexibility of a one-line budget.
  - Financial policies (such as accounting, asset ownership and management, procurement) — from a situation where the RA is subject to standard civil service laws and regulations, or as determined by “corporate body” status (i.e. not part of the government’s accounting entity).
  - Human resources — from being within the civil service control framework, to being outside it.
  - Operational autonomy — from a situation where the minister has day-to-day authority to one where there is no involvement on the part of the minister in operational decisions.
- Governance framework — assess roles:
  - Role of the minister of finance — from direct supervision of the authority by the minister, to a more limited role such as appointment of the board or CEO only and limited broad strategic and tax policy directive powers.
  - Role of the board — from no board at all to one with just advisory powers to fully empowered in legislation to take management decisions.
  - Role of commissioner general — from a coordinating role only, to full responsibility for revenue operations with all vested powers from revenue laws.
- Accountability — assess reporting and audit arrangements:
  - Reporting to the government and parliament — from being part of normal general government reporting, to the need to follow special requirements specified in legislation.
  - External audit — from being a legislated responsibility of the auditor-general, to the RA or its board selecting the external auditor as it sees fit.
- Scope — refers to the scope of taxes and taxing agencies to be included:
  - Usually includes administration and enforcement of all direct and indirect taxes at the national level, and customs (and trade) administration.
  - The RA may also include the collection of local taxes or fees and social taxes or levies, as well as the collection of social contributions.

### Conclusions on Revenue Authority effectiveness and design implications
- Key conclusions:
  - Establishing an RA should not be viewed as a panacea — creating an RA may be expensive, may take a long time, and may not actually improve revenue administration effectiveness.
  - Revenue administrations should clearly identify and articulate problems and deficiencies, and consider strategies for reform and modernization based on international best practice before selecting a governance model.
  - Political commitment is of the utmost importance in establishing and sustaining a professional and effective revenue administration.
  - The RA model alone does not lead to improved effectiveness and taxpayer compliance — its establishment must be coupled with a serious commitment and plan for reform.
- Design implications and priorities:
  - Governments are continuing to provide increased autonomy, along with increased accountability, to public sector bodies.
  - Key areas for increased autonomy and accountability in revenue administration are human resources (recruitment, training, remuneration, hiring and firing); organization and planning; budget management; and performance standards.
  - A Revenue Authority (semi-autonomous agency) is one means to provide an appropriate level of autonomy for revenue administration; countries should carefully and thoroughly assess the extent to which a Revenue Authority might be suitable for their objectives.

### Case example — Uganda Revenue Authority (Box 2)
- Motivation for establishing the URA:
  - In the early 1990s, national taxes and duties were administered by four departments in the ministry of finance.
  - Reasons for poor performance: (1) low staff morale and productivity—partly due to low pay and shortage of resources; (2) corruption; (3) ineffective collection of tax; (4) weak management of revenue administration; and (5) lack of a tax-paying culture—partly because taxpayers viewed the tax system to be unfair.
  - Argument for the RA: moving away from civil service terms and conditions and management practices would improve pay, reduce need for alternate income sources, strengthen discipline, reduce corruption, increase morale and productivity, and increase revenue collections.
- Nature of the URA’s autonomy:
  - The URA is a body corporate.
  - It has human resources and budget autonomy.
  - The URA is able to recruit and salaries and the rate of retention have improved.
  - On funding, it receives a budget appropriation like any department of government but the minister of finance may authorize the retention of a percentage of the revenue collected.
  - The URA has autonomy in setting all financial policies, with the exception of procurement.
- Main results:
  - Established in 1991, the URA was one of the first African RAs.
  - Results were impressive in early years, reflected by strong revenue growth in real terms that levelled off by the late 1990s.
  - Many of the previous administration and taxpayer compliance problems gradually returned, including serious problems of corruption and inefficiency.
  - The URA had become a fragmented organization with unclear accountabilities when a major modernization initiative was launched in late 2004.
  - The latest reform strategy exploited the flexibility afforded by the RA model to competitively appoint an entirely new management team and workforce, structurally reorganize by integrating tax administration with a focus on segmentation, and begin streamlining and automating operations.
  - Thus, the RA model has been the URA’s vehicle to both success and failure over the past 15 years.

*Prepared by William Crandall, Fiscal Affairs Department; Technical Notes and Manuals 10/12 | 2010*

### Section 1

### Revenue Administration: Autonomy in Tax Administration and the Revenue Authority Model (Section 1)

### What is autonomy and why is it important in public administration?
- Autonomy in public sector administration usually refers to "the degree to which a government department or agency is able to operate independently from government, in terms of legal form and status, funding and budget, and financial, human resources and administrative practices."
- Governments have increased autonomy in departments and agencies to:
  - deliver services more effectively and at a lower cost as expenditure budgets decline;
  - address deficiencies in traditional procedures and structures seen as too rigid for rapidly changing needs;
  - adapt private sector management practices to public sector institutions.
- Typical governmental structures lie on a spectrum of decreasing government control and increasing autonomy:
  - Traditional department (within a ministry) → Semi-autonomous agencies (including Revenue Authorities) → Autonomous agencies and regulatory bodies (central banks) → State-owned enterprises → Fully privatized activities.
- Increased managerial authority is typically accompanied by greater accountability, reporting, and transparency requirements.
- The executive summary of the Technical Note lists the questions addressed (including definitions of autonomy, measures of autonomy in revenue administration, characteristics of Revenue Authorities, and evidence on effectiveness).

### How is autonomy relevant for revenue administration and what is the range of autonomy currently practiced?
- Revenue administrations administer and enforce extensive revenue laws and collect the bulk of government revenue; consequently, sufficient autonomy is required to exercise powers and responsibilities, though limits to autonomy exist given the pervasive nature of revenue-law powers.
- Revenue administrations typically fall into two possibilities:
  - Traditional departments of government; or
  - Semi-autonomous agencies (including various forms of Revenue Authorities).
- The IMF 2006 survey and illustrative examples show a range of autonomy within semi-autonomous revenue agencies:
  - Relative examples provided: Less autonomy — Mexico; then South Africa; then United Kingdom; then Canada; then Kenya and Peru representing greater autonomy among the semi-autonomous group.
- Observations:
  - Revenue administration has been at the forefront of the trend toward increased autonomy.
  - Arguments for increased autonomy emphasize the revenue administration’s specialized skills and central revenue-producing role, though the "uniqueness" argument is questioned in light of broader public service reforms.

### What are the key measures of autonomy in revenue administration?
- Autonomy is reflected in:
  - provisions in the revenue laws (including tax procedures codes and references to institutional or governance issues);
  - reporting relationships (to the minister of finance, to the financial secretary, etc.);
  - ability to design and implement operational policy; and
  - organizational structure and operational responsibilities.
- The 2008 OECD tax administration survey (data for 43 countries - 30 OECD and 13 non-OECD) splits administrations into 19 described as single or multiple directorates within the ministry of finance and 24 as a unified semi-autonomous body (with or without a board).
- Areas of powers (autonomy) identified by the survey include:
  - Organization and planning: responsibility for internal organization structure, including size and geographical location of operational offices (some exceptions), and authority to formulate and implement strategic and operational plans.
  - Budget management: discretion to allocate/reallocate budgeted funds across administrative functions to meet emerging/changed priorities.
  - Performance standards: discretion to set its own administrative performance standards (e.g., for taxpayer service delivery).
  - Human resources: ability to set academic/technical qualification standards for categories of recruits, recruit and dismiss staff, establish and operate staff training/development programs, and negotiate staff remuneration levels (often within broader public sector policies).
- Key conclusions from the survey:
  - The degree of autonomy varies significantly across surveyed revenue administrations.
  - The powers least frequently devolved are: (i) to design internal structure (5 countries); (ii) budget discretion (7 countries); and (iii) to negotiate staff remuneration levels (13 countries).
  - In general, revenue administrations enjoy many powers that were probably not delegated to them a decade or two ago; hence, autonomy has increased in all areas.
  - Semi-autonomous bodies clearly have greater autonomy, but in many cases the margin is not significant.
  - Increased authority/autonomy is accompanied by commensurate increases in accountability, transparency, and oversight requirements.

- Excerpted table content as presented:
  - Table 1. Authorities held by revenue (tax) administrations
  - Structure of revenue (tax) administration
  - Directorate(s) within MoF%  Semi-autonomous body% Total%
  - Authority to establish organization and office networks
    - 17 of 198921 of 248838 of 4388
  - Authority to allocate/re-allocate budget
    - 14 of 197422 of 249236 of 4384
  - Authority to determine performance standards
    - 19 of 1910024 of 2410043 of 43100
  - Human Resources authorities
    - Fix levels/mix of staff
      - 15 of 197921 of 248837 of 4386
    - Influence staff recruitment criteria
      - 19 of 1910024 of 2410043 of 43100
    - Hire and dismiss
      - 14 of 197423 of 249637 of 4386
    - Negotiate staff pay levels
      - 10 of 195320 of 248330 of 4370

### What is a Revenue Authority and what are its general characteristics and features?
- The Revenue Authority (RA) model applies the executive agency concept to revenue administration (tax and customs), creating a dedicated separate organization with more autonomy than a normal ministry department.
- Arguments for the RA model:
  - a single-purpose agency can focus on a single task;
  - an autonomous organization can manage affairs in a businesslike way, free of political interference in day-to-day operations;
  - being outside the civil service proper, it can execute its own human resources strategy (recruit, retain, dismiss, motivate staff).
- The RA approach has been used for more than 20 years; there are close to 40 Revenue Authorities worldwide, largely clustered in Africa and Latin America.
- Development agencies (e.g., DFID, USAID) and international organizations have promoted Revenue Authorities in some contexts; private consulting firms have been active in the field.
- No single governance model exists; RAs lie along a continuum from close to civil service to greater autonomy. An RA is a means (not an end) to implement reforms and improve performance.
- Typical features of Revenue Authorities (based on the IMF survey):
  - A legislative instrument (law or decree) was used to establish the RA in all cases.
  - About 80 percent of RAs have separate legal status.
  - Almost all RAs have the mandate of assessing and collecting tax and duties and administering and enforcing the revenue laws; almost all also provide advice on tax laws to the minister of finance.
  - In all cases, the minister of finance (or equivalent minister) is considered to have at least general supervision and oversight of the RA.
  - About 70 percent of RAs are outside the normal public service.
  - Different funding arrangements for RAs:
    - Normal budget and appropriation funding only (PEM)—40 percent.
    - Normal budget and appropriation funding with an option for a percentage of revenue above target as incentive payment—30 percent.
    - Funding based on a percentage of tax collection—30 percent.
  - All RAs have arrangements for external audit, usually by the auditor general.
  - About 75 percent of RAs have boards, and all of these are empowered management boards with specific responsibilities and oversight functions.

*Prepared by William Crandall, Fiscal Affairs Department; Technical Notes and Manuals 10/12 | 2010*

### Section 2

### _tnm1012 - Section 2

### Board composition and executive authority
- Boards range in size from 5 to 15, and all have private sector representation.
- Of the 15 RAs with boards:
  - the chair of the board is named by the government in ten cases,
  - the chair is specified in the legislation in four cases,
  - and in one case the board elects its own chairperson.
- An empowered management board is a board that is more than advisory, which has real powers under the law (usually for matters related to human resources, finance, and administration, and other non-operational matters).
- In all cases except one, the CEOs (commissioner-general or director-general) of the RAs are fully vested with the powers established in the revenue laws, with authority to delegate these powers.
- CEO appointment arrangements:
  - In most cases, the CEO is appointed by the government;
  - in some cases, the appointment is made by the government on the recommendation of the board;
  - and in a few cases, the board itself makes the appointment of the CEO.
- All RAs administer income tax and a value-added tax.
- Almost all RAs administer some other types of tax, including stamp tax, gaming tax, property tax, as well as a combination of various other taxes, including motor vehicle licensing and transport fees.
- RAs generally include customs administration.

### Pre-establishment framework and critical questions
- A country needs a framework to consider policy choices when establishing a revenue authority. Components commonly encompassed:
  - degree of autonomy;
  - governance framework;
  - accountability;
  - scope.
- The framework typically spans a range of possibilities from which the government must choose one option.
- Before deciding to proceed with establishment of a Revenue Authority, governments should ask themselves the following critical questions as background for cost/benefit analysis:
  1. Are the problems facing revenue administration known?
  2. Is there a reform and modernization strategy in place?
  3. Is there a risk that creating the RA will overwhelm other reform efforts?
  4. Are the benefits and downsides of revenue authorities well understood?
  5. Are the experiences of other countries relevant?
  6. Is a lengthy timeframe acceptable?
  7. Are requisite skills and other resources available?
  8. Is the government prepared to deal with possible labor relations upheaval in a move to a revenue authority?
  9. Are there any reasonable and practical alternatives?
  10. Are the conditions for success and sustainability present?

### Design considerations for a Revenue Authority (Box 1)
1. degree of autonomy — assess range of possibilities for:
   - Legal form and status — from an agency relatively close to a normal government organization, to a corporate body with considerable independence.
   - Funding — from normal funding via parliamentary appropriations to direct retention of a percentage of collected revenues.
   - Budget flexibility — from limited flexibility to the complete flexibility of a one-line budget.
   - Financial policies (such as accounting, asset ownership and management, procurement) — from a situation where the RA is subject to standard civil service laws and regulations, or as determined by “corporate body” status (i.e. not part of the government’s accounting entity).
   - Human resources — from being within the civil service control framework, to being outside it.
   - Operational autonomy — from a situation where the minister has day-to-day authority to one where there is no involvement on the part of the minister in operational decisions.
2. Governance framework — assess roles:
   - Role of the minister of finance — from direct supervision of the authority by the minister, to a more limited role such as appointment of the board or CEO only and limited broad strategic and tax policy directive powers.
   - Role of the board — from no board at all to one with just advisory powers to fully empowered in legislation to take management decisions.
   - Role of commissioner general — from a coordinating role only, to full responsibility for revenue operations with all vested powers from revenue laws.
3. Accountability — assess reporting and audit arrangements:
   - Reporting to the government and parliament — from being part of normal general government reporting, to the need to follow special requirements specified in legislation.
   - External audit — from being a legislated responsibility of the auditor-general, to the RA or its board selecting the external auditor as it sees fit.
4. scope — refers to the scope of taxes and taxing agencies to be included:
   - Usually includes administration and enforcement of all direct and indirect taxes at the national level, and customs (and trade) administration.
   - The RA may also include the collection of local taxes or fees and social taxes or levies, as well as the collection of social contributions.

### Conclusions on Revenue Authority effectiveness
- Establishing an RA should not be viewed as a panacea — creating an RA may be expensive, may take a long time, and may not actually improve revenue administration effectiveness.
- Before considering any particular governance model, revenue administrations should clearly identify and articulate problems and deficiencies, and consider strategies for reform and modernization based on international best practice. Only then should a full assessment be made of the extent to which the RA governance model might satisfy the problems and reform strategies identified.
- Political commitment is of the utmost importance in establishing and sustaining a professional and effective revenue administration.
- The RA model alone does not lead to improved effectiveness and taxpayer compliance — its establishment must be coupled with a serious commitment and plan for reform.

### Experience with autonomy in revenue administration and key design implications
- Key points for tax administration design:
  - Governments are continuing to provide increased autonomy, along with increased accountability, to public sector bodies.
  - Revenue administrations are part of this trend, whether they are part of the traditional institutional public service (a department within a ministry) or a semi-autonomous revenue authority.
  - Key areas for increased autonomy and accountability in revenue administration are human resources (recruitment, training, remuneration, hiring and firing); organization and planning; budget management; and performance standards.
  - A Revenue Authority (semi-autonomous agency) is one means to provide an appropriate level of autonomy for revenue administration; countries should carefully and thoroughly assess the extent to which a Revenue Authority might be suitable for their objectives.

### Case example — Uganda Revenue Authority (Box 2)
- Motivation for establishing the URA:
  - In the early 1990s, national taxes and duties were administered by four departments in the ministry of finance.
  - Reasons for poor performance included: (1) low staff morale and productivity—partly due to low pay and shortage of resources; (2) corruption; (3) ineffective collection of tax; (4) weak management of revenue administration; and (5) lack of a tax-paying culture—partly because taxpayers viewed the tax system to be unfair.
  - Argument for the RA: moving away from civil service terms and conditions and management practices would improve pay, reduce need for alternate income sources, strengthen discipline, reduce corruption, increase morale and productivity, and increase revenue collections.
- Nature of the URA’s autonomy:
  - The URA is a body corporate.
  - It has human resources and budget autonomy.
  - The URA is able to recruit and salaries and the rate of retention have improved.
  - On funding, it receives a budget appropriation like any department of government but the minister of finance may authorize the retention of a percentage of the revenue collected.
  - The URA has autonomy in setting all financial policies, with the exception of procurement.
- Main results:
  - Established in 1991, the URA was one of the first African RAs.
  - Results were impressive in early years, reflected by strong revenue growth in real terms that levelled off by the late 1990s.
  - Many of the previous administration and taxpayer compliance problems gradually returned, including serious problems of corruption and inefficiency.
  - The URA had become a fragmented organization with unclear accountabilities when a major modernization initiative was launched in late 2004.
  - The latest reform strategy exploited the flexibility afforded by the RA model to competitively appoint an entirely new management team and workforce, structurally reorganize by integrating tax administration with a focus on segmentation, and begin streamlining and automating operations.
  - Thus, the RA model has been the URA’s vehicle to both success and failure over the past 15 years.

*International Monetary Fund — Technical Notes and Manuals 10/12 | Revenue Administration: Autonomy in Tax Administration and the Revenue Authority Model*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/tnm/2010/_tnm1012.pdf_