216 – 6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES

Reported verification outputs (i.e. numbers of completed actions) vary enormously even after account is taken of taxpayer population data; there were insufficient data to fully understand the reasons for these variations but possible influencing factors include the use/non-use of assessment versus self-assessment procedures, the scale of automated third party information checking programmes, and local auditing policies (e.g. extent of desk audits, single issue audits, multiple tax audits etc).

Consistent and fairly significant increases in the numbers of completed verification actions over the period covered can be identified for only four revenue bodies (i.e. Argentina, Chile, Malaysia and the United States) while for a number of others (e.g. Belgium and Denmark) the reported volumes over the years covered vary widely suggesting possible changes to the interpretation given to “verification activities”.

Large taxpayers

Verification results for large taxpayers figured prominently in the results reported by many revenue bodies; of the 28 revenue bodies that were able to report results for large taxpayers, 11 reported that the value of tax assessments for these taxpayers exceeded one third of overall verification activities in 2011.

Almost one quarter of revenue bodies in OECD countries reporting the existence of a dedicated unit to monitor the tax affairs of large taxpayers failed to report the results of verification activities, raising questions as to the comprehensiveness of the arrangements in place for monitoring the compliance of these taxpayers.

Tax disputes

Table 6.14 sets out the data provided by countries on the numbers and values of tax disputes finalised for years 2008 to 2011, while Table 6.15 provides corresponding information on the numbers and value of work unfinalised at year-end covering the same period.

As will be apparent, a fair number of countries were unable to report complete data for this category of work while for those countries where data are available there are significant variations in the respective volumes and values reported, having regard to factors such as taxpayer population. In the circumstances, only limited observations are possible:

Completed cases

Countries reporting exceptionally large numbers of tax dispute cases (e.g. France and Germany) administer systems based on return assessment principles, as opposed to more modern self assessment systems seen in the majority of countries; over the years, high levels of disputation have been a feature of assessment regimes in many countries and for some have contributed to the decision to introduce systems of self-assessment.

A trend of increased disputation, albeit fairly moderate, can be seen in a few countries (e.g. Australia, Italy and Netherlands) while a clear downwards trend can be observed in Korea, Portugal and Sweden.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES – 217

Table 6.14. Tax disputes in administrative review: Finalised cases

For notes indicated by “/ (number)”, see Notes to Tables section at the end of the chapter, p. 230. Source: CIS survey responses.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

218 – 6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES

Table 6.15. Tax disputes in administrative review: Unfinalised cases at year-end

Source: CIS survey responses.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES – 219

Unfinalised dispute cases

Relatively large volumes of unfinalised cases at end 2011 (vis-à-vis cases completed in 2011) appear in a number of countries (e.g. Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany, and Italy); in the case of Belgium and Italy this situation may be related to significant increases in reported verification activities.

Chapter 8 provides further details on the framework within which administrative reviews are conducted by the revenue bodies surveyed.

Tax debts and their collection

The collection of tax debts is another important responsibility of almost all revenue bodies. As noted in Chapter 2, Table 2.1, revenue bodies typically operate with a dedicated tax debt collection function to pursue the non-payment of tax debts. For some taxpayers, this necessitates initiating legal debt recovery action. In many countries, significant staff resources are devoted to taking action to secure the payment of overdue tax debts, as discussed in Chapter 5. And as described in Chapter 9, most revenue bodies have been given an extensive range of powers for enforced debt collection action.

For survey and comparison purposes, outstanding tax debts are defined as the total amount of tax (including any interest and penalties) that is overdue for payment at year-end and which is not disputed by the taxpayer (even where enforcement action may not have commenced) for all taxes administered by the revenue body. By virtue of this definition, the level of “outstanding tax debts” is intended to include tax debts whose collection has been deferred (e.g. as a result of an agreed extension of time to pay or a payment arrangement).

Aggregate Tables A7 and A8 located in the Annex A of this series set out aggregates over a seven year period (2005 to 2011) of year end tax outstanding, tax written off, taxes collected from enforced collection action and numbers of year-end tax debt cases reported by revenue bodies for this and prior series.

Tables 6.16 to 6.19 present these data using various ratios to place the data in a relative and comparative context. Cross-country comparisons of case volume data needs to be interpreted with care because for some revenue bodies the volumes relate to “number of taxpayers” (i.e. for those revenue bodies with integrated accounting systems) while for others the volumes reported are on an individual “tax type” basis (i.e. for those revenue bodes without integrated accounting systems).

Included in Table 6.16 is the ratio of aggregate end-year tax arrears (i.e. all unpaid taxes, excluding those where a dispute is involved, for all years recorded on taxpayers’ accounts) to the denominator of annual net revenue collections of all taxes for the years indicated, reported by surveyed countries. The data covers a period of seven years to highlight trends. A number of countries apply this measure, or a variant thereof, in their own management information systems to gauge the broad trend over time of tax payment compliance and the overall performance of their debt collection activities. Generally speaking, a declining trend in the ratio is likely to indicate improved payment compliance and/or debt collection effectiveness, while an increasing trend may indicate some growth in non-payment compliance and/or debt workloads. The ratio can also be affected from time to time by some abnormal factors (e.g. unusually large tax assessments resulting from audit action).

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

220 – 6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES

From the information in Tables 6.16 to 6.19 a number of observations can be made:

Using the benchmark ratio “undisputed tax debt as a share of net revenue collections” average debt levels in OECD countries continued to ease in 2011 following their peak in 2009 (i.e. the year following the global financial crisis) but remain in excess of 20% of the average level indicated for 2007;

The incidence of unpaid taxes, as reflected in the relative value of debt inventories, varies enormously across surveyed revenue bodies, suggesting significant variations in the levels of payment compliance; applying the benchmark ratio “undisputed tax debt as a share of net revenue collections” for 2011 as a broad indicator of the relative magnitude of the debt inventory:

-13 revenue bodies had a ratio < 5% (i.e. Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, and Sweden);

-nine revenue bodies had a ratio between 5 and 10%;

-15 revenue bodies had a ratio between 10-20%;

-nine revenue bodies had a ratio over 20% (the highest over 60%); and

-seven reported no data.

Applying the same ratio, debt levels in 2011 remain substantially above (i.e. by over 50%) their level in 2007 in ten countries (including eight OECD countries).

Applying the benchmark ratio “undisputed tax debt as a share of net revenue collections” and looking at movements between end-2007 and end-2011 period as a broad indicator of payment compliance/collection effectiveness:

-25 revenue body display an increasing ratio;

-seven revenue bodies display a declining ratio; and

-for 20 revenue bodies there were insufficient data to ascertain the movement.

Applying the same benchmark ratio, there are 15 revenue bodies that display a ratio of less than 7.5% for at least five of the seven years for the period reported (indicating sustained high levels of payment compliance)-Argentina, Australia, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Singapore, and the United Kingdom.

Not surprisingly, in the aftermath of the global economic crisis there has been upwards growth in the overall incidence of tax debts written off as uncollectible; applying the ratio “tax debts written off/value of year-beginning tax debt outstanding”, the average ratio across OECD countries rose from around 19% in 2007 to just over 25% in 2009, and eased only marginally in 2010 and 2011 (NB: There are insufficient data to comment on this aspect as it concerns non-OECD countries).

Looking at the benchmark ratio “tax debts written off/value of year-end tax outstanding” over seven years to gauge the relative magnitude of tax debts written off, on average, reveals:

-nine revenue bodies generally had a ratio less than 10%;

-nine revenue bodies generally had a ratio in the range 10-20%;

-seven revenue bodies generally had a ratio in the range 20-40%;

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES – 221

-three revenue bodies generally had a ratio over 40% (i.e. Germany, Korea and Mexico); and

-for 24 revenue bodies, there were insufficient data to compute this ratio and its trend or the computed ratios fluctuate widely with no discernible trend evident.

Looking at movements in year-end case volumes over the period 2007 to 2011 reveals:

-nine revenue bodies (i.e. Argentina, Australia, Austria, France, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Slovenia) show a net overall decline in absolute case numbers;

-nine revenue bodies show growth in the range 0-25%;

-three show growth in the range 25-50%;

-four revenue bodies show growth exceeding 50%; and

-there were insufficient data for 27 revenue bodies to make this calculation.

Gaps in survey responses for latter years (i.e. 2010 and 2011) suggest weaknesses in the management information systems used for debt collection for many revenue bodies; for example, almost one third of revenue bodies were unable to report the amount of tax collected resulting from enforced debt collection activities, while around 40% failed to report the number of debtors/cases on hand at year-end 2011.

The data and related ratios reported in the tables give a sense of the magnitude of the tax debt collection problem across surveyed countries along with indications of individual revenue body performance. However, as noted earlier in this report, such information should be used as a pointer for further inquiry before drawing well-founded conclusions. A particular concern in this area of tax administration is that a fair number of revenue bodies did not report basic programme performance information suggesting serious weaknesses in their systems of performance measurement.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

222 – 6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES

Table 6.16. Tax debts: Undisputed tax debt as share of net revenue collections

For notes indicated by “/ (number)”, see Notes to Tables section at the end of the chapter, p. 230. Sources: CIS survey responses.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES – 223

Table 6.17. Tax debts: Debt collected as a share of total debt for collection

For notes indicated by “/ (number)”, see Notes to Tables section at the end of the chapter, p. 230. Sources: CIS survey responses.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

224 – 6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES

Table 6.18. Tax debts: Debt written off as a share of debt inventory

For notes indicated by “/ (number)”, see Notes to Tables section at the end of the chapter, p. 231. Sources: CIS survey responses.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES – 225

Table 6.19. Tax debts: Movement in tax debt case numbers

For notes indicated by “/ (number)”, see Notes to Tables section at the end of the chapter, p. 231. Sources: CIS survey responses.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

226 – 6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES

Features of revenue administrations’ systems and approaches for achieving low levels of tax debt

While there are no doubt many factors that influence the overall level of tax debts and tax payment compliance at an individual country level, it is possible to discern from the information collected for this series some fairly common characteristics of the tax administration arrangements in place that may have contributed to the good outcomes being achieved.

Based on survey responses, there were 15 revenue bodies with relatively low debt inventories (i.e. end-year below 7.5% of aggregate net revenue collections) over all/most of the seven year period covered by the series – Australia, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. While it is beyond the scope of this series to reach definitive conclusions as to the factors that may have contributed to the relatively low level of tax debt in these countries, other information from the series provides some insights as to some possible influential factors:

Extensive use of tax withholding at source arrangements and/or information reporting and matching systems: In addition to employment income (with the exception of France and Singapore), 11/15 countries generally require tax withholding at source in respect of dividend income paid to resident taxpayers while 9 of 15 countries require tax withholding on interest income (see Tables 9.5 and 9.6, Chapter 9);

Regimes of advanced payments: With the exception of France, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, all twelve other countries administer income tax regimes (for both personal and corporate taxpayers) that are designed to collect the bulk of tax due (in the form of advanced payments) in the fiscal year in which the income is derived (see Tables 9.8 and 9.9, Chapter 9).

Extensive powers of enforcement (incl. appropriate levels of interest and penalties): There is insufficient information available to be conclusive in this area but it was noted that seven of the 11 revenue bodies generally have what might be described as a robust set of tools for enforcing the collection of taxes (i.e. powers to collect taxes from third parties, close businesses/cancel licenses, obtain liens over assets, require tax clearance for the granting of government contracts, withhold government payments to debtors, and impose tax debts on company directors) (see Table 9.12, Chapter 9).

Well-staffed enforced debt collection organisation: Eleven of the 15 revenue bodies report that around 10% or more of their resources are devoted to enforced debt collection activities within a dedicated organisation unit (see Table 5.6, Chapter 5).

Wide use of electronic payment methods: These methods, in particular the use of direct debiting, are used widely: nine revenue bodies reported significant usage (i.e. over 50%) while four others reported their use but could not quantify the volumes involved (see Table 7.4).

Extensive investment in information technology for tax administration: Nine of 15 revenue boides reported an above average level of investment in information technology to support their administration, while all 15 reported the availability of system capabilities suggesting advanced use of technology (e.g. extensive e-filing usafe, online acces to personal details, comprehensive website of tax related information, on line legal database etc.).

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES – 227

*Taking account of resources in Sweden’s separate Enforcement Agency which is responsible for all government and private debt collection activities.

Comparisons between countries need to be made with care, for the sorts of reasons described elsewhere in this series. In addition, the size of a revenue body’s reported volume of tax arrears will be affected by the write-off policies in place and the extent of their use, which vary substantially across surveyed countries, and potentially by the scale of enforcement/verification activities.

Recent experience from the United Kingdom

Finally, some additional perspectives on how one revenue body has taken steps to improve its debt collection performance can be found in a recent report by the UK National Audit Office (NAO) and its review of HMRC’s revised debt management strategy.

A study undertaken by the UK NAO (2012) noted that during 2009-10 HMRC began to implement a revised debt management strategy which aimed to target collection activities more effectively to increase the likelihood of recovery, improve the speed of collection, and reduce costs. The strategy was also to help prevent taxpayers getting into debt by supporting them better before their tax liabilities became overdue and communicating more effectively with them so that any queries were resolved and debt paid without needing multiple contact. To implement this revised approach the Department aimed to improve its debt collection processes through: 1) a campaigns-based approach; 2) better understanding of taxpayer behaviour; 3) developing its channels of customer contact, particularly by telephone; 4) improving its information systems; and 5) improving the quality of its information on debt balances.

The NAO noted that HMRC has made progress in a number of areas in implementing its revised debt management strategy, particularly in rolling out its campaigns-based approach. Previously the directorate used a standard debt collection process for all debts, sending automated debt reminders initially, following up with telephone calls, in writing and through visits. The directorate used this approach regardless of the type of debt, with limited differentiation by value and risk of non-payment. In contrast, a campaign is an

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

228 – 6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES

individually designed, time-limited set of actions taken for a particular tax stream’s debts. It involves segmenting debts into groups, such as by value and behaviour of groups of taxpayers, and tailoring collection activities to each group.

NAO also noted that HMRC had increased its use of new payment methods (e.g debit and credit cards), introduced a new penalty regime to better align penalties across the major taxes, increased accessibility to payment arrangements, substantially increased the capacitiy of its debt management telephone centre, and expanded its out-of-hours calls to different target groups.

Notes to Tables

Table 6.1. Aggregate tax collections (by major tax type) for 2010 and prior years

/1. Malta: Malta employs a full imputation tax system, that is, there is no corporate tax. Therefore, gross personal income tax include both individuals and companies. Russia: Since 01.01.2010 the administration of UST was delegated to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation.

/2. Russia: Without the UST revenues to the federal budget

Table 6.3. Revenue bodies’ service demand volumes (millions): Selected services

/1. Australia: Downward trend in face to face visits is partly due to a cross-agency co-location strategy which has seen some ATO customers receiving information and assistance at shop front sites of other Australian Government agencies; there has also been a change in the counting rules whereby the number of visits rather than the number of enquiries are counted; concerning written correspondence, a change in counting rules in 2011 adjusted the basis for the number of events counted. Belgium: data available limited to two Infocenters, and insufficiently complete for comparison purposes given they do not include inquiries received in local offices. Canada: CRA does not track incoming email volumes and for security reasons does not encourage email communication with taxpayers; Internet hits are the number of visits to the CRA Web site while total pages viewed in 2010 and 2011 were 330.8 million and 337.1 million, respectively; this does not include visits to secure areas of the Web site, including My Account and My Business Account. Ireland: reported volume includes email. United States: Total number of Web visits received; a visit is a series of actions that begins when a visitor views their first page from the server, and ends when the visitor leaves the site.

Table 6.4. Revenue bodies’ service demand volumes (millions): Phone inquiries

/1. IVR: Refers to Interactive Voice Recognition technology providing automated answers to inquiries;

/2. Australia: During the 2010-11 year, the ATO implemented a new core processing system. While this system provides a range of benefits there were some teething issues after deployment resulting in delays in issuing income tax returns. Due to these delays, the number of calls handled by our progress of return self-help IVR doubled during the year. Calls to arrange payment arrangements were also up by more than 80% due to the tougher economic climate. Both of these increases contributed to the significant overall increase in self-help calls. Successful calls have decreased again in 2011-12 however they are higher than in 2009-10 reflecting the popularity and effectiveness of our self-help IVR applications. The ATO also received an increase in calls relating to delays in returns processing in the 2010-11 year. During this year the ATO also released a new look income tax notice of assessment. This generated additional calls from taxpayers with enquiries about the new format. Call volumes include escalated calls. Austria: There are no dedicated call centres for general inquiries, with all calls answered by staff in INFOCENTRES located in local Tax Offices; there is a hotline (FinanzOnline) which is available for technical information on FinanzOnline. Italy: Data obtained from AE’s annual report 2011 Switzerland: data relates only to Federal Administration (covering VAT only); United States: The number of phone inquiries received includes the number of calls answered by an assister and the number of calls abandoned by the taxpayer.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES – 229

Table 6.6. Service standards/performance in 2011: Income tax returns

/1. Austria: Same standard applied for both paper and e-filed returns; Chile: Returns filed between April 1 and 19: refunds by deposit are due on May 10 and refunds by sending a cheque are due on May 30; returns filed between April 20 and 27: refunds by deposit are due on May 17 and refunds by sending a cheque are due on May 30; returns filed between April 28 and May 9: refunds by deposit are due on May 26 and refunds by sending a cheque are due on May 30. Hong Kong: Under existing tax laws, personal income tax and corporate income tax are subject to technical assessing requirements (as opposed to self-assessment), while there is no withholding of tax in respect of any category of income (including employment or investment income) derived by resident taxpayers. Furthermore, there is no system of VAT. As a result of all these factors, the incidence of tax refunds required to be made by IRD is much lower than seen in most other jurisdictions. Processing standards apply for the assessment of profits tax, property tax and composite returns, but these are not really comparable to countries with self-assessment regimes; Singapore: Integrated result (covering both paper and e-filed returns. United States: The standard is for Individual paper returns only. A separate standard for electronically filed returns is not applicable. For returns filed electronically, the goal is to issue refunds within 5 to 21 days, which the IRS achieves for most returns filed electronically.

Table 6.7. Service standards and performance in 2011: VAT refunds and correspondence

/1. Canada: Despite the introduction of Harmonized Sales Tax in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia in 2010, which significantly impacted the complexity of the GST/HST return and review process, the CRA was able to process 90.3% of GST/HST returns within 30 days. Chile: 95% of VAT refund requests made by Reverse Charge Regime taxpayers, processed within the established period; Mexico: This is an email based service – the written response is sent via internet through software named “solución integral” (integral solution), through which taxpayers can file different kind of inquiries on routine matters and receive a written, but electronic, response; Poland: Separate standards of 25 days (where special conditions satisfied)and 180 days (where no sales made in fiscal year; United Kingdom: Average number of working days taken to repay VAT from date of receipt – 4 days

/2. Canada: A 10 business-day standard has been set in 2012. The CRA has introduced a new service standard for certain tax-related questions that it receives through My Business Account – it will provide a response within 10 business days, on-line and in writing, and stand behind each written reply; Netherlands: There is no service delivery standards for written letters but 85-90% of complex questions to the tax helpline should be answered within 2 working days; in 2011 the actual performance was 88%; United Kingdom: Standard applies to PAYE, self-assessment and National Insurance Contributions; work has been undertaken in 2011 and 2012 to improve this standard and is ongoing.

Table 6.8. Service standards and performance in 2011: In-person and phone inquiries

/1. Canada: Separate standards and performance monitoring for phone inquiries from charities and in respect of GST/HST. Ireland: Achievements reported as PAYE: 37% within 30 secs, 68% within 3 mins, and 85% within 5 mins and Other categories – 69% within 30 secs, 92% within 3 mins, 97% within 5 mins; Luxembourg: Data relate to indirect taxes. Netherlands: “Accessibility” is the % of individuals and businesses helped by the Telephone Information Line staff, irrespective of the time they have to wait, when making a call in normal business hours; the target for answering questions referred from the Tax Line (i.e. call centre) to other revenue body divisions stipulates that 85-90% will be answered within 2 work days; Singapore: Average service performance for non-peak period; Turkey: Standard applies only to Taxpayer Service Walk in Centre being piloted in Ankara; United Kingdom: HMRC is aiming to meet a target of answering 90% of calls attempted by 2013; Performance rate displayed excludes benefits and credits activity; United States: The Level of Service rate of 70.1% represents the relative success of taxpayers that call the IRS toll free numbers seeking assistance from Customer Service representative; the IRS answered 34.5 million calls of 49.2 million calls seeking assistance from a live assistor. The 34.5 million includes both calls answered (34.24 million calls answered by a live assistor) and informational messages (i.e., 267 000 taxpayers opting for a pre-recorded message); the 49.2 million calls additionally includes abandoned calls, busy signals after reaching IRS phone lines, and courtesy disconnects (IRS phone lines become overloaded while the caller is in the queue and are automatically disconnected); it does not include circuit busy signals encountered before the call reaches the IRS.

/2. Luxembourg: Written question is requested in the case of a complex question/answer. Legal delay for written question.

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013

230 – 6. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF REVENUE BODIES

Table 6.9. Service standards and performance in 2011: Complaints and registrations

/1. Canada: A new service standard to resolve 80% in 30 days was established in 2012. France: Standard relates to complaints concerning PIT, and contribution to public broadcasting and occupation tax. Japan: Also has standards for (a) Percentage of the disposition of requests for reinvestigation within 3 months: 90%; and

(b) Percentage of the disposition of requests for reconsideration within 3 months: 85%. Lithuania: Resident legal entities: next day after the registering to the Register of legal entities; non-resident legal entities: 5 working days; natural persons with business certificate: 4 working days; natural persons – Individual activities: 5 working days. Luxembourg: Data relate to indirect taxes. Mexico: Standard applied (80% in 3 days) applies only to initial processing in reception, not resolution; Netherlands: The Administrative Law Act (AWB) standard is 6 weeks. United Kingdom: In addition to complaints standards we also have a statutory time limit for internal statutory reviews of appealable decisions (assessments, rules, etc). These must be completed in 45 days, unless an extension is agreed. United States: Follow-up actions should occur within five workdays of the documented follow-up date, while a case should only be closed when all necessary actions have been taken to resolve the taxpayer’s problem with the IRS.

/2. Ireland: Also has standards for Business customers registering for ROS passwords will normally be issued within 8 working days by ordinary post, while business customers registering for secure email, passwords will normally be issued within 3 working days by ordinary post; 100% achieved for both categories; Singapore: IRAS registers new business taxpayers through electronic link-up with the authority that oversees the registration of new businesses.

Table 6.11. Verification actions: Number completed for all taxpayer categories

/1. Comparisons across countries of data on numbers of verification actions need to be treated with caution owing to differences in how revenue bodies interpret the term “verification activities” in practice, and the approach adopted for quantifying results (e.g. by numbers of taxpayers, numbers of cases involving different taxes etc).

/2. Canada: Tax assessed (and related number of actions) which resulted from returns filed by taxpayers after follow up/enforcement action through Canada’s non-filer/non-registrant programs is not included in the 2010 and 2011 results. Years 2005 to 2009 are restated for comparability. France: Reported data for 2010 and 2011 include results for around 1 million desk audits each year, that were not reported in prior year information. Lithuania: Data for the year 2005-10 refers to control actions taken by tax administration. Data for 2011 refers to control actions taken by tax administration; also contacts by tax administration with tax payers regarding their tax obligations are included. Luxembourg: Only indirect taxes; Malta: Statistics refer only to authority in charge of Direct Taxation. Spain: Number of actions performed. These figures include every type of verification (authomatised filters, massive control, desk controls, field audits, investigation etc.) homogenised to make them comparable.

Table 6.12. Verification actions: Number completed for large taxpayers

/1. Comparisons across countries of data on numbers of verification actions need to be treated with caution owing to differences in how revenue bodies interpret the term “verification activities” in practice, and the approach adopted for quantifying results (e.g. by numbers of taxpayers, numbers of cases involving different taxes etc).

/2. Finland: Data relate only to PIT and CIT; Lithuania: Data for these years to control actions taken by tax administration. Data for 2011 refers to control actions taken by tax administration; also contacts by tax administration with taxpayers regarding their tax obligations are included.

Table 6.14. Tax disputes in administrative review: Finalised cases

/1. Australia: These figures include objections against rulings. Russia: The data provides information not only on the amount of the tax, but also of tax sanctions and on other disputed amounts. Luxembourg: Only indirect taxes. South Africa: Figures reflect head office only

Table 6.15. Tax disputes in administrative review: Unfinalised cases at year-end

/1. South Africa: Figures reflect head office only.

Table 6.16. Tax debts: Undisputed tax debt as share of net revenue collections

/1. Australia: These figures include objections against rulings. Belgium: Data for 2009 and 2010 included disputed tax debts; Chile: Interests and fines are not included in the amount of tax debt. Korea and Singapore: Data includes disputed debts; Luxembourg: Direct and indirect taxes. Slovenia: In October 2011, the tax administration introduced a new tax information system. When outstanding claims were transferred into the new accounting records, all late payment interest until 30 September 2011 was charged and recorded,

TAX ADMINISTRATION 2013: COMPARATIVE INFORMATION ON OECD AND OTHER ADVANCED AND EMERGING ECONOMIES – © OECD 2013