U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–601 PDF 2007

S. Hrg. 109–973

DECONSTRUCTING THE TAX CODE: UNCOLLECTED

TAXES AND ISSUES OF TRANSPARENCY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL 

SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

KATY FRENCH, Staff Director 

SHEILA MURPHY, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LIZ SCRANTON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 3

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 4

Prepared statement: 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 41

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

Hon. Mark Everson,, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service .......................... 8

Hon. J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 

(TIGTA), Department of the Treasury ............................................................... 17

Nina E. Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate ......................................................... 19

Jay A. Soled, Professor of Taxation, Rutgers University ..................................... 21

Stephen J. Entin, President and Executive Director, Institute for Research 

on the Economics of Taxation ............................................................................. 28

Jason Furman, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy 

Priorities, and Visiting Scholar, New York University Wagner Graduate 

School of Public Service ....................................................................................... 31

Neal Boortz, Co-Author, ‘‘The FairTax Box’’ ......................................................... 33

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Boortz, Neal 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 162

Entin, Stephen J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 28

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 131

Everson, Hon. Mark: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

Furman, Jason: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 156

George, Hon. J. Russell: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Olson, Nina E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90

Soled, Jay A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 126

APPENDIX 

Chart submitted by Senator Coburn ...................................................................... 44

(1)

DECONSTRUCTING THE TAX CODE: 

UNCOLLECTED TAXES AND ISSUES 

OF TRANSPARENCY 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Coburn, Carper, and Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. The Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will come to order. 

I want to first take a moment—we delayed, waiting for Senator 

Carper to be here. I understand he will be here shortly. I want to 

thank each of our panel participants today for participating in this, 

and I have a complete statement that I will put into the record. 

We had our first hearing some months back on the tax gap, and 

it is to Senator Carper’s credit that we continue to follow this. It 

is not just about controlling spending, but it is also about collecting 

the revenue that is due. And we are going to have a wide view of 

positions put forth today, both on tax expenditures—which I do not 

know how we ever coined that word because the assumption behind 

a tax expenditure is the government should have all the money and 

what they do not take is a tax expenditure. We are going to talk 

about that. We are going to talk about the IRS’ plans on the tax 

gap, as well as Senator Bayh’s bill on terms of reporting capital 

gains, which I support and have co-signed as a cosponsor on, which 

I think as a minimum needs to be done. 

I am pleased with what we have heard in the testimony. I have 

read all the testimonies and seen the summaries. I think there are 

a lot of ideas. 

There is no question that in our country one of our biggest problems in creating the tax gap is not intentional non-compliance but 

the complexity of our Tax Code. And at some point in the future, 

the American people are going to demand that we make it simpler, 

fairer, and more easily transparent so that you can fulfill your obliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:59 Sep 20, 2007 Jkt 030601 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\30601.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
2

gation as a citizen of this country and participate in funding the 

real obligations of our country. 

President Bush called our tax program a ‘‘complicated mess.’’ I 

think if you look at anybody out there who has any other than one 

source of income and that can do a simple, straight-line form, everybody would agree with that, whether you are on the side of preparing it—and I will never forget the study that was done when 

I was in the House where we took 10 different accounting firms to 

10 different locations with 10 different IRS locations, and everybody came up with a different answer on exactly the same facts, 

which proves the point. 

So I will not belabor my point. I am extremely thankful for Senator Carper and his insistence, and also Senator Lautenberg, as we 

look at tax expenditures because there are loopholes or intended 

expenditures that are not necessarily in sunshine, in sunlight, that 

the American people ought to know about. And they ought to know 

where we are not taxing and what the intended benefit with that 

should be. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coburn follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

As anyone knows who has ever barely made it to the post office in time on April 

15, the tax code can be a nightmare. President Bush has called it ‘‘a complicated 

mess.’’ Riddled with exceptions, credits and deductions, the United States has the 

most complex tax system in the world. In many ways, the tax code is designed to 

strengthen our economy by its incentives such as encouraging small businesses to 

thrive by raising expensing limitations, and helping those who have decided to return to school through education tax credits. 

In other ways, however, because of its inherent complexity, the tax code is difficult for Americans to understand. We have a whole industry of professionals for 

hire to help you file your returns. Some people have used this complexity to their 

advantage and cheated the system. Others—which I believe make up the majority 

of taxpayers—are trying to do the right thing but may fail to accurately file a return 

and what deductions or credits they are eligible or ineligible to claim. 

Today we are here to talk about several important issues relating to the transparency of our tax system. Increased transparency means better data, recordkeeping 

and reporting about uncollected taxes. You cannot treat a disease until you diagnose 

it. 

The gap between revenues that should have been collected and those that actually 

were is known as the ‘‘tax gap.’’ According to the Internal Revenue Service’s most 

recent estimate, the tax gap was $345 billion for tax year 2001. Everyone wants the 

tax gap closed—we can’t afford it with a $550 billion deficit—we are mortgaging our 

children’s future. If we closed it today, we would eliminate the deficit in less than 

two years. We don’t know the size of, scope of, and reasons for the problem. Either 

the IRS must find a way to develop a more precise picture of where money is being 

lost; or Congress better get moving on fundamentally revamping the tax code. 

I believe the biggest rate limiting step here is uncovering motive. IRS can’t distinguish who is intentionally evading paying taxes versus those who unintentionally 

underreport or misreport their taxes. The ‘‘fix’’ we invest in is entirely dependent 

upon knowing how much of our problem is intentional—that is an enforcement problem—, and how much is unintentional, where the solution is education and simplification. 

One proposed solution is to require securities brokerage firms or mutual finds to 

track and report the adjusted basis a taxpayer has in his or her stock, bond, and 

mutual find investments to both the IRS and the taxpayer. Some have suggested 

this could save as much as $25 billion a year; IRS estimates it could save around 

$8 billion annually. Some argue it’s too burdensome on industry, but others say 

many firms already have this information, and reporting it to the IRS wouldn’t be 

too hard. I’m eager to discuss the idea more with our witnesses. 

Last October, IRS reported before this Subcommittee that it had estimated the 

tax gap to be somewhere within the range of $311 and $353 billion for the 2001 

tax year. Unfortunately, last October, 4-year old data was the most recent data we 

3

had. Today, revised four-year old data is the most recent we have. In 2006, IRS 

came out with its revised estimate, which put a price tag on the 2001 tax year to 

be $345 billion. Until this morning, the IRS had no plan to regularly measure compliance. 

The IRS hopes to eventually recover $55 billion in late payments and taxes, bringing the net tax gap down to $290 billion for tax year 2001, but the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) questioned this figure. The IG says 

that because IRS currently does not correlate either type of payment to the applicable tax year, IRS will be unable to determine whether the $55 billion is ever collected. How can we insure that $55 billion will be collected against the 2001 tax 

gap if we don’t assign money as it comes in to its applicable tax year? 

The IRS balances its approach to tax gap reduction by focusing on both prevention—that is, improving taxpayer services—and enforcement after the fact. I am not 

convinced that this is as thorough a plan as a $345 billion tax gap deserves. At our 

last hearing we learned that there are no official long-term compliance goals driving 

IRS’ efforts, other than to continue to serve taxpayers and enforce the tax ode 

through audits and examinations. There has been ample pressure by Congress on 

the IRS to make a plan to close the tax gap, yet there is still no clear plan. While 

tax reform may be on the horizon, we still must be good stewards of our existing 

resources under our existing tax regime, as oppressive as it might be. 

I am encouraged that the IRS has taken Congress’ oversight seriously and is planning a strategic approach to reducing the tax gap, including plans to regularly 

measure compliance. I am even more pleased that the Treasury Department is 

studying the report of the President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform and is considering options for simplification of the tax system. 

Another issue we are here to discuss today is the transparency of tax preferences. 

As we go forward to make more information public on the categories and amounts 

of tax deductions benefiting certain types of filers, we need to obey important privacy laws. 

We have a lot to cover today, so I think you all ahead of time for your patience. 

I want to thank our witnesses for their time and preparation, and thank Senator 

Carper and Senator Lautenberg for their help in pushing for this hearing.

Senator COBURN. So, with that, I will turn to Senator Akaka for 

hisopening statement, and we will proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today’s 

hearing. It is a very important hearing. We are joined today by several panels of distinguished witnesses, which includes Internal 

Revenue Service Commissioner Everson and the National Taxpayer 

Advocate, Nina Olson, who has been a tireless advocate for taxpayers’ rights. 

The tax gap is even more important than ever because of the 

need to shrink our deficit. I have long been concerned about the reduction in taxpayer services provided by the IRS. Helping taxpayers who want assistance in filing their taxes correctly will help 

reduce this tax gap. 

In fiscal year 2003, according to data from the Wage and Investment Operating Division, the IRS prepared 665,868 returns. However, the IRS has reduced the number of prepared returns each 

year. Plans for fiscal year 2006 indicate that only 305,000 returns 

will be prepared by the IRS. This is a reduction of more than 50 

percent in 3 years. 

In my home State of Hawaii, I have seen the effects of the reduction. For years, the IRS and Hawaii State Department of Taxation 

had made it an annual practice to help prepare returns on the island of Molokai. They typically help more than 100 taxpayers within 2 days. This service has been extremely helpful because there 

has been only one individual that provides paid tax preparation on 

the entire island. Then a few years ago, the IRS ended its particiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:59 Sep 20, 2007 Jkt 030601 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\30601.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
4

pation in the partnership. AARP stepped in to help out for a year, 

and thankfully, the IRS again took part in the program this past 

filing season. However, it is uncertain whether the IRS will help 

out Molokai taxpayers for the upcoming filing season. In addition, 

the Hawaii Taxpayer Advocate’s Office has seen a significant increase in the number of people seeking help with their tax questions because they have been unable to get the answers or assistance that they need from the IRS. 

Due to the complex nature of the Tax Code and the importance 

of voluntary compliance in helping reduce the tax gap, we must 

make sure that the IRS has the resources to provide assistance to 

those that seek out help. Reducing these services may result in a 

larger tax gap. 

Mr. Chairman, I am also disappointed by the often poor quality 

of paid tax preparation services. Errors made by paid tax preparers 

contribute to this tax gap, too. Senator Bingaman and I have been 

advocates of legislate to regulate tax preparers for many years. I 

appreciated the contributions to this issue from Senators Grassley 

and Baucus, and I remember hopeful that one day we will be able 

to pass the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Provisions found in 

the Finance Committee-approved Telephone Excise Tax Repeal and 

the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2006. This bill 

would also expand access to free tax preparation services for lowincome taxpayers. 

In addition, the legislation includes the Free Internet Filing Act, 

which will empower individual taxpayers to file their taxes electronically through the IRS website without the use of an intermediary or with the use of an intermediary with which the IRS 

contracts to provide free universal access. If taxpayers take the 

time necessary to prepare their own returns, they must be provided 

with the option of electronically filing directly with the IRS. 

As the National Taxpayer Advocate has stated, nearly 45 million 

returns prepared using software are mailed in rather than electronically filed. With universal access to free e-file, this number 

could be substantially reduced. Electronic returns help taxpayers 

receive their refunds faster. This would also save the IRS resources 

and reduce possible errors that can occur when mailed-in returns 

are transcribed. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a thorough discussion of these 

issues as part of today’s hearing on the tax gap, and I thank the 

witnesses for appearing this afternoon. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator Akaka, and publicly to acknowledge your victory this past week, we congratulate you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. I want to join in that congratulations. I am 

happy for you, happy for the folks of Hawaii, at least thus far, and 

really happy for us. Congratulations. I realize there is another election to come, and we wish you well there as well. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been looking forward 

to this day. I understand some of our friends on another committee 

5

have written to us to remind us of their jurisdiction on legislative 

issues on tax matters, and we appreciate that. 

Senator COBURN. Let me just interrupt. Federal financial management is unlimited when it comes to either receiving dollars or 

spending dollars, and we are not going to limit our inquiry into 

waste, fraud, abuse, or inefficiency. 

Senator CARPER. Good. I could not have said it better myself. 

As we all know, each year the amount of money that is paid into 

the Treasury is a good deal less than what is owed. I have a statement I am going to enter for the record, but I think in February 

this year, the IRS estimated there was about $345 billion that was 

due from last year, and after money came in, we ended up with 

still about $290 billion less than what we should have had. That 

is, I think, actually more than the projected deficit for the current 

fiscal year. 

Our goal ought to be to collect as much of these owed tax revenues as possible without unduly burdening those taxpayers who 

are doing their dead level best to comply with the law, which I believe is really the vast majority of taxpayers of our country. 

I was with a group of people yesterday and said, ‘‘How many are 

paying your taxes?’’ Most people raised their hand. And I said, ‘‘I 

do not know about you, but it frustrates me that for those of us 

who actually pay what we are supposed to pay to know that a lot 

of people are not.’’ And that is up to about $300 billion, and that 

is really the size of the deficit. I think people were ‘‘enraged’’ is 

probably not too mild a word to use or too strong a word to use. 

However, for any number of reasons—the complexity of the Tax 

Code, which is a problem, haphazard record keeping, math errors—

some taxpayers unintentionally make mistakes when completing 

their tax returns. We have probably all done that at one time or 

the other. 

But, on the other hand, some taxpayers knowingly cut corners, 

and I hope to be able to ask our Commissioner in a couple of minutes to what extent the IRS can separate these folks, the tax evaders, from those who make honest mistakes. That information would 

allow for even better targeting of what had been limited enforcement resources, at least until lately. 

The Chairman and I agree that what we need to do is a better 

job of collecting the tax dollars that are owed to the Federal Government, the same way that we agree on the importance of reducing the number and amount of improper payments. 

I think we have had two hearings, Mr. Chairman, in this Subcommittee to examine the fact that Federal agencies are making 

about $45 billion each year in improper payments. I think that is 

a net number. We learned from these hearings that about $45 billion likely is just the tip of the iceberg. I think what we have heard 

is that the Department of Defense’s financial systems are in such 

disarray that we do not even know what the improper payments 

are. And my guess is there are some overpayments included among 

them. 

But like improper payments, then we are probably pretty far 

from knowing everything we ought to know about the extent of the 

tax gap in this country. In all likelihood, that gap may actually be 

larger than $345 billion. 

6

While we may not know the exact size of the tax gap, we do 

know the impact of not better managing our country’s finances. We 

know that every dollar wasted on erroneous or fraudulent payments means there is one more dollar we will not have that we will 

have to borrow from China or South Korea or Japan or Great Britain or someplace else. And the same holds true with uncollected 

taxes. Every dollar owed to the Treasury that goes uncollected is 

being replaced by a dollar from somewhere else, whether it is a 

borrowed dollar or a new tax dollar that is levied on a family or 

small business in my State or your State or in Hawaii or some 

other place. 

I am pleased that Commissioner Everson is here with us today, 

and I commend him for the attention I know he has provided to 

this tax gap issue. Your acknowledgment of the importance of this 

issue and your commitment to doing something about it is both 

necessary and important, and we applaud you for that. 

But to achieve our goal of collecting every dollar that reasonably 

can be collected, we are going to need a comprehensive plan for 

success, a plan that serves as a tax gap road map to this and future Administrations and Congress. Having a plan like that helped 

us in Delaware when I was privileged to be the governor of our 

State, and my team and I set out to turn around a State Division 

of Revenue that just was not getting the job done in some areas. 

I need to offer that the work was begun before our Administration, 

and I think we took it to the next level. 

But after years of hard work that included the Administration of 

my predecessor, Mike Castle, and the DuPont administration before that, we succeeded in bringing collections of delinquent taxes 

up to record highs. 

I love to tell this story, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief. 

We have a quality award every year in Delaware, and we honor a 

business that—it is like a miniature version of the national quality 

awards. It is named in honor of a guy named Bill Gore who started 

WL Gore company, Gore-Tex, and a lot of other projects. And given 

their commitment to quality, we named it after him. One year it 

could be this company, another company next, or maybe a non-profit, an occasional non-profit. 

I think it was my last year as governor or the year after I left, 

the winner of the quality award that year was the Delaware Division of Revenue, and their job performance and their customer satisfaction numbers were in the 80s. The idea that the tax collector 

would win the quality award and have that kind of customer approval was really pretty amazing. And what we would like to someday be able to—for Commissioner Everson, and the folks that he 

leads, for you guys to win the national quality award and take on 

at the national scale what we were able to do on a small scale in 

our little State. 

But while Delaware’s budget is only a fraction of the Federal 

budget, I am concerned that some of what we did there and much 

of what is being done in other States to identify problems, to fix 

them, to improve collections and customer satisfaction at this same 

time could be replicated, at least in part, at the Federal level. We 

want to help you to do that. 

7

Thank you very much for coming today, Mr. Chairman. We look 

forward to hearing from you and all of our other witnesses. Thanks 

a lot. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. Welcome to our witnesses. 

Each year, the amount of tax that is paid voluntarily and on a timely basis does 

not match the amount of tax owed by taxpayers for that year. The difference between these two amounts is referred to as the ‘‘tax gap.’’

In February of this year, the IRS estimated that the tax gap was a gross $345 

billion and a net $290 billion in Tax Year 2001, an amount larger than the projected 

deficit for the current fiscal year. 

Our goal should be to collect as much of these owed tax revenues as possible without unduly burdening those taxpayers who are doing their level-best to comply with 

the law, which, I believe is the vast majority of taxpayers in this country. 

However, for any numbers of reasons—the complexity of the tax code, haphazard 

recordkeeping, math errors—some taxpayers unintentionally make mistakes when 

completing their tax returns. 

On the other hand, some taxpayers are knowingly cutting corners. I hope to ask 

the commissioner in a few minutes to what extent the IRS can separate those 

folks—the tax evaders—from those who make honest mistakes. That information 

would allow for even better targeting of what have been limited enforcement resources. 

The Chairman and I agree that we need to do a better job of collecting the tax 

dollars that are owed the Federal Government, the same way that we agree on the 

importance of reducing the number and amount of improper payments. 

We’ve had two hearings in this Subcommittee to examine the fact that Federal 

agencies are making about $45 billion each year in improper payments each year. 

We learned in those hearings that the $45 billion figure is likely just the tip of the 

iceberg. 

Like with improper payments, then, we’re probably pretty far from truly knowing 

everything we should know about the extent of the tax gap in this country. In all 

likelihood, the tax gap is larger than $345 billion. 

While we may not know the exact size of the tax gap, we do know the impact 

of not better managing our country’s finances. We know that every dollar wasted 

on erroneous or fraudulent payments means there’s one more dollar we will have 

to borrow from China or Japan or Great Britain. 

The same holds true with uncollected taxes. Every dollar owed to the Treasury 

that goes uncollected is being replaced by a dollar from somewhere else whether it’s 

a borrowed dollar or a new tax dollar that’s levied on a family or a small business 

in Delaware or Oklahoma. 

I’m pleased that Commissioner Everson is here with us today and I commend him 

for the attention he has paid to the tax gap issue. Your acknowledgement of the 

importance of this issue and your commitment to doing something about it are necessary and important steps toward the greater goal. 

But, to achieve our goal of collecting every dollar that reasonably can be collected, 

we’re going to need a comprehensive plan for success, a plan that serves as a tax 

gap roadmap to this and future administrations and Congress. 

Having a plan helped us in Delaware. When I was Governor of Delaware, my 

team and I set out to turn around a State Division of Revenue that just wasn’t getting the job done in some areas. After years of hard work, we succeeded in bringing 

the collection of delinquent taxes up to record highs. 

While Delaware’s budget is only a fraction of the Federal budget. I’m certain that 

some of what we did there and much of what’s being done in other States to identify 

problems, fix them, and improve collections and customer satisfaction at the same 

time could be replicated at least in part at the Federal level. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for focusing our attention on this issue.

Sentor COBURN. Thanks you, Senator Carper. 

Our first panel is Commissioner Mark Everson. He is the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Prior to his time at the 

IRS, he was Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget, where he provided governmentwide leaderVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:59 Sep 20, 2007 Jkt 030601 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\30601.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8

1The prepared statement of Mr. Everson appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

ship to Executive Branch agencies to strengthen Federal financial 

management and improve program enforcement. 

Commissioner Everson, first of all, let me thank you for your 

service to our country. You could do something else at a higher salary, and we appreciate it. Too often it is not recognized. The floor 

is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARK EVERSON,1 COMMISSIONER, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 

Mr. EVERSON. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, Senator Akaka. I am pleased to be before your Subcommittee once again to discuss our efforts to increase taxpayer 

compliance and reduce the tax gap. I very much appreciate the continuing interest of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in our work. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the efforts 

of this Subcommittee to bring greater transparency and accountability to government. As you know, as you indicated, that was central to what we tried to do in my OMB days, and I know that Clay 

Johnson, my successor, is doing that and working with you now. 

I am also deeply appreciative of the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, also a part of this Committee, led by 

Senators Coleman and Levin, which has been instrumental in our 

efforts to strengthen enforcement of the tax laws. Before making 

several points on today’s subject, please indulge me as I make my 

regular plea for adequate resources for the IRS. As you may know, 

the House has cut the President’s funding request for the IRS for 

fiscal year 2007, which begins next week, by over $100 million. Action to date in the Senate has been more favorable, a little bit 

above the President’s request, although the bill has not yet gone to 

the floor. I ask once again for your strong support for this vital 

funding. We will put the money to good use. 

Concerning today’s subject, I would like to make two points before taking your questions: First, a comment or two on our operations for the fiscal year ending this week; and, second, brief remarks on the summary administration plan to reduce the tax gap, 

which was forwarded earlier today to the Finance Committee by 

the Treasury Department. We have delivered an excellent operational year for 2006, both on the services side and in our enforcement activities. We have also made significant strides in modernizing the IRS. 

We had an excellent filing season, maintaining levels of telephone service and, again, improving the accuracy of our responses 

in both accounts and tax law. The number of individual returns 

filed electronically has again increased, as has the number of returns processed by volunteers in partnership with the IRS. That is 

the program Senator Akaka was talking about, which has replaced 

a lot of the reduction in our preparation of returns. It has gone 

over the last few years from 1.1 million returns prepared by VITA 

volunteers up to over 2.2 million. 

In terms of enforcement, although I, of course, do not yet have 

the final numbers, we project that enforcement revenue—and that 

is the money that comes in from our collections activities, our docuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:59 Sep 20, 2007 Jkt 030601 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\30601.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9

ment matching, and our examinations—will exceed $49 billion as 

against $47.3 billion last year. You can see this growth over the 

last several years is quite significant. This, as I was indicating to 

the Chairman before we started, is only the direct result of our activities. It does not capture the indirect effect of the fact that when 

we audit, Dr. Coburn, Senator Carper and Senator Akaka play it 

maybe a little straighter, if you will indulge my example. 

In terms of modernization, we have had several successes. Our 

new system for updating the individual master file has processed 

almost 8 million returns and generated over $3 billion in refunds. 

But perhaps our most significant achievement this year is the successful launch of our initiative mandating electronic filing of returns by large corporations and not-for-profit institutions. Electronic filing of large corporate returns will significantly speed the 

audit process and allow us to use improved analytics to better target our enforcement activities. Compliant taxpayers will benefit 

from prompter resolution of uncertainties, and the government will 

benefit by identifying and addressing compliance problems at an 

earlier date. 

This morning, the Treasury Department delivered to the Finance 

Committee an outline of the Administration’s strategy for addressing the tax gap. The strategy builds on efforts that the Treasury 

Department and the IRS have taken over the last several years to 

improve compliance. It focuses on seven areas: Legislative proposals for reducing evasion opportunities follow on existing proposals made in the 2007 budget; a commitment to research; further 

improvement in information technology; strengthened enforcement 

programs; enhanced services to taxpayers; reform and simplification of the tax law—the point you made, Mr. Chairman—and partnership with practitioners and other stakeholder groups. The document is intended to provide a broad base on which to build. More 

detailed steps are being developed as part of the 2008 budget to be 

delivered to Congress next February. 

I know that the need to reduce the tax gap is well understood 

and supported both by my boss, Secretary Paulson, and OMB Director Robert Portman. I think that the strategy delivered today is 

an important step forward. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Let me ask you, would you outline 

for us this new strategy for the tax gap? I am a big believer in 

transparency and results and accountability, and what you cannot 

measure you cannot manage. And it is my understanding that 

some of this new program is to put into place key metrics so you 

can know what the problem is. 

Mr. EVERSON. Yes, sir. I agree, first of all, entirely with your assessment that you need to measure your progress and see how you 

are doing. This particularly comes into play in the research area. 

It is something we talked about last October when we were talking 

about the tax gap research at the time before it was finalized. 

What we are going to be doing here is definitely giving a sharper 

focus on research. We want to update as an example the 2001 

study to which Senator Carper referred. We are currently working 

on 1120S returns, but we want to circle back and do more work on 

individuals and look at not just the enforcement issues, but also 

10

1The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 48. 

what was referenced in terms of the impact on service delivery 

channels. 

So part of that effort over the coming months is to return the targets that would be associated with each of these seven areas, and 

they cover a broad range of topics. Some of these are difficult to 

quantify—the impact of new systems, as you can imagine, what are 

you going to get for those, just updating the infrastructure. But we 

are going to do our level best wherever we can to have hard and 

set goals. 

What I would ask you, to the Senate and to the House, though, 

is that clearly we are helped in defining reasonable goals if there 

is stability in the system. All the constant changes to the system 

make it very hard to neutralize the effects of the moving parts and 

to understand what is really happening. So the degree to which we 

can calm down the Tax Code, that would help. 

Senator COBURN. One of the questions as you go forward and 

looking at this and re-looking at—and having the measurement of 

the tax gap is this idea that you cannot attribute what you collected to past years in terms of the tax gap. Why can’t we? If the 

tax gap is $348 billion and you are going to collect $52 billion, but 

you do not know if that was for 2001 or for 2000 or 1999 or 1998, 

why can’t we have a metric that applies that so that you can actually eventually measure what you are doing? 

In other words, the application of collected monies against the 

tax gap, why can’t you apply those in the year in which they were 

a gap rather than against the year that you see the gap? 

Mr. EVERSON. If I understand your question, I think we do that. 

What we said with the study was that there was a gross gap of 

$345 billion for tax year 2001, and that over time we expected, 

based on that study and other things that we knew, to get back $55 

billion. 

Now, if you would put that chart back up 1—there are two ways 

we are going to get after this problem, sir. We are going to bring 

down that gross number through better compliance up front, and 

then we are also going to be bringing up the reduction number. 

We have already done that to a certain degree because through 

better collections and more examinations, that $55 billion number, 

if you took that on a steady state year after year, would already 

have increased because of this piece. Because there are two components in the $55 billion: There is our enforcement efforts, and then 

there is the money that just comes in over time because you strike 

an arrangement with us for payment over time or you just paid 

late. 

Senator COBURN. OK. My key point is that of that $49 billion enforcement revenue, how much of it was due this year, in 2005’s returns, versus how much was due in 2000 versus——

Mr. EVERSON. Yes, you have to spread that out. We would have 

to analyze that for you. 

Senator COBURN. But my point is if you are ever going to measure performance against the tax gap, here is the gross tax gap, 

here is what we are doing against it, if you do not do it against 

11

the year in which it was supposedly owed, you are not going to 

have an adequate metric. 

Mr. EVERSON. I agree with that. 

Senator COBURN. All right. What percentage of individual returns now are filed electronically? 

Mr. EVERSON. This year, it is in excess of 50—about 54-pointsomething percent. 

Senator COBURN. Fifty-four percent. 

Mr. EVERSON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. And do you foresee that is going to grow? 

Mr. EVERSON. That I believe will continue to grow, yes, sir. Now, 

there was a mandate to bring that up to 80 percent. It was, I think 

most observers would suggest, rather arbitrary when it was set. I 

think it had a very beneficial impact, though, on the whole system 

because the organization and others have pushed towards that. 

We are a champion of electronic filing. I think that obviously it 

is better for the system, better for the government, and certainly 

better for individuals as well. 

Senator COBURN. So one other point that you made was that if 

we keep changing the Tax Code, that makes enforcement even 

more difficult, both in terms of your ability to measure and institute the changes on the enforcement side, but also for those that 

inadvertently file wrong because the law has been changed. 

Mr. EVERSON. I think that is absolutely true. It goes hand in 

hand with complexity. When I talked with the tax reform panel, 

which was referenced earlier, back in March of last year, they 

asked me what were the areas you could work on if you just took 

an incremental approach. Look at all the credits you get for education and things like that. There is just so many different overlapping kinds of programs. It is very hard to know what to do if you 

are an individual. As was indicated, the practitioners see things 

slightly differently, depending on the fact circumstances. Simplification would help both the taxpayer and the government, sir. 

Senator COBURN. OK. We are going to have in one of our panels, 

we are going to be talking about tax expenditures today, both at 

my request and the request of Senator Lautenberg. How big of a 

problem do you see that one? How much does it complicate your 

job? The largest tax expenditure, by the way, is for health care in 

this country, and several others that most people would agree are 

socially good investments to create certain behaviors. How much of 

a difficulty is that? And how much of this is large versus how much 

of it is small? How much of it is very small in terms of both the 

numbers and the impact that have been written into the Tax Code 

as tax expenditures? And what kind of problems does that cause 

you? 

Mr. EVERSON. I think what you are getting into tax policy questions, really, as to how the Code is constructed and what our Nation chooses to subsidize. 

There can be enforcement ramifications on this. An example is 

we testified and wrote quite clearly that the manufacturing provisions in the Jobs Act were going to cause us great enforcement 

issues. So it gets down largely to this question of complexity, and 

that word over there, your first word, ‘‘transparency.’’ If things are 

12

not transparent, then any expenditure or any policy choice is just 

an awful lot harder for us to deal with. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the things we worked on in Delaware—and I am sure 

other States did, too—at the State level was to figure out what we 

could do to make sure that folks who had an obligation to the State 

of Delaware, a tax obligation, whether it was personal, corporate, 

or otherwise, that they met their obligation. And we would do that 

through our own employees within the Division of Revenue, and occasionally we would contract with a private form to do that work 

for us. 

We tried to be sensitive to the needs for protection of confidential 

information and to make sure that we did not simply ignore the 

needs of having State employees do the work within the Division 

of Revenue and to train them and give them the resources, technical and otherwise, that they needed. 

My recollection is that about 10 years ago there was an effort at 

the Federal level to use private sector resources for debt collection 

by the IRS. My recollection is it did not go well, and I know that 

the IRS is trying it again, trying to do it this time, but differently, 

to operate on the lessons that we learned from the misadventures 

of a decade ago. 

I would like for you to talk a bit about that, what we learned and 

what we are doing differently. I understand that the firms that you 

hired to do this work, get to keep anywhere from 21 to 24 cents 

out of a dollar. I understand that about 25 cents out of a dollar 

that they collect comes back to the IRS that you can use to hire 

more people to do the work, to have better technology to enable 

your folks, to empower your employees to do the work. And I want 

to make sure that 25 cents actually does come back through to the 

IRS and that you are able to increase your resources and improve 

your ability to collect taxes. 

Just talk a little bit about that whole thing, if you would. 

Mr. EVERSON. Sure. Certainly, sir. We have commenced with 

that program. Earlier this month, we sent forward about 11,500 

cases to the contractors. Already we have received in, I am told, 

over half a million dollars in cash thus far from 250-some-odd taxpayers. These are cases that we would not be working. For 4 years, 

we have not received the funding that we have asked for from the 

Congress. The budget scoring rules, you would be throwing money 

at us if projecting an increase in our appropriated resources would 

also show an increase on the revenue side from the enforcement 

revenue and the indirect effect we get. 

So I have freely acknowledged, sir, that it is more costly, because 

of this percentage that the contractors would keep, than it would 

be were we to do this work ourselves. I would say to you, though, 

that even if you gave me more money to allocate within the IRS, 

I would not necessarily use it all on collections. We have to run a 

balanced program. That includes our work on charity and a host 

of things. 

Turning to the substance of what happened in 1996 versus now, 

you are entirely correct; I do not think that program was well run. 

We were not, as I would say, deliberate in our case selection to 

13

make sure that we were giving the contractors cases with a reasonable prospect of collection. We have been pretty careful there this 

time. We are working very—we have had, as you can imagine, 

some start-up issues, but we are very closely monitoring what they 

are doing, making sure that they are following the law and that 

they protect taxpayer privacy and rights. And thus far I think it 

is off to a good start. 

So we are going to monitor it. I know you will hear from Mr. 

George afterwards. He is the Inspector General. He is all over this, 

and we are very accountable, I would say to you, on this program. 

But I am cautiously optimistic that it is going to supplement and 

bring in more money and help us. But if there are any warts or 

problems with it, we are going to be very transparent about it and 

make whatever adjustments we have to do. 

Senator CARPER. Good. It is important to me—I cannot speak for 

the Subcommittee, but it is certainly important to me that the 25 

cents out of that dollar that we are talking about that comes back 

to the IRS is—that we know how you are spending it. 

Mr. EVERSON. Yes, I neglected to mention that, but this will be 

good for us in terms of building our infrastructure and making sure 

that we are addressing the collection issues. 

I want to mention one thing. We actually did get an award, Senator. We got Points of Light Foundation Award. 

Senator CARPER. Was it the Delaware quality award? 

Mr. EVERSON. No, it was not, but we got the Points of Light 

Foundation Award, the first time a government agency got that 

award, a year or two ago for this volunteer program, the partnership we have. Our partnership organization works with others to 

get support for our activities. So we are not totally in the doghouse 

on this. 

Senator CARPER. We want to make sure you earn some more 

awards as well. Well, let’s stay in touch on this, and we will see 

how it goes. 

I want to talk a little bit about the capital gains tax gap, and 

we are going to have a witness or two later on to explore that with. 

The Chairman and I have been working a little on it with Senator 

Evan Bayh. 

Mr. EVERSON. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. He has championed legislation, along with some 

others, to try to make sure that the tax gap that exists with respect 

to capital gains is somehow narrowed. 

Any idea what that capital gains tax gap might be these days? 

Mr. EVERSON. The number that I recall is something more than 

$10 billion for 2001, which 2001 might have been a difficult—you 

have got to go back and say what year are you measuring, and if 

you recall, the markets reached a peak in 2000, so maybe that is 

hard to know at any one time whether that is a good number or 

a bad number. 

As a general rule, if you will indulge me for a second, where we 

have visibility as to data or facts, compliance is very high. Wage 

reporting, the non-compliance on wages is about 1 percent. You are 

not going to cheat on how much money you make as a Senator. We 

know that. 

Senator CARPER. You do? 

14

Mr. EVERSON. Yes. If you are going to—despite the rumor, there 

is some cooperation between the Executive and Legislative 

Branches, and you send over that material to us. But if you look 

at wage reporting, there is no problem on that. We know what 

wage earners make. 

If, on the other hand, where there is little or no information reporting, non-compliance is much more dramatic. This gets back 

into that component of the tax gap map we talked about last year, 

where underreported business income for small businesses is 50 

percent. 

Senator CARPER. Fifty percent. 

Mr. EVERSON. Now, we have made some proposals in the 2007 

budget, one of which is a modest but, I think, important proposal, 

to get credit card reporting on gross receipts. That is a starting 

point. We have one of our five legislative proposals enacted earlier 

this year. It actually reflects the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the hearings we have had on contractors, Federal contractors. 

We will look at the proposal you are referencing. It is just the 

kind of thing we are looking at now as one of the issues that I mentioned in terms of the legislative proposals to address non-compliance. So that is in the hopper. 

What I really would counsel you is if the Congress could make 

a downpayment by getting that credit card reporting proposal done, 

it would really show that there is a stomach to do some of these 

tough things. Because anytime you do one of these, you very much 

find that out of the woodwork come a lot of people who say we do 

not want to do something like that. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. My time has expired. Are we going 

to have another round here? 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Great. Thanks. 

Senator COBURN. A couple of things. First of all, in terms of capital gain reporting, every brokerage firm I know right now has to 

report a Form 1099 on dividends, has to report a Form 1099 on interest. Correct? 

Mr. EVERSON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. And they have the data on capital gains. And 

if they do not have the data, they can put zero, and so the gain 

is the total thing, and it is up to the taxpayer to prove what their 

basis is. 

Mr. EVERSON. Let me respond to that. People change brokerage 

accounts, and the basis needs to shift over. I think that, clearly, 

going forward you could establish this on a going-forward basis. 

I am somewhat sympathetic to the complexity going back with 

splits and everything else and changes of accounts. It would just 

take a while to get it fully——

Senator COBURN. Yes. I am not sympathetic at all. I have to do 

it every year for my taxes, and if it was split I have to figure it 

out. And the fact is that the onus is on the taxpayer to report their 

basis. 

Mr. EVERSON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. The onus is not on the IRS to prove their basis. 

And so I think what Senator Bayh is on is great. It will not require 

15

significant equipment. It is one other slip for each account based 

on capital gains, and I think it is something we should do, and I 

think that we are going to have testimony that is, at a minimum, 

$25 billion, not $10 billion. 

I want to go back to the tax gap for a minute because we are 

going to have testimony from your own IG that suggests that this 

tax gap is larger than what we are reporting. Why do you think 

they think that? 

Mr. EVERSON. Well, there is growth in the economy. I think we 

did a good job of updating and estimating the gap for the individuals. We did not look at the underreporting gap as to corporations. 

That is the principal area. 

Now, I say that knowing that is a very hard thing to get because 

of the nature of the population, and the blunt reality is I would not 

allocate more resources into that corporate—the box there with the 

$30 billion. I have said maybe it was understated by a factor of 

half—I would not be allocating more resources into that than what 

I was already doing within the range of resources that I was getting. 

Again, we have given very high priority to high-income individuals where we have doubled the number of audits over the last several years, and we have brought back the corporate work, very 

much so. I think we are seeing some positive effects on that. 

So, to me, the real importance of the study is to get the update 

and make the allocation decisions, to use it to make the sensible 

decisions on what lines you are looking at on the return. 

Senator COBURN. Where do you get the greatest return for your 

investment in assets? 

Mr. EVERSON. Well, right now it is right over in individual, and 

if we go to the chart, the detail on the visibility, that shows some 

$68 billion based on that study, that is the underreporting of income by individuals and it is unincorporated businesses. So, clearly, I think we have made some headway on high-income individuals, and we have made some headway on—this just shows that 

out of that—remember the chart that showed the $110 billion 

where you had low visibility? This just analyzes that and says you 

have $68 billion on Schedule C income. That is an individual who 

has a business that they are running and they are not incorporated. That means we are understating that income. 

So, clearly, there is a lot of money to go after there. We would 

be strengthening our oversight in that area, I would say is one of 

the first things we would be doing. 

Senator COBURN. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. If I may, I want to go back to the legislation 

that Senator Bayh has introduced and we have cosponsored. I 

think it is called the SMART Act. If you would, give us some of 

your thoughts on the proposal to the extent that you are familiar 

with it. I just would like to hear more about how you feel about 

it. 

Mr. EVERSON. Again, I think that we were accused of being rather too modest in the five proposals we put forth in the 2007 budget. 

But I can only tell you the storm of criticism we got, particularly 

from the small business community, as to the additional burden we 

16

seemed to be creating. I believe that what we have done is we have 

tried to be very targeted so that we do not increase burden. 

As an example, I am not proposing additional withholding. The 

Administration is not going there. Some have suggested that. So 

what we do want to do is craft proposals that can be dealt with, 

with the least amount of burden. I agree with the Chairman that 

the big companies who are handling these brokerage outfits are 

much better able to make that kind of an adjustment. 

So we are actively looking at that proposal. We are working with 

OMB, the Treasury, and the IRS. We have a group that is refining 

our proposals now. That is why the plan, the outline of the plan 

that we sent up to the Finance Committee today does not have all 

the details yet, because they are part of the budget process, both 

as to the funding of our IT and enforcement activities and, very importantly, the legislative proposals. What you have there, what you 

are championing is under active consideration, and I will carry 

back your support for it. 

Senator CARPER. Good, thanks. One more question. I understand 

you said before that the IRS could close the tax gap by an additional $100 billion without unduly burdening taxpayers. And you 

talked a little bit about this today, but, generally speaking, what 

kind of things need to be done to bring in that $100 billion? And 

what kind of burdensome measures do you think would be needed 

to go beyond that $100 billion figure? Feel free to repeat some 

things, reinforce some things you have already said, but add anything else to that that you wish. 

Mr. EVERSON. Sure. The remark that I made earlier this year 

was that I believe from the starting point of 2001, that $345 billion 

versus $290 billion, that you could close $50 to $100 billion through 

a combination of measures—and I think those measures are largely 

reflected in the document we sent forward today. They include 

more enforcement. They include legislative solutions with more reporting, a more efficient IRS through a better infrastructure—a 

whole series of things that would not fundamentally alter the relationship between the government and the taxpayer. I think they 

would address this issue of confusion. Simplification would be in 

there, all the things that we point to in that seven-point proposal. 

What I do get concerned about is sometimes people will throw 

around the idea that, well, you can just close this tax gap and then 

the deficit is gone and we can all be happy campers. I do believe 

there gets to be a point—I am not sure where that is. 

Senator COBURN. Diminishing returns. 

Mr. EVERSON. Diminishing returns, where you are really adding 

a lot of burden. That is one reason right at this stage I am not proposing more withholding. Withholding works. We have wage withholding. But I hesitate to ask for that. 

I would like to see us get that $50 to $100 billion first and assess 

as we go, do as the Chairman suggested, get more research to get 

a better fix on an ongoing basis of the progress we are making. I 

have my Director of Research here. If you would nod and say, 

‘‘Amen,’’ it would be useful for me. I am pressing him to get regular 

updates, not just these big projects every 4 or 5 years. 

17

1The prepared statement of Mr. George appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

I would like to answer that question in probably more detail a 

few years down the road once we have already captured the $50 

or $100 billion. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I would just observe, before closing here, 

Mr. Chairman, if we could collect even half of the $300 billion, the 

tax gap, and if we could just reduce the improper payments or 

overpayments by about half, that would be another $25 billion, put 

them together and that is $175 billion. And that is certainly a bit 

more than the operating deficit we are going to face this year. 

As we look forward to the coming decade as the boomers, our 

generation—I think it is our generation—start to——

Senator COBURN. You are a lot older than I am, Senator. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. When they start to retire and we know what 

impact, potential impact that is going to have on the Treasury with 

Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, we are going to need all 

the help that we can get if we are going to avoid piling on that debt 

on our kids and grandchildren. So this is important stuff. 

I just want to say to you, Mr. Commissioner, and to your team 

that you lead, all the way to the rank-and-file folks that you lead, 

the work that you are doing is real important. We appreciate the 

efforts that are going on, on the part of everybody, including the 

people that work in our States and your offices in our States as 

well. 

Mr. EVERSON. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. I would echo Senator Carper’s comments, and 

I would also note that this Subcommittee has found in excess of 

$100 billion in fraud—$100 billion in fraud—and that is looking at 

less than 40 percent of the Federal Government. So if you took half 

the tax gap, half the improper payments, and half of the fraud, we 

could have the Chinese borrowing from us rather than us borrowing from them. 

Thank you, Commissioner. 

Senator COBURN. Our next panel, first is Russell George. He is 

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration where he 

has served for 2 years. Prior to this time, Mr. George served as Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community 

Service. 

With him also is Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, 

where she serves as an advocate for taxpayers to the IRS and Congress. 

And Jay Soled is Professor of Taxation at Rutgers University and 

practices law at the firm of Pfizer and Soled. 

Welcome to you all. Inspector General George, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. J. RUSSELL GEORGE,1 TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION (TIGTA), DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

18

Chairman Coburn, Ranking Member Carper, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the tax gap and opportunities for closing it. 

In 2006, the IRS updated its estimate of the tax gap based on 

data from the 2001 tax year. The updated information on individuals is a significant improvement because individuals comprise the 

largest segment of the tax gap. However, there is no new information about employment, corporate, and other taxpayer segments. 

With no firm plans to update the study of these segments, we will 

be left with an incomplete picture of both the tax gap and the current voluntary compliance rate. 

Senator COBURN. Could you suspend for just a minute? Is anybody still here from the IRS? OK. I just would like for one of them 

to hear what the Inspector General has to say. 

Mr. GEORGE. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Go ahead. 

Mr. GEORGE. Although we cannot be certain about the size of the 

tax gap, we do know that the three primary sources of it are underreporting, non-payment, and non-filing. 

Underreporting—which is estimated at $285 billion—is by far 

the largest portion and greatest challenge in closing the tax gap. 

Yet TIGTA concluded that even this estimate may not be complete 

because substantial amounts are not included in the tax gap projections. For example, the IRS tax gap projections describe the nonfiling estimate as reasonable, despite the missing segments of corporate income, employment, and excise taxes. The IRS does not 

have definite plans to update the estate tax segment or to estimate 

the corporate, employment, and excise tax non-filed segments, suggesting that the non-filer estimate is incomplete, and likely inaccurate. 

One recommendation that could significantly address the underreporting and non-filing segments of the tax gap involves thirdparty reporting. The IRS has estimated that compliance rates are 

as high as 96 percent when third-party reporting is involved. In 

contrast, self-employed individuals are estimated to report only 

about 68 percent of their income. Even more alarming, self-employed individuals operating on a cash basis report just 19 percent 

of their income. 

Three years ago, TIGTA recommended that the IRS initiate a 

proposal for a legislative change to mandate withholding on nonemployee compensation payments. Implementing such a provision 

could reduce the tax gap by billions of dollars. In addition, other 

actions should be taken to improve compliance among independent 

contractors. 

For example, improvement is needed to address inaccurate reporting of taxpayer identification numbers for independent contractors. For tax years 1995 through 1998, the IRS received about 9.6 

million statements for recipients of miscellaneous income—reporting approximately $204 billion in non-employee compensation that 

either did not contain a taxpayer identification number or it had 

a number that did not match the IRS’ records. 

Withholding could be mandated for independent contractors who 

fail to furnish a taxpayer identification number. Implementing 

mandated withholding for this segment of independent contractors 

19

1The prepared statement of Ms. Olson appears in the Appendix on page 90. 

could result in an estimated $2.2 billion in increased revenue each 

year. 

IRS compliance efforts are also limited by the lack of available 

information on the basis of investments, which could be used to 

verify investment gains or losses, as we discussed earlier. Such information reporting would allow the IRS to better focus its enforcement resources on non-compliant taxpayers. 

Although individual wage earners receive a wage and tax statement—the W–2 Form—have their wages verified through a matching program, a similar comprehensive matching program for business documents received by the IRS does not exist. TIGTA has recommended that the IRS evaluate all types of business documents 

it receives to determine whether this information can be used to 

improve business compliance. An IRS study, based on TIGTA commission, found that in fiscal year 2000, business information documents report $697 billion in potential taxable income. 

Last, investments made abroad by U.S. residents have nearly tri- pled in recent years, growing from $2.6 trillion in 1999 to $7.2 trillion in 2003. To address the tax compliance challenges presented 

by these investments, TIGTA has recommended that the IRS make 

better use of foreign-source income information received from tax 

treaty countries. 

In summary, it is unlikely that a massive change involuntary 

compliance can be achieved without significant changes to the tax 

system. Strategies have been identified to decrease the tax gap and 

improvements can be realized. However, the IRS faces formidable 

challenges in accurately estimating the tax gap and finding effective ways to increase compliance. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carper, I appreciate the opportunity to share 

my views on the tax gap and the work TIGTA has done in this 

area. I would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate 

time. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, General George. Ms. Olson. 

TESTIMONY OF NINA E. OLSON,1 NATIONAL TAXPAYER 

ADVOCATE 

Ms. OLSON. Mr. Chairman and Senator Carper, thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the causes of possible legislative and administrative solutions. At the outset let me suggest that 

the ultimate question we should be focused on is not how can we 

reduce the tax gap but, rather, how can we increase voluntary compliance. This is so because voluntary compliance, as opposed to enforced compliance, creates taxpayers who are willing to work with 

the tax system rather than taxpayers who hide from the tax system. Moreover, in the long run, voluntary compliance is the most 

cost-effective way to achieve lasting compliance. 

To determine how to allocate its resources most effectively to increase voluntary compliance, the IRS needs to do a better job of understanding the reasons why the tax gap exists. At the risk of oversimplifying matters, let me suggest that we consider three types of 

taxpayers: First, taxpayers who will go to great lengths to comply 

with whatever requirements exist; second, taxpayers who view 

20

taxes as one of many burdens they face in everyday life and who 

will comply only if doing so is straightforward and not time-consuming; and, third, taxpayers who will willfully seek to evade their 

tax obligations. 

What percentage of taxpayers fall into each of these categories? 

It is impossible to know with precision, but available data suggests 

that the majority of taxpayer errors are attributable to inadvertent 

error rather than intentional non-compliance. 

When IRS auditors conducted approximately 46,000 of individual 

taxpayers for purposes of the National Research Program, the auditors were asked for each issue they identified to characterize the 

reason for non-compliance. The results were striking. Among issues 

IRS auditors examined that resulted in a change in tax liability, 

the auditors listed 67 percent as inadvertent mistakes, 27 percent 

as computational errors, or errors that flowed automatically, and 

only 3 percent of errors as intentional. 

A recent GAO study on capital gains misreporting also suggests 

that deliberate cheating is responsible for significantly less than 

half of all reporting inaccuracies. We need to keep these data in 

mind as we craft our compliance strategies. Equally important, 

these data suggest the need for more refined research because 

classifying errors as either intentional or inadvertent does not get 

us very far. 

Consider, for example, a taxpayer who cannot determine the cost 

basis of a stock or mutual fund holding he sold during the year and 

who intentionally reports a number that he believes represents a 

good-faith estimate but is likely to be wrong. That sort of intentional error is very different and calls for a very different compliance response as compared with the taxpayer who deliberately 

underreports his income. 

In the next phase of the National Research Program, the IRS 

should seek to refine its determinations of the sources of non-compliance to enable it to develop a more refined and cost-effective 

compliance strategy. 

I remain concerned that the IRS is proceeding on a course that 

emphasizes stepped-up enforcement over stepped-up taxpayer service. It should not be a question of service or enforcement. The IRS 

should integrate taxpayer service within its enforcement activities. 

Particularly in light of its limited resources, the IRS should focus 

its enforcement activities not merely on collecting unpaid past due 

taxes, but on trying to bring taxpayers into compliance prospectively. 

The IRS could also do a better job of going where the money is, 

and that means the cash economy. The NRP data indicate that 

where taxable payments are reported to the IRS by third parties, 

reporting compliance comes to roughly 96 percent of the tax due. 

But where taxable payments are not reported to the IRS by third 

parties, reporting compliance drops below 50 percent. In my annual 

reports to Congress and in previous congressional testimony, I have 

offered numerous proposals to help the IRS to do a better job at 

combating the cash economy portion of the tax gap. Some of those 

proposals are summarized in the appendices at the end of my written statement, and I am not afraid to propose withholding, as some 

others are. 

21

1The prepared statement of Mr. Soled appears in the Appendix on page 126. 

Even though the IRS can do more to improve voluntary compliance, I do believe the compliance rate will not raise dramatically 

unless Congress passes legislation to make it easier for the IRS to 

detect non-compliance, primarily through expanded third-party information reporting or withholding. And I do want to call your attention to a recommendation in my annual report to Congress 

about expanding reporting for—requiring brokers to track the cost 

basis of stock and to make it easier for taxpayers who are self-employed to make estimated tax payments, improving the offer in 

compromise program, and strengthening standards in the tax return preparation industry. In addition, tax simplification would 

help enormously. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Ms. Olson. Mr. Soled. 

TESTIMONY OF JAY A. SOLED,1 PROFESSOR OF TAXATION, 

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SOLED. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Chairman, my name is 

Jay Soled. I am a tax professor at Rutgers University. I have written several papers on the issue of the capital gains tax gap. Thank 

you for inviting me to testify in favor of closing the capital gains 

tax gap and passage of the Simplification Through Additional Reporting Tax Act, aka the START Act. 

Before detailing the problem of the capital gains tax gap, I would 

like to take this opportunity to highlight several salient points that 

were and were not made by the GAO in a report it issued earlier 

this year entitled ‘‘Capital Gains Tax Gap.’’

First, what the GAO report stated is that for tax year 2001, an 

estimated 38 percent of individual taxpayers who had securities 

transactions failed to accurately report their capital gains or losses 

from these transactions. What the GAO report did not say is that 

if security ownership continues to expand is left unchecked, almost 

four out of every ten American taxpayers will submit income tax 

returns that are incorrect. 

Second, the GAO report stated that these mistakes cost the government over $11 billion annually. What the GAO report did not 

emphasize, however, is that this $11 billion figure relates to individual income tax returns. As such, it probably grossly understates 

the magnitude of the problem. If the GAO were to have expanded 

the scope of its investigation to include corporate and other taxpayers such as trusts and estates, the estimated revenue loss to the 

government could easily exceed $25 billion annually. 

Third, the GAO report stated that the IRS is virtually powerless 

to close the capital gains tax gap. Without trying to paint too bleak 

of a picture, what the GAO report was really trying to say is that 

even if the IRS could audit the tax return of every single American—pity that thought—the problem of the capital gains tax gap 

would remain largely intact. This is because most Americans lack 

accurate records and the ability to track the tax basis they have 

in their investments. 

Why is the problem of the capital gains tax gap so prevalent? Let 

me offer three of the most compelling reasons. 

22

Reason number one: Taxpayers are notoriously lax record keepers. When it comes to record keeping, few taxpayers would deserve 

Oscars for their efforts. 

Reason number two: Computation of an investment’s tax basis 

can be extraordinarily complex. Consider, for example, the plight of 

18 tea shareholders who, after a series of split-offs, mergers, and 

reverse stock splits, each now own stock in 11 different companies, 

each with its own independent tax basis. 

Reason number three: When it comes to third-party information 

returns, there is no tax basis reporting to the IRS. Prior studies indicate, however, that in the absence of information returns, taxpayers compliance plummets. 

The START Act offers hope to taxpayers and the government 

that tax basis misidentifications will be a problem of the past and 

that the capital gains tax gap will narrow. If enacted, the START 

Act would require that mutual fund companies and brokerage firms 

track the tax basis of their clients’ investments, and upon the triggering of a reporting event, such as a sale or other disposition, the 

mutual fund company or brokerage firm would, in addition to reporting the amount realized, also report the investment’s tax basis. 

Passage of the START Act would be a boon to taxpayers, the government, and even mutual fund companies and brokerage firms. 

Taxpayers would have easy access to critical tax basis information. 

Put slightly differently, every April 15 there would likely be far 

fewer shoe boxes that taxpayers would have to dust off to bring to 

their accountants. 

The most identifiable government benefit is that it could, over a 

10-year scoring period, collect up to an additional quarter of a trillion dollars of revenue. That number bears repetition. That is a 

quarter of a trillion dollars’ worth of tax revenue without increasing taxes. 

Insofar as mutual fund companies and brokerage firms are concerned, around tax season no longer would their employees who 

staff telephone and offices be besieged by clients who call or stop 

by to make tax basis inquiries. 

My biggest complaint with the START Act is that it does not go 

far enough. More comprehensive reforms such as tax basis simplification measures are probably required to narrow the capital 

gains tax gap even further. So, from my perspective, the START 

Act is just that: A starting point that should immediately be put 

into place. 

In closing, Senators, before you ask me any questions, please 

allow me to take this opportunity to ask a question of each of you. 

Do you know the tax basis you have in each of your investments? 

Assuming you do not, then you should recognize the importance of 

the START Act and the need for its immediate passage. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Soled, to answer your question, the answer 

is yes, I do. 

Mr. SOLED. Very impressive. 

Senator COBURN. I happened to be an accountant before I was 

a doctor. [Laughter.] 

So it made a big difference. 

23

I want to ask all of you to respond to this and just give me a—

does everybody agree that one of the ways to increase compliances 

is simplification? 

Mr. GEORGE. Most definitely. 

Ms. OLSON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. And do you, Mr. Soled? 

Mr. SOLED. Absolutely. 

Senator COBURN. And would you agree that there is almost a linear relationship between the more we simplify, the more compliance we get? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. OLSON. Ah, yes. 

Senator COBURN. That was a quasi yes. Mr. Soled. 

Mr. SOLED. No hesitation in my voice. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. The simpler we make it. Are there things in 

your mind——

Ms. OLSON. Sir, could I clarify? I mean, you could simplify things 

by telling everyone they have to pay a flat 50-percent tax, and you 

might end up with increased non-compliance because you have 

made it simple. 

Senator COBURN. I agree. But for the Code that we have——

Ms. OLSON. Right, yes. 

Senator COBURN. Each of you have testified on things that you 

think need to change. What I would like to just say, based on we 

have what is highly probable, a $450 billion tax gap rather than 

a $350 billion tax gap. In order of priority, what are the first three 

things that should change? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, third-party reporting, there is no question 

about it. I cited the figures of individuals, 90-plus-percentage, 

versus those operating on a cash basis who do not have third-party 

reporting, I mean under 20 percent. The lack of tax compliance 

data, the NRP was a good first step on the part of the IRS, but 

it was only a first step. There is so much more information, as I 

noted in both my oral and written testimony, that is needed in 

terms of the corporate and other aspects of it. And then, lastly, unreported income, I mean literally if we were able to institute the 

withholding, especially for the independent contractors, that would 

make such a difference. 

Senator COBURN. OK. And you do have communication with the 

researchers at IRS? They do read your reports? 

Mr. GEORGE. We hope so. 

Senator COBURN. Well, but I am asking, do you have one-on-one 

communication with the gentleman that Mr. Everson referred to in 

terms of working with them——

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. 

Senator COBURN [continuing]. And trying to massage what can 

we do here in terms of measuring so we can manage? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Ms. Olson. 

Ms. OLSON. I would have to say that if I would go to the cash 

economy first and look at expanded information reporting. The proposals that I have made about estimated taxes, making them easier, like a monthly payment coming automatically out of accounts 

so people who want to comply but cannot quite save to pay in those 

24

estimated taxes quarterly. And then instituting some kind of a 

back-up withholding requirement on independent contractors who 

have been——

Senator COBURN. Proven to be non-compliant? 

Ms. OLSON. Proven non-compliance, exactly, so that you have 2 

or 3 years where they have not been able to pay. And the whole 

idea of that would be you get their attention and then you say to 

them, OK, now go into this estimated tax payment on a monthly 

basis, map it out a year in advance so we know you are going to 

make payments and, go and sin no more, and now we will work 

on your back liability. So sort of changing behavior. 

On simplification, I believe Congress has to act on AMT, which 

is not just a current problem right now, but as you go to 2010 and 

2012 and you see 33 million taxpayers being pulled into the system, that is going to increase non-compliance among a group of taxpayers who are currently compliant. 

Senator COBURN. It is also going to be the very wedge pressure 

that we have to get simplification. 

Ms. OLSON. Tax reform, exactly. And the third point would be 

additional research. We have to understand what causes taxpayer 

behavior. 

I am sponsoring a research thing right now, a study right now, 

to look into taxpayer behavior, and one of the things we are looking 

at is why taxpayers—for example, looking at not just taxpayers, 

but why people stopped smoking, the non-smoking campaign. Why 

were we able to change behavior of the public over a period of 

time? And how can we change behavior about compliance with 

taxes over time? 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Soled. 

Mr. SOLED. Three ideas, and these are akin to what you just 

heard. First, we might look to expand information returns. 

Here is an idea that you might also consider. Second, the promotion of credit cards and debit cards so that we could have people, 

in lieu of using cash to pay their plumbers and pay their painters, 

they would turn to using credit cards and debit cards, and we could 

almost think of perhaps a government program that would offer a 

rewards program akin to frequent flyer miles for people who use 

their credit cards and the like. I know that might strike some as 

being radical and strange, but countries like Mexico, I understand, 

are instituting such a program. 

And third, another thing that we might consider that I understand other countries have done that would be interesting is perhaps every 5 years to change over our currency so that people like 

Mr. George was referring to who have investments overseas, all of 

a sudden they have to be forthcoming, or less they might risk losing their currency. So, some different angles that other countries—

we might want to look at what some other countries have done to 

close their tax gaps, and maybe in some instances where they have 

been very successful, use that as a model. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Mr. George, have you looked yet at the utilization by the IRS of the private collections, and have you started 

looking at that and watching that? What are your comments on 

that? 

25

Mr. GEORGE. Well, we are in the process of reviewing that, Mr. 

Chairman. Just as background, over 10 years ago I was the Staff 

Director for Congressman Steven Horn of the Subcommittee on 

Government Management, Information, and Technology, who took 

a very strong interest in this subject matter, pushed the Ways and 

Means Committee to develop that pilot that, as he stated publicly, 

was set up to fail. It did fail, and it cost more than the amount it 

generated in revenue, in collections. 

So when I first started this position, I indicated to my staff, as 

well as to the Secretary and others, this would be a top priority for 

me. So we have been very engaged in terms of working with the 

Internal Revenue Service and their preparation to establish this 

program, and it is too early for us to give a complete assessment 

as to its benefits. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I am just sitting here thinking what a good 

hearing this is, Mr. Chairman, and we welcome each of you. Thank 

you for coming, for testifying, and really it is kind of like keying 

off of one another and reinforcing what others are saying. 

One of the witnesses—I do not recall who, but one of the witnesses—maybe it was Professor Soled who said—I think you talked 

about what other countries have done and show how they are narrowing their own tax gap. Who said that? Who mentioned that? 

Mr. SOLED. I just did. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, OK. Take just a minute and let’s just focus 

on that, what are some other countries that could be held out as 

best models in terms of reducing their own tax gap? And the second half of my question is the States, the 50 laboratories of democracy? Some of them do a pretty good job on their own tax gap. But 

what are some States, if you are aware of any States, that have 

done a particularly good job? And what can we learn from them? 

Ms. OLSON. Sir, in the United Kingdom, I went over and did 

some consulting with the United Kingdom last spring and their tax 

system, and one of the proposals—one of the programs that they 

have that they instituted with the construction industry, which is 

notorious for cash economy, is that they have had something for 

the last 30 years called a ‘‘Compliance Certificate,’’ and they have 

told that individuals who are self-employed in the construction industry, the employers or the contractors will have to withhold a 

particular percentage on their independent contractors unless they 

get a Compliance Certificate from the tax authority that says to the 

contractor this person is compliant with their taxes, whether it is 

an installment agreement or whatever, and you do not have to 

withhold. 

And I really like that proposal because it puts the incentives in 

the right place. It makes the contractor want to—it is easier for 

them to hire compliant taxpayers as subs rather than people who 

are hiding out from the IRS. And it helps—it gets them working 

with the tax authority to get these people in compliance. 

Senator CARPER. That is good. 

Ms. OLSON. So I have recommended that procedure. What I have 

recommended to the IRS about working with the States is that the 

States have an enormous amount of information, if you just keep 

working on the cash economy through State business licenses, 

26

where people who are contractors or hairdressers or lawn care people, they have to get a business license. And States and localities 

really enforce that because it really is their revenue stream. The 

people have to give their Social Security numbers and their employer identification numbers in order to get that, and if we could 

work out arrangements with the States to just do data matching, 

does this person who has a construction license show up in our tax 

system, or are they truly in the cash economy? Then maybe we 

should go pay that person a visit or at least send them a letter, 

and do it jointly with the States. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Other thoughts? Those were excellent. 

Mr. GEORGE. Senator Carper, I would just note that, first of all, 

I have to be careful because of the restriction on addressing tax 

policy, too, as the Secretary has delegated that authority within the 

Department to the Tax Policy Division. 

That stated, there is no question that a good example would be 

what California and a few other States recently did with tax shelters and extending the amount of time that tax revenue entities 

had to review those, which some perceive to be abusive. They have 

a longer time frame than does the Federal Government in terms 

of the ability to go back and to examine it. And when you consider 

the complicated nature of many of these schemes, to put it diplomatically, a lot of time is needed, and in many instances, the 

Federal Government just does not have the resources with which 

to do it on a timely basis. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Professor Soled, what are some countries or maybe some States 

that we might hold out as models? We have heard a couple good 

ideas here. 

Mr. SOLED. I cannot point to any particular States, but I just 

want to emphasize, if I could, the importance of your Subcommittee 

and what it is doing, because when people focus on the issue of the 

tax gap, what I think they fail to understand is that so many 

States piggyback off the Federal Government and what shows up 

on a Form 1040 and a Form 1120, they seem to forget that whatever you guys do and the importance of your work, that effect carries over onto State income tax returns. So whatever the tax gap 

is and the magnitude—and we are all fearful of what it might be—

it is that there are billions of dollars that go uncollected because 

the Federal Government is not doing its job in terms of its collection. 

So I think you can add, by a factor of about 20 percent to the 

Federal tax gap what the State tax gaps are, just because the work 

that—like I said, this piggyback effect. So I cannot point to any 

particular States, but I will say this: That, in general, States do 

some—are fairly effective in what they do in terms of getting people out there and doing perhaps more face-to-face audits. That has 

just been my experience, at least in New Jersey. 

Senator CARPER. The Chairman asked a question a bit earlier. I 

think he asked you to give him your top three sort of like suggestions, and let me just ask you the reverse of that question or the 

inverse of that question, maybe two or three things that we ought 

not to do, not just we as two Senators, but as a Congress. What 

would be wise to avoid doing? 

27

Mr. GEORGE. Well, there is no question that if certain policies 

were adopted that requires complete disclosure of every financial 

interaction—or transaction, rather, that one engaged in, you could 

in theory ensure the IRS the ability to collect or at least know what 

it needs to collect from taxpayers. But given the burden that would 

place on the taxpayers, I do not think anyone would advocate making that type of drastic policy. 

Ms. OLSON. I think that we should not plow forward on the assumption that enforcement of a one-size-fits-all type approach—I 

talked in my testimony about unintentional versus deliberate errors, and I believe that those two buckets are much too clunky, 

that we need to even refine that even more. 

You have people who make errors because the procedures are 

just too burdensome. You have people who make errors because 

they do not understand what we are asking them to do. Those are 

two different things. We have people who make errors because 

their preparers have suggested that it is OK to do this or are acting as facilitators. And then you have the truly asocial taxpayers 

who are making not errors but are actively evading. And each one 

of those types of non-compliance require a different approach. And 

if you take the wrong approach, if you just use the same audit or 

the same collection action for each one of those people, you are 

going to run the risk of converting people who are really trying to 

comply into angry taxpayers who are going to say, ‘‘The IRS treated me badly, and I am now going to do everything I can to not comply.’’ And you will have really done something terrible there. 

I really want the IRS to be more nuanced and not just sort of 

plow ahead. 

Mr. SOLED. I would be careful about giving taxpayers too many 

options, and let me just give you the example with respect to reporting of tax basis. Right now taxpayers can use several different 

methods to report their tax basis. They can use the specific identification method. They can use first-in, first-out. They can use averaging. I mean, you give too many taxpayers too many options, and 

it becomes very complex both to taxpayers and, as complex as it is 

to taxpayers, it becomes that much complexity to the IRS to monitor compliance. 

So I would just be careful about trying to be too nice to taxpayers. I do not mean this in a harsh way to taxpayers, but in trying to be too kind to taxpayers, you may overdo a good thing. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe that a couple of our friends, John Breaux and Connie Mack, were asked by 

the President to lead a review of our Tax Code and give us their 

thoughts, along with, I guess, the Commission that they led, as to 

what we might want to do differently. And they floated their ideas, 

and I do not think much has happened with respect to those ideas. 

Obviously nothing is going to happen this year. We are going to 

have in the next couple of years a lot of focus on folks running for 

President, people wanting to lead the country, and they are going 

to be talking about what they would do differently, better or worse. 

And I think we will have an opportunity probably during the 

course of a Presidential campaign to consider changes we might 

want to make in our Tax Code. And I think what we are hearing 

today, keep it simple would be a good principle to underlie that. 

28

1The prepared statement of Mr. Entin with an attachment appears in the Appendix on page 

131. 

But somebody is going to be elected President—I don’t know if we 

are going to do major tax reform in the next 2 years, but somebody 

is going to be elected President in 2008, and then they will have 

an opportunity to lead us in a new direction. 

I do not know that we will have an opportunity in the next year 

or two to do as much as we might want to do on this front. But 

to the extent that we can tie the debate on tax reform, which I 

think will flow from a Presidential campaign, into the kind of efforts that we are discussing here, we will do our country, I think, 

a big favor, a big service. 

Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

One of the reasons you have not heard much, I think, on that 

Tax Commission is they filtered it with politics instead of policy, 

and they said not what was possible, but they said what might be 

politically possible, rather than how do you fix the problem and 

then go sell it to the American public. And when you do that, the 

American public gets shortchanged. 

I want to thank each of you for your service. Professor, thank you 

for coming. And this panel is dismissed. 

Thank you very much. 

Panel three consists of Stephen J. Entin. He is President and Executive Director at the Institute for Research on the Economics of 

Taxation, an economic public policy research organization based in 

Washington, DC. He served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Economic Policy at the Department of the Treasury during the 

Reagan Administration. Prior to his time at the Treasury, he 

served as staff economist with the Joint Economic Committee. 

Also with us is Jason Furman, Visiting Scholar, New York University. He is also a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Center on 

Budget and Policy Priorities. He previously served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in the Clinton Administration. 

And, finally, Neal Boortz, co-author of ‘‘The FairTax Book’’ and 

nationally syndicated talk-show host. 

Welcome to each of you. Mr. Entin. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN J. ENTIN,1 PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON THE ECONOMICS OF TAXATION 

Mr. ENTIN. Chairman Coburn and Ranking Member Carper, 

thank you for inviting me to testify on the issues of the tax expenditure database and its relationship to the issue of tax transparency. 

What is tax transparency? Tax transparency is an attribute of 

the tax system. It does not mean publishing everyone’s tax returns. 

People should not be afraid of that. 

Transparency means adopting a tax system based on sensible 

principles that are widely agreed upon. It would measure income 

correctly and have simple, clear calculations of tax liabilities and 

would treat all income and all taxpayers alike. Clarity and simplicity would put to rest suspicions that some people were not payVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:59 Sep 20, 2007 Jkt 030601 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\30601.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
29

ing what they should due to deficiencies in the Tax Code as opposed to enforcement problems. 

Each taxpayer would have to apply that set of tax rules to his 

or her income and pay the resulting tax liability. The tax returns 

and tax payments, however, would not be made public. The tax law 

and tax rules would be transparent to everyone, not the incomes, 

business arrangements, and tax payments of the taxpayers. 

Section 6103 of the U.S. Code requires that the IRS protect taxpayer privacy, and the IRS has very strict policies to enforce that 

legal mandate. The raw information in the master tax file is available only to employees of the IRS and the Treasury’s Office of Tax 

Policy and to employees of the Joint Tax Committee. 

Tax file data that is shared with other Federal agencies or the 

public is shared only in a form that has been organized in large 

enough subgroups to protect the identities of the taxpayers. 

Would a tax expenditure database, akin to the earmark database, improve tax transparency? I do not think so. A list of tax expenditures, numbers of users, and dollar amounts are already published by the Treasury, the Joint Tax Committee, and the Ways 

and Means Committee in print and on the Web. The Treasury tables are also presented in the Federal budget. 

The estimates are obtained from the master tax file by means of 

a sample of about 200,000 returns out of about 130 million individual returns and 20 million business returns. Creating a tax expenditure database by examining all 150 million returns would be 

difficult and expensive. A more detailed presentation would run 

into serious privacy concerns, could thereby damage voluntary compliance by taxpayers, and would involve greatly expanded reporting 

requirements for individuals and businesses. 

The aim of a database would be to highlight tax provisions that 

are clearly unwarranted favoritism toward a small group of taxpayers. Under informal Senate Finance Committee and House 

Ways and Means Committee rules, such ‘‘rifle shot’’ tax breaks are 

currently supposed to be identified and disallowed by the Committee Chairmen before the bills are voted upon. Once enacted, it 

is difficult for the IRS to determine which taxpayers are using the 

provisions. It really is the responsibility of Congress to avoid creating such provisions in the first place. 

A more basic question is: What is a tax expenditure? It is defined 

in the law as ‘‘revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of liability.’’ That is easy to say, 

sort of, but hard in practice to deal with. 

What is or is not a tax expenditure depends critically on what 

is regarded as regular treatment under the tax system. The Analytical Perspectives section in the Federal budget reports tax expenditures under two income tax baselines. And since the fiscal year 

2004 budget, it has also provided a list of tax expenditures measured against a neutral or consumed-income tax concept. 

In the pure Haig-Simons income tax, there would be no double 

taxation of corporate income. Anything now listed as a corporaterelated tax expenditure would disappear, and the corporate tax 

itself would be a ‘‘negative’’ tax expenditure. Capital gains and the 

30

imputed income from owner-occupied housing would be taxed as accrued. Deferral of the tax on capital gains would be considered a 

tax expenditure. However, failure to adjust for inflation, as in the 

current system, would result in ‘‘negative’’ tax expenditures on the 

inflation component of capital gains, interest income, and depreciation, and a tax subsidy on interest deductions. 

The current income tax does not follow the Haig-Simons definition of ‘‘income.’’ They report tax expenditures under the ‘‘normal 

tax baseline’’ and the ‘‘reference tax law baseline.’’ Each accepts the 

corporate income tax and the deferral on unrealized gains as normal, and not as a negative or a positive tax expenditure. The reduced tax rates on dividends and capital gains that currently offset 

some of the double taxation of corporate income are not considered 

tax expenditures by the Treasury and have not been since 2005. 

The normal baseline counts the lower than maximum corporate 

tax rates and accelerated depreciation and the tax exemption of 

cash welfare payments and the deferral of foreign-source income as 

a tax expenditure while the reference baseline does not. 

The personal exemption and the standard deduction are considered normal. The exclusion of income from owner-occupied housing 

is not considered a tax expenditure. The exclusion of health care 

premiums on employer-provided health insurance is considered a 

tax expenditure. The arbitrary nature of these rules is obvious. 

The differences are greater versus a neutral or consumptionbased tax. Pension arrangements and IRAs are considered tax expenditures under the income tax, but would be normal tax treatment under a neutral tax system. The extra tax on ordinary saving 

under the income tax today would be regarded as a negative tax 

expenditure, or punitive tax. Investment would be expensed. Even 

accelerated depreciation would be a negative tax expenditure. 

Treasury reports other differences under these concepts. It also 

reports in this section in the budget that there are many measurement issues, timing issues, behavior issues involved, and the numbers cannot simply be added because we are feeling one set of provisions would affect the revenue estimates on others. They give a 

lot of warnings in that chapter. It is a good one to read. 

In conclusion, let me say that tax expenditures are generally fairly broadly available and accessible at the initiative of the taxpayer, 

much like entitlements on the spending side of the budget. They 

are not typically the ‘‘rifle shot’’ special interest benefits that would 

be comparable to earmarks on the spending side of the budget that 

have been inserted by Members of Congress. I do not support rifleshot provisions, but generally tax expenditures are not rifle-shot 

provisions. 

Tax expenditures are often deliberate and well-crafted offsets to 

the relatively heavy tax burden imposed by the income tax on income from capital. They are partial steps toward a consumption 

base. There is nothing wrong with moving in that direction. In fact, 

the income base is so detrimental to capital formation, productivity, 

and wages that many economists regard the neutral tax base alternatives as clearly superior. 

Some tax expenditures are bad tax policy. Some are intended as 

social policy. Listing all tax expenditures by beneficiary, even if it 

31

1The prepared statement of Mr. Furman appears in the Appendix on page 156. 

were possible to do so, would offer no guidance as to which ones 

ought to be repealed. 

Tax expenditure provisions are part of the Tax Code. Using them 

is not tax evasion. The provisions are not part of the tax gap from 

non-compliance. 

A tax expenditure database akin to the earmark and grant database is not a sound concept, nor a workable idea. 

Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Mr. Furman. 

TESTIMONY OF JASON FURMAN,1 NON-RESIDENT SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, AND 

VISITING SCHOLAR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY WAGNER GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE 

Mr. FURMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to address you today, and thank you very much for your legislation adding transparency to Federal spending. I would like to see the Subcommittee consider taking the next step and moving that transparency to tax expenditures. 

As the GAO recently warned, although tax expenditures are substantial in size, little progress has been made in the Executive 

Branch to increase the transparency and accountability for tax expenditures. In particular, I would suggest that the Subcommittee 

consider three recommendations: 

First, requiring government agencies to provide more detail 

about tax expenditures, including their magnitude and distribution 

across States, incomes, industries, and budgetary functions. 

Second, subjecting tax expenditures to the same performance and 

evaluation processes as spending proposals, including procedural 

reviews that apply to outlay programs. 

And, third, extending the searchable Internet database established by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency 

Act of 2006 to cover more tax expenditures, going beyond the 

Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation’s current practice 

of listing major entities that directly benefit from targeted tax expenditures. 

I will provide more motivation and detail for these recommendations, and then my written statement provides even more. 

As you well know, the government allocates hundreds of billions 

of dollars annually through tax expenditures. If the government 

wants to allocate resources towards, for example, the production of 

$1 billion worth of tanks, it could appropriate the money and pay 

a weapons supplier $1 billion in exchange for the tanks, or it could 

enact a $1 billion weapons supplier tax credit. Although our government accounting system treats the spending provisions differently from a targeted tax cut, they are essentially the same. 

The same could be said if we converted the child tax credit into 

an entitlement program that gave $1,000 per child or, conversely, 

converted Social Security into a refundable tax credit, the government accounting system would record substantial changes. In 

terms of the reality of our society and our fiscal system, there 

would be no difference at all. 

32

In recognition of this parallelism, the United States has adopted 

a statutory definition of ‘‘tax expenditures’’ which is widely accepted among economists and other policy analysts. In the last budget, 

the Treasury listed a total of $911 billion, nearly as much as what 

we spend on discretionary spending or mandatory entitlements. If the government approves a $1 billion spending project, it must 

either raise taxes or cut other spending to pay for the project. The 

financing choices for—or borrow money, which postpones but does 

not alter those choices. The financing choices for a tax expenditure 

are exactly the same: The government will have to raise taxes on 

everyone who is not specially favored by the tax expenditure or cut 

other spending. It is identical in terms of its fiscal impact. 

Tax expenditures also raise additional concerns for fiscal policy. 

They create the perception or reality of unfairness, add complexity 

to the Code, encourage inefficient policies, reduce fiscal flexibility, 

and, importantly, they disguise the true size of government. 

The proper measure of the size of government is the degree to 

which it allocates and redistributes resources. Tax expenditures allocate and redistribute substantial amounts of resources, yet they 

are accounted for as reductions in government revenues rather 

than increases in government outlays. As a result, although tax expenditures increase the government’s intervention in the market 

economy, in some cases warranted and in some cases unwarranted, 

the most common measure of the size of government records them 

as a reduction in the size of government. 

For these reasons, tax expenditures should receive the same 

scrutiny as government outlays. Under current law, they receive 

substantially less scrutiny than spending. Tax expenditures are not 

incorporated into the main budgetary tables prepared by OMB and 

CBO. They are not subject to annual reviews, periodic reauthorizations, or other tools of budgetary evaluations. 

But as you are thinking about increasing transparency and accountability for tax expenditures, you should be mindful of concerns about privacy and other issues not faced in constructing a 

database for government outlays. 

Americans are compelled to file tax forms. They are not compelled to apply for government grants. Thus, there is an asymmetry between disclosing information about tax expenditures and 

information about grants. But this asymmetry should not be exaggerated. Spending also faces important privacy concerns that were 

successfully addressed in the Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transportation Act of 2006 by exempting individual recipients of 

Federal assistance and government employees. A similar approach 

could be applied to taxes. For example, entity-level reporting could 

be limited to business tax expenditures. This reporting could be 

further limited to provisions that target benefits to narrowly defined classes of entities or only entities that exceed a specific dollar 

amount from the tax expenditure, like $100,000, or, say, the top 25 

entities benefiting from a specific provision. It should be stressed, 

though, that disclosing individual tax expenditures like medical deductions or mortgage interest deductions would be a gross violation 

of privacy and contrary to the public interest. 

In conclusion, as you move forward in your work to think about 

taxes, I think the most important principle to be guided by is parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:59 Sep 20, 2007 Jkt 030601 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\30601.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
33

1The prepared statement of Mr. Boortz appears in the Appendix on page 162. 

allelism to the greatest degree possible. When you tighten up the 

rules on spending, it creates the incentive to shift things over from 

the spending side of the ledger to the tax side of the ledger. That 

could undo a little bit of the good work that you have done, and 

so plugging that second set of holes I think will form an important 

complement to the steps Congress has already taken. 

Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. I assure you we are going to tighten both. Mr. Boortz. 

TESTIMONY OF NEAL BOORTZ,1 CO-AUTHOR, ‘‘THE FAIRTAX 

BOOK‘‘

Mr. BOORTZ. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Vice Chairman, I 

am not adept at the language of Washington. I am a reformed lawyer and a radio talk-show host. But sitting here listening to much 

of this testimony, I can tell you that you can work until the cows 

come home, and you are never going to make the American people 

understand even the concept of a tax expenditure. If your goal here 

is to make our Tax Code more transparent and to simplify it, there 

are, I think, some certain ways that you can go. The Tax Code 

today is anything but transparent. I will give you a few ideas. 

On Tax Day, if you were to ask almost any co-worker or almost 

any friend, ‘‘How much did you have to pay in taxes this year?’’ the 

response you are going to get is: ‘‘I did not have to pay anything. 

I am getting some back.’’ 

Likewise, if you ask a co-worker, ‘‘How much do you make?’’ the 

most common response you are going to get is, ‘‘None of your business.’’ But those who do choose to answer are going to say, ‘‘Well, 

I take home . . . ’’ and they will plug in a figure. People do not 

know what they pay in taxes. They do not even know what they 

earn, thanks to the magic of withholding. 

Now, if you are an obnoxious radio talk-show host, such as myself, you can just say, ‘‘Look, pal, I did not ask you how much you 

took home. I asked you how much you made.’’

But the message is clear here. Due to the intricacies of our current Tax Code and the withholding system, most wage earners do 

not have any idea where they stand in this arena. 

If the path to true tax transparency is the real goal here, then 

the solution already exists in the form of S. 25, H.R. 25. It is called 

the FairTax Act. Saxby Chambliss introduced it into the Senate, 

John Linder into the House of Representatives. It has been in the 

Congress for 6 years now. 

Under the FairTax, personal and corporate income taxes would 

be eliminated. Capital gains taxes, estate taxes, Social Security 

taxes, Medicare taxes, taxes on dividends, they are gone. And in 

the place of all of these taxes, we have one embedded national sales 

tax at the rate of 23 percent, which is revenue neutral for businesses, for the taxpayers, and for the government. We do not have 

to talk about credit card net receipts reporting. We do not have to 

talk about withholding on independent contractors. Those concepts 

become just completely unnecessary. 

34

Now, let’s be clear here that this does not mean that the cost of 

goods and services in the marketplace go up by 23 percent. We already have—and extensive research has shown this—an embedded 

tax on virtually everything that we buy in the marketplace in the 

form of goods and services of about 22 percent, some items higher, 

some items lower. The embedded taxes through the competitive aspects of the marketplace, they disappear. They are replaced by the 

national retail sales tax. 

Now, if it is tax transparency we want, consider this: Under this FairTax proposal, you go buy a $100 toaster, the receipt you receive at the store says ‘‘Toaster, $77. FairTax, $23.’’ Now, that is 

tax transparency. The person walks out of the store knowing exactly what they have paid. No longer would American workers lack 

that understanding of the effect on the Tax Code on them. 

Now, when we talk about the FairTax, people say, oh, my goodness, this would be just onerous on the poor. To mention that the 

FairTax bill, however, has a system of rebates where no household 

in this country ever has to pay this national retail sales tax on the 

basic necessities of life, as measured right up to the Tax Code. 

Now, there is a lot more in my prepared statement, but I want 

to mention this: The FairTax drives voters to the polls. In three 

counties in Georgia during the recent primary, the FairTax was on 

the ballot versus the flat tax. Which way would you like to reform 

our tax system? The national retail sales tax took 85 percent of the 

vote in every one of those instances. 

I received letters and comments from people that said, ‘‘I would 

not even have voted in that primary if it had not been for the fact 

the FairTax was on the ballot.’’

One man wrote me to tell me that his wife had just had four wisdom teeth removed that morning. She was not feeling very good. 

She was on the painkillers. But she heard me on the radio say, 

‘‘The FairTax is on the ballot in your county.’’ She told her husband, ‘‘We are not going home. We are going by the precinct. We 

are going to vote on this issue before I go home.’’

I think there are a lot of people in Congress, Senate and House 

both, that would love to see an issue that would drive people to the 

polls like that, and the FairTax will do it. 

So one more thing, very quickly, because I am 6 seconds over my 

time. Since I co-wrote ‘‘The FairTax Book’’ with John Linder, which 

debuted No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list—and I think 

that is worth noting. A book on taxes debuting No. 1 on the New 

York Times best-seller list? I have noticed that there is a lot of burgeoning opposition to the FairTax idea, and in my customary fairness, I will say that people have a very difficult time raising objections to it unless they first rewrite it, as the President’s Tax Reform Commission did, or they just flat out lie about it. So I would 

just ask in your deliberations that the Members of this Subcommittee give a quick look to S. 35 and perhaps some close attention to the letters I am sure you are getting from your constituents 

on this issue. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Boortz. 

I want to spend just a minute talking about this idea of tax expenditure. How did we ever get to where we used that nomenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:59 Sep 20, 2007 Jkt 030601 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\30601.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
35

clature? The assumption to use the idea of a tax expenditure assumes that all wealth should belong to the government and that 

if we incentivize certain behaviors through tax credits or rifle 

shots, as Mr. Entin said, we are giving something back. What is 

the history of that nomenclature, Mr. Entin? 

Mr. ENTIN. I think it began with Stanley Surrey, who was a professor of law at Harvard. He became Assistant Secretary of the 

Treasury-Tax Policy during the Kennedy Administration, and he 

wanted to create a method that would reveal the sort of spending 

nature of some tax provisions. Treasury worked on that issue 

through the Johnson Administration, and by the end of that, they 

reported out their findings. And I believe that is when the term 

‘‘tax expenditures’’ came to be. 

Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr presented the results at a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee a few days before President 

Nixon’s inauguration. That is the hearing which is best remembered for Mr. Barr’s disclosure that 21 people earned more than $1 

million in 1967 without paying any Federal income tax due to tax 

preferences. This is what ultimately resulted, I think, in the alternative minimum tax, which is a whole different issue. But I think 

that is the origin of the term. 

Senator COBURN. I take it from the testimony we have heard 

from all of you, even you, Mr. Furman, that we really need to be 

clear about our language, and simplification—and I am really going 

toward simplification. Your whole goal for having transparency on 

‘‘tax expenditures’’ is so we can have the transparency required to 

get the changes we need to eliminate those that are egregious. 

Mr. FURMAN. That is right. 

Mr. FURMAN. Certainly one should not get too hung up on the 

semantics. I prefer the term ‘‘tax expenditure’’ as it is the statutory 

term. Also, among economists, tax lawyers, and among a number 

of others, there are important conceptual parallels between them. 

But you do not have to accept that term or that concept to accept 

the idea that we should be more transparent about this. Ones that 

work well we should do more of or the same, and ones that do not 

work well we should get rid of or modify. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Do we have a lot—and, again, the focus of 

our hearing really is not this, but do we have a lot of rifle-shot tax 

expenditures? 

Mr. FURMAN. We have a number of them. In my testimony, I listed, for example, the Jobs Act of 2005 included a provision that ‘‘extended placed in service date for bonus depreciation for certain aircraft . . . ’’ If that was not enough, it limited it to ‘‘excluding aircraft used in the transportation industry,’’ and only for things 

‘‘properly placed in service after September 10, 2001.’’

Senator COBURN. So that obviously was for one company’s benefit 

that made one airplane? 

Mr. FURMAN. Correct. That is reportedly the case. You could not 

look in the tax law and know what company it was that received 

it, and that was an estimated $247 million. You could not look in 

the tax law and see that, and you could not look at any Federal 

database and find out the identity of that company. 

Senator COBURN. So if we had the Fair Act, we would not have 

any of that. 

36

Mr. FURMAN. That raises a number of other tax policy issues. It 

does not require changing the tax base. An income tax base, a consumption tax base, a retail tax base—all of those can be simple or 

complicated. Those are two different dimensions, the choices of 

base versus the degree of complication. 

Senator COBURN. But the whole idea is to simplify it and make 

it transparent. That is like our previous panel. They all wanted to 

simplify it, make it more transparent. 

Mr. FURMAN. I agree with that, and I would even go one step further and say, in general, the government should be less involved 

in the economy at the level of tax expenditures in terms of picking 

and choosing winners and losers and desirable activities and undesirable activities. I think that is a measure of the growth of government, and it grows in a way that is invisible to people who focus 

just on the total amount of spending. 

Senator COBURN. That is a very good point. 

Any other comments? Mr. Entin. 

Mr. ENTIN. Many of the rifle-shot provisions, such as that one, 

expired. In looking at the area in which it occurred, it had something to do with expensing. Under a consumed income or sales tax, 

you would have expensing of capital assets rather than depreciation. You need to decide on what your appropriate tax base is before you can decide whether you want to get rid of the rifle shot 

giving the expensing to one airplane company or expand it to all 

investment for all companies and all small businesses. As an economist, I prefer having the expensing and go to the sales or—excuse 

me, not the sales, the saving consumption neutral base rather than 

the income base. The broader question of what do you do all across 

the spectrum with something like that is one that needs to be addressed in the fundamental issue of tax reform. Until then, I would 

agree, we should stop the rifle-shot approach, and supposedly the 

Committee Chairmen are not doing that anymore since 1986. But, 

clearly, occasionally one of these things still slips through. 

Senator COBURN. It is interesting that we penalize savings but 

incentivize borrowing by our Tax Code, because we charge income 

tax on interest earned, but we give you a deduction for interest 

paid. 

Mr. ENTIN. I have no quarrel with giving a deduction for interest 

paid when the recipient has to pay tax on it. More fundamentally, 

the income tax says to you, if you save your money, we do not 

count the cost of foregone consumption as a cost to you. We sort 

of say we are going to tax the money before you save it, and we 

are going to tax the returns. But if you spend it, we have taxed it 

before you spent it, but we then do not tax again what you spent 

it on. 

Now, when I eat the sandwich or watch the television, that is 

what I bought with my money. When I put my money into the 

bond, I bought the interest. I bought the future income stream. I 

bought the dividends. I am taxed on those again, but I am not 

taxed again on the sandwich or the television, except where you 

have a few selective excise taxes. That is the problem with the income tax. It hits income used for saving more heavily than income 

used for consumption—on top of which you put on the corporate 

tax, which we then overstate by not having expensing instead of 

37

these depreciation allowances that do not reflect the full value of 

the outlay. And then, of course, there is the death tax on top of 

that. 

That whole structure needs to be reformed in one of the neutral 

manners. The FairTax is one. The flat tax is another. The consumed income tax, the old Nunn-Domenici tax, the VAT—all of 

these are neutral taxes. Until you know which tax base you want, 

many of these provisions cannot be identified as a tax expenditure 

or not a tax expenditure. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Thank you. Mr. Boortz. 

Mr. BOORTZ. I was just thinking, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 

your comment, very closely to the adage you get more of the behavior you punish, you get less of the behavior you reward. And our 

current tax system punishes the very behavior we seek more of out 

of the American people, rewards the behavior of free spending that 

perhaps we do not want in some instances. 

And I would just say—and I hope that this is taken in the spirit, 

Mr. Entin, in which I say it, but if I could play for my listeners 

that excerpt we just heard about sandwiches and televisions and 

let them hear how taxing their labor is discussed in Washington, 

I would certainly win a lot more converts to my side of this argument. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Furman. 

Mr. FURMAN. If I could just add one thing, and it is repeating 

what I said before, which is that people who think about tax reform 

think about two separate issues. You could have a consumption 

tax, exactly the type that Mr. Entin might like, and then Congress 

could monkey around with it and add rifle shots and it could then 

add really large tax expenditures along the form of tax entitlements. 

Similarly, you could have an income tax and keep it really pristine and really pure. So these are really two very different issues, 

what you want in terms of your tax base and your tax system—

it is a very important issue—what you want in terms of simplicity 

and complexity. And for the most part you can move sort of in either direction within either set of bases. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. The last time I recall the Congress and the 

President attacking with some success tax simplification may have 

been legislation that was adopted in 1986 when Ronald Reagan 

was our President and I believe Dan Rostenkowski chaired the 

House Ways and Means Committee. I am not sure who chaired the 

Senate Finance Committee. It might have been Bob Dole. It may 

have been Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In any event, it was a divided 

government. But they were able to come to agreement on what I 

think will be a pretty tough issue to find consensus on. 

Thinking back, some of you might actually be old enough to remember that, and just recall with us, if you will, the elements that 

enabled us to make what I think most of us would say was a little 

progress toward tax simplification. Think back to the elements that 

were in place to enable us to make a little progress. If you do not 

agree we have made any, then that is another issue. But how 

might we go about replicating that progress in the next couple of 

years? 

38

Mr. BOORTZ. Senator, if I might say, that 1986 simplification of 

our Tax Code has been modified to date nearly 10,000 times by the 

Congress of the United States. That hardly fits my definition of 

‘‘tax simplification.’’ You talk about rifle shots. We even have a specific tax exemption in there for one manufacturer of ceiling fans. 

Senator CARPER. No, excuse me. I want you to answer my question, if you will. My question was—somehow in 1986, in a divided 

government, I think we took at least some measured steps toward 

tax simplification. It has been, I think arguably, undone to a great 

extent——

Mr. BOORTZ. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. Over the last 20 years. But what 

existed then in 1986, and how might we replicate that, even if we 

do not go to the extent of some of the reforms that you all are talking about? 

Mr. FURMAN. All right. Thank you. First of all, I would not exaggerate the degree to which it has been undone. The top marginal 

rate was 50 percent prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The top 

marginal rate is well below that right now, and we are raising the 

same or more revenues as a share of GDP, in addition to the fact 

that we have added the child tax credit and a number of provisions 

that are very broadly supported. So I think our tax system is in 

greater shape today than it was in 1985, thanks to the effort of this 

body. 

That being said, it is not in great shape, and this body really 

needs to return to it, and I think on a bipartisan basis is the only 

way, both as a practical matter and as a substantive matter that 

you can get it done. Basically, any tax reform creates winners and 

it creates losers if it is revenue neutral, and the losers in our political system tend to be angrier than the winners. 

Senator CARPER. I noticed. [Laughter.] 

Mr. FURMAN. There are two ways to deal with that. One is to 

pretend there are no losers, and some have taken that approach. 

They have taken a free-lunch approach, and they pretend they 

have a magical elixir that will cut everyone’s taxes, make everyone 

richer, and have no trade-offs whatsoever. Every serious analyst 

who has ever looked at one of those free-lunch proposals has said 

that is not the case. It will substantially raise taxes on some people 

and cut them on others. 

That is not an argument against it. That is not an argument for 

it. That is a fact we need to face in reality in evaluating proposals 

and a political fact. That is why the two parties working together 

is the best recipe, because then you may not demonize the other 

party for some of the losers they create and they will not demonize 

your party for some of the losers you create, and you all hold hands 

and jump together, and that is what I would like to see happen. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Entin. 

Mr. ENTIN. I was at Treasury during that period. 

Senator CARPER. What were you doing there? 

Mr. ENTIN. I was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. ENTIN. My Assistant Secretary was discussing with the Secretary how the Treasury proposals ought to go, but, of course, the 

39

tax people did not want the economic people butting in. So let me 

say that the 1986 proposals that came over from the Treasury were 

not conducive to capital formation. They came from a career staff 

that was raised on the income tax and Stanley Surrey’s definition 

of ‘‘tax expenditures.’’ The hybrid tax system, which is partway between income and consumption bases now, and was to some extent 

then, had been pulled a little further toward the consumption base 

by the 1981 tax changes, which were gradually eroded in 1982 and 

1984, and the career people were bound and determined that they 

be further eroded in 1986. 

We raised taxes on capital substantially to lower the individual 

tax rates. The stock market crashed the next year, and it paved the 

way for the 1990 recession after two payroll tax hikes followed. 

We curtailed access to IRAs. We lengthened asset lives, and had 

initially asked that they be indexed for inflation, the depreciation 

write-offs. But the Senate Finance Committee decided not to do 

that because it wanted a few dollars to have some rifle-shot things 

for some friends. So it raised the cost of buying plant and equipment instead of lowering it and turned the bill into an anti-growth 

bill instead of a pro-growth bill. 

I would not call it reform. I would call it an anti-reform. 

On the international side, it took something that was miserably 

complicated and made it hideously complicated. The tax attorneys 

were delighted. 

Now, why did it happen? There was a deficit. People were nervous about it, even though interest rates were coming down, even 

though it turned out to be disinflationary rather than inflationary. 

There was a prevailing view of how the economy worked and the 

tax system worked that was out of line with reality. There was a 

frenzy. The President proposed an improvement. The old guard 

took over to undo reforms that had recently been made, and that 

was true on the Hill as well as at the Treasury. 

I think we need a much broader understanding of what is and 

is not good tax policy before we have any more of that sort of thing 

going on. I think we have had a broader understanding. In the 

years since 1986, we have had one very good Presidential panel, 

which was constrained in what it could offer by a number of items 

in its directive from the White House and could have, as Dr. 

Coburn has explained, gone further had they not been constrained. 

But they did resurrect the notion of the consumed income tax or 

the neutral tax systems that were the non-income base rather than 

the income base. They resurrected the blueprints for basic tax reform that the Treasury wrote in 1976 under David Bradford. They 

made it intellectually acceptable again, and they opened up the entire debate. They have warned us: You have to know where you are 

going before you start down the reform road. And I think that was 

a very important contribution of that panel, although, again, I do 

wish they had gone further. 

We have a deficit today, but it is coming down. We have learned 

now for the second time that major deficits can occur in a situation 

of low interest rates and low inflation. We are not as panicked as 

we were back then, but we do have more reason now to proceed 

with a tax reform. We can look around the world at successful tax 

reform experiences. You have the flat income taxes that were 

40

adopted in parts of Europe. You have the dramatic lowering of corporate tax rates in the EU because they realized that it was detrimental to growth, and the substitution of a neutral tax, they chose 

the VAT. That is not my favorite. But they have been moving their 

tax codes in a direction that is less harmful to capital formation, 

partly because they are competing among themselves for locating 

capital in their countries. Ireland put the cat among the pigeons, 

God bless them. 

We need to learn from that, and we also can learn that if you 

do that sort of thing, it is doable and it can improve the welfare 

of the general public. We will need to trim some spending to make 

it work well, as has been pointed out. I do not want to call it a free 

lunch, but there are a lot of distortions and anti-growth elements 

in the current system that would yield some revenue reflow. You 

do not have to cut spending by a dollar for each dollar you cut 

taxes if you cut taxes correctly. Treasury is now exploring that 

trade-off as a matter of fact. They should have done it years ago. 

The Joint Tax Committee is doing it, but in a manner I do not 

think is going to work well. 

So this whole area of research needs to be supported and pushed. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Any closing words, gentlemen? 

Mr. FURMAN. I do not want to refight something that I was not 

present for, but the broad agreement among economists is that 

1986 is a real model of broadening the base and lowering the rates. 

Just to appreciate the magnitude, the top rate was 50 percent. It 

brought it down to 28 percent. 

I think Mr. Entin has his views, and I am sure all of us, if we 

went back, would have things that we would want to change, but 

that type of model, to work together, broaden the tax base and 

bring rates down, is on that I think is the most promising way to 

move forward for tax reform. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Mr. Boortz, please? And I have about 

1 minute to finish, so I would ask you to wrap up. 

Mr. BOORTZ. One thing very quick. Yes, the 50-percent tax rate 

down to—what was it?—28 percent, I believe, also at the same time 

eliminating many of the deductions that would make that 50-percent tax rate much lower in actual basis. 

Mr. FURMAN. We are talking about marginal rates, what economists believe affect the economy. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. Good enough. Mr. Chairman, it has been 

a good hearing. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you all. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you each for your testimony and your 

time. We appreciate it. 

Mr. Furman and Mr. Entin, I look forward to working with you 

again in the future. Thank you. Mr. Boortz, thank you. 

Mr. BOORTZ. Thank you, sir. 

Senator COBURN. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

The most recent IRS estimate of the Nation’s ‘‘tax gap’’—the difference between 

the amount of taxes owed by taxpayers and the amount collected—is a staggering 

$346 billion. I commend Chairman Coburn and Ranking Member Carper for their 

ongoing effort to get to the bottom of the many reasons for this massive tax gap. 

It is a subject that merits urgent attention from Congress, not only because it shortchanges the U.S. Treasury, but because it forces honest American taxpayers to pick 

up the tab. 

Those who abuse the tax system shortchange the men and women who serve in 

our military, the children who attend our schools, and the millions who rely on Social Security. Tax cheats make it harder to maintain our highways, protect our borders, advance medial research, and inspect our food. They also deepen the deficit 

ditch that threatens the economic well-being of our children and grandchildren. 

Even in Washington, $350 billion is a huge amount of money. It is larger than 

the budgets last year of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection 

Agency combined. The tax gap is so huge that it would force each individual U.S. 

taxpayer to pay more than $2,500 in extra taxes annually to make up for those who 

are dodging Uncle Sam. 

Over the past 4 years, Senator Coleman and I, as Chairman and Ranking Member 

of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, have conducted extensive investigations that provide insight into two major ways that some Americans are exploiting the system to dodge taxes—offshore tax haven schemes and abusive tax shelters. 

Last month, we released a bipartisan report that blows the lid off of offshore tax 

haven abuses using shell corporations, phony trust, and fake economic transactions 

to help some people dodge millions of dollars in U.S. taxes. Before that, we released 

a bipartisan report with case histories showing how accountants, lawyers, bankers, 

and other tax professionals develop dubious tax shelters and hawk them to Americans across the country. Briefly, here’s what we have found. 

OFFSHORE TAX HAVEN ABUSES

Experts Joe Guttentag and Reuven Avi-Yonah estimate that offshore tax haven 

abuses by individuals cost the U.S. Treasury between $40 billion and $70 billion 

every year in taxes that are owed but not collected. On top of that, the IRS has estimated that corporate offshore tax evasion in 2001 totaled about $30 billion. Put together, that means up to $100 billion per year in being lost to offshore tax abuses. 

Offshore tax haven countries have, in effect, declared economic war on honest U.S. 

taxpayers by giving tax dodgers a way to avoid their tax bills and leave them for 

others to pay. Offshore tax havens attract these tax dodgers not only by charging 

them low or no taxes, but also by shrouding their financial transactions in a ‘‘black 

box’’ of secrecy that is extremely difficult to penetrate. They sell secrecy to attract 

customers. 

This legal black box allows tax dodgers to hide assets, mask who controls them, 

and obscure how their assets are used. An army of ‘‘offshore service providers’’—lawyers, bankers, brokers, and others—then joins forces to exploit the black box secrecy 

and help clients skirt U.S. tax, securities, and anti-money laundering laws. Many 

of the firms concocting or facilitating these schemes are respected names here in the 

United States. 

These schemes require the secrecy of tax havens because they can’t stand the 

light of day. Our investigation laid out six case studies that illustrated the scope 

and seriousness of the problem. In one case, two U.S. citizens moved about $190 

million in untaxed stock option compensation offshore to a complex array of 58 offVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:59 Sep 20, 2007 Jkt 030601 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\30601.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
42

shore trusts and corporations, and utilized a wide range of offshore mechanisms to 

exercise direction over these assets and hundreds of millions of dollars in investment gains. These untaxed earnings were then used to provide loans, finance business ventures, acquire real estate, and buy art, furnishings and jewelry for the personal use of the family members. 

Much of this elaborate scheme involved an offshore bank and administrative services firm for offshore entities, both housed in this building in the Cayman Islands, 

the Ugland House. Believe it or not, this pretty waterfront building is the official 

address of 12,748 companies. Just having a post office box here enables these shell 

companies to shift profits that otherwise should be reported as taxable income in 

the country where it’s actually earned. 

In another case study, two offshore shell corporations engaged in fake stock transactions, seeming to trade stock back and forth as if it were fantasy baseball to create the illusion of economic activity. The shell corporations pretended to run up 

hundreds of millions of dollars in fake stock losses and then used these phantom 

losses to offset about $20 billion in real capital gains, the result was $200 million 

in lost tax revenue to the Treasury. This offshore scheme, shown in this chart, 

would be comical because of its complexity but for sobering fact that these tax haven 

abuses are eating away at the fabric of the U.S. tax system, and undermining U.S. 

laws intended to safeguard our capital markets and financial systems from financial 

crime. 

Congress could act to shut down these offshore abuses. One step we could take 

would be to change how the government views transactions in secrecy tax havens. 

We should shift the burden of proof so that those who move assets offshore or engage in offshore transactions have to prove that income claimed there is not taxable; 

i.e. that there are real economic transactions, involving real gain or loss, or at least 

economic activity. 

Another simple step would be to require third-party reporting by U.S. financial 

institutions on a Form 1099 for accounts opened by foreign trusts or corporations 

where the money is beneficially owned by a U.S. taxpayer. 

Congress also needs to dig further into transfer pricing activities. Transfer pricing 

is an accounting method supposedly requiring that related multinational entities engage in transactions at arm’s length to ensure the proper reporting of taxable income. ‘‘Supposedly’’ is the operative word. IRS Commissioner Everson has said that 

transfer pricing manipulations are one of the most significant challenges that the 

Service faces, and I don’t doubt that one bit. Earlier this month the IRS settled a 

transfer pricing dispute with drug giant Glaxo Smith Kline for $3.4 billion. The size 

of this settlement with just one company indicates that it’s worth looking to see if 

there are ways to improve the relevant portions of the tax code. Treasury has proposed regulations in this area, and I urge the Administration to finalize those rules 

in as strong a form as possible. I also hope that these and other international tax 

dodging issues are some of the first we take up in the next Congress. 

ABUSIVE TAX SHELTERS

In addition to offshore shenanigans, there are plenty of homegrown tax shelters 

being used to dodge taxes. In 2003 and 2004, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations conducted an in-depth investigation into the widespread involvement of 

accounting firms, banks, investment advisors, and lawyers in the development, marketing and implementation of abusive tax shelters. We held hearings and reports 

laying out how these tax shelters are developed and sold to Americans across the 

country. 

Again, Congress can crack down on these abusive tax shelters and offshore 

schemes if it has the will to do so. One big step would be enactment of S. 1565, 

the Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act, which Senator Coleman and I introduced last year. This bipartisan bill would, for the first time, impose real penalties 

for those who promote abusive tax shelters or knowingly aid and abet taxpayers to 

understate their tax liability. It would enable the IRS to work with the SEC and 

bank regulators to clamp down on bankers, securities firms, and lawyers involved 

with tax haven and tax shelter scams. It would also authorize the Treasury Secretary to issue a list of tax havens that don’t cooperate with U.S. tax enforcement 

and eliminate U.S. tax benefits for income in those jurisdictions. The ability to tax 

profits that are in fact attributable to U.S. taxpayers but have been camouflaged 

using these uncooperative tax havens would hand our government a mighty club to 

combat tax haven abuses. 

43

ADEQUATE IRS ENFORCEMENT

Another key step to reducing the tax gap would be to give the IRS the funds it 

needs to go after tax dodgers. For every dollar invested in the IRS’s budget, the 

service yields more than $4 in enforcement revenue. Beyond the additional revenues 

collected, increased IRS enforcement deters those who might otherwise have dodged 

their tax obligations and reassures honest taxpayers that compliance with the law 

is not a chump’s game. I hope that Congress will follow the Senate Appropriations 

Committee’s lead and enact the President’s full request for the IRS’s 2007 budget. 

I also encourage Treasury and the President to consider asking for more IRS enforcement dollars in the 2008 budget request. I can’t think of many better investments to recover revenues wrongfully lost to the U.S. Treasury and to build respect 

for the law and respect for the honest Americans who play by the rules and meet 

their tax obligations. 

Again, I commend Chairman Coburn and Ranking Member Carper for their efforts on this important topic. I look forward to the testimony today.

44


30601.001
45


30601.002
46


30601.003
47


30601.004
48


30601.005
49


30601.006
50


30601.007
51


30601.008
52


30601.009
53


30601.010
54


30601.011
55


30601.012
56


30601.013
57


30601.014
58


30601.015
59


30601.016
60


30601.017
61


30601.018
62


30601.019
63


30601.020
64


30601.021
65


30601.022
66


30601.023
67


30601.024
68


30601.025
69


30601.026
70


30601.027
71


30601.028
72


30601.029
73


30601.030
74


30601.031
75


30601.032
76


30601.033
77


30601.034
78


30601.035
79


30601.036
80


30601.037
81


30601.038
82


30601.039
83


30601.040
84


30601.041
85


30601.042
86


30601.043
87


30601.044
88


30601.045
89


30601.046
90


30601.047
91


30601.048
92


30601.049
93


30601.050
94


30601.051
95


30601.052
96


30601.053
97


30601.054
98


30601.055
99


30601.056
100


30601.057
101


30601.058
102


30601.059
103


30601.060
104


30601.061
105


30601.062
106


30601.063
107


30601.064
108


30601.065
109


30601.066
110


30601.067
111


30601.068
112


30601.069
113


30601.070
114


30601.071
115


30601.072
116


30601.073
117


30601.074
118


30601.075
119


30601.076
120


30601.077
121


30601.078
122


30601.079
123


30601.080
124


30601.081
125


30601.082
126


30601.083
127


30601.084
128


30601.085
129


30601.086
130


30601.087
131


30601.088
132


30601.089
133


30601.090
134


30601.091
135


30601.092
136


30601.093
137


30601.094
138


30601.095
139


30601.096
140


30601.097
141


30601.098
142


30601.099
143


30601.100
144


30601.101
145


30601.102
146


30601.103
147


30601.104
148


30601.105
149


30601.106
150


30601.107
151


30601.108
152


30601.109
153


30601.110
154


30601.111
155


30601.112
156


30601.113
157


30601.114
158


30601.115
159


30601.116
160


30601.117
161


30601.118
162


30601.119
163


30601.120
164


30601.121
165

Æ


30601.122