taxpayers who defraud. It was widely accepted that the tax system must be as fully automated as possible to ensure timely processing of information gathered and generally increase the efficiency and effectiveness of operations of the process of tax collection. Innovation As you might expect the desire to bring innovation in the tax system was among the greatest factors for adopting EFDs in TRA operations. This was accepted mostly by responded TRA’s officers. It was argued that due to the development of science and technology in this era TRA and other tax collection revenues in developing countries have been influenced to adopt this new system of tax collection. It was said that adoption of EFDs devices brought innovation not only to the TRA management but also to the taxpayers business. The devices also help to keep financial records of an organization in well-arranged manners. It was said by one of TRA’s offices (tax collector) that in the long run the devices are expected to improve taxpayers’ business by the means of systematic form of record-keeping brought by these devices hand in hand with enhancing voluntary tax compliance. This was also the case in Kenya as reported by Naibei (2011) who said that the one of the reasons for adopting EFDs in Kenya was to bring innovation in which after introducing the devices in Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) the sales information of tax payers and collection information of KRA became secured. Naibei (ibid) also noted that the EFDs devices have helped to enhance VAT compliances this recording of sales information became improved. The devices also have reduced invoice fraud in Kenya which was very high before the introduction of these devices. In the
High cost of purchasing the devices Tax Payers 0 1 2 3 94 100 4.90 4.41 1 Tax Collectors 0 3 4 5 8 20 3.92 Lack of education on the use of EFDs Tax Payers 0 0 1 11 88 100 4.87 4.30 2 Tax Collectors 1 2 2 11 4 20 3.73 Breakdown of the system Tax Payers 3 2 2 21 72 100 4.58 4.17 3 Tax Collectors 2 2 3 5 8 20 3.76 Lack of motivations Tax Payers 0 0 2 14 84 100 4.82 3.95 4 Tax Collectors 6 1 3 6 4 20 3.08 Lack of Tax Payers 3 4 14 24 55 100 4.24 3.83 5 Tax Collectors 3 3 2 6 6 20 3.42 Personal attitudes Tax Payers 28 18 10 24 20 100 2.90 3.75 6 Tax Collectors 0 0 2 4 14 20 4.60 AVERAGE MEAN Tax Payers 4.39 4.06 Tax Collectors 3.75 4.21-5.00=very high challenging factor 3.41-4.20= high challenging factor 2.61-3.40=moderate challenging factor 1.81-2.60=low challenging factor 1.00-1.80=very low challenging factor Source: Data (2015) The remaining factors (table 4.5) were also rated highly at the average mean which indicate that they were “high challenging” in effective implementation of EFDs in Tanzanian revenue collection. Specifically, the results shown that breakdown of the system/network (average mean 4.17) was high (mean 4.58) challenging factor in the use of EFDs machine in which tax payers had very high perception compare to the tax collectors (mean 3.76). Likewise, tax payers (mean 4.82) was highly challenged by lack of motivation in the use of EFD machine while to tax payers (mean 3.08) was moderate challenging factor. Lack of trust in using EFD machine was also found to be a big challenge to taxpayers (mean 4.24), while to tax collector (mean 3.42) this was moderate challenge. Personal attitude of taxpayers was also found to be one of the factors causing challenge in the effective utilization of EFD service, where,