Underreporting of farm income to avoid taxes

One of the largest benefits of owning a small business is that a small business can easily hide income and thereby avoid taxes.

How large is this problem? That's very hard to tell.

Here's John Berry from Bloomberg:
According to Internal Revenue Service research, the tax gap isn’t the result of high-rollers hiding income in offshore accounts. Most of it is the underreporting of income by proprietors of small businesses and farmers and the failure to pay employment taxes related to that income. Also not reported: an estimated half of all income from rents and royalties.
...

In 2006, the IRS reported the results of a three-year study of individual income tax returns for 2001. It found a gross tax gap of $345 billion, or 16 percent of taxes due. Enforcement activity plus other late payments recovered $55 billion of that, leaving a gap of $290 billion.

That figure, as large as it is, doesn’t include income of the deeply underground economy, including most criminal enterprises. That’s certainly hundreds of billions more, and no tinkering with the tax code is going to bring it into the light of day.

...

In 2001, according to the IRS review, only about one-fourth of farm income was acknowledged. For 2006, only 550,000 farmers reported positive net income, totaling $7.7 billion, while 1.4 million farmers reported losses of $23 billion, according to the latest figures available.

Well, it's hard to assess those IRS reviews. My understanding is that these numbers come from an extrapolation of audits selected at random (most audits target returns with likely errors or underreporting).

Also, with regard to Berry's last commentary, keep in mind that in 2006 there were probably only about 550,000 farms where anyone was trying to make a living from the farm income. The other farms are mostly hobby farms, not intended for profit at all. But they do make for a nice occasional tax deduction, not necessarily illegal.

Anyway, John Berry is writing about Obama's efforts to close loopholes. I think this one will be a tough to enforce without more auditing, which is expensive. Audits may be worth the cost if underreporting is becoming more prevalent. I haven't seen data showing a clear trend up in underreporting, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields Under Climate Change

Image
It's been a long haul, but my coauthor Wolfram Schlenker and I have finally published our article with the title of this blog post in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . We've been told that it would show up on the early-edition website this week. It hasn't shown up there yet so I guess it will come out tomorrow [Friday 8/28], probably late afternoon EST. UPDATE: You can find the article here . We set out to develop a better statistical model linking weather and U.S. crop yields for corn, soybeans and cotton, the largest three crops in the U.S. in production value. Our major new finding is that (by far) the best predictor of yield is a measure of extreme heat: how much temperatures exceed about 29C (84F) during the growing season. The threshold varies somewhat by crop--29C is the threshold for corn. Below this threshold, warmer temperatures are more beneficial for yields, but the damaging effects of temperatures much above 29C are staggeringly large. A
Read more

Commodity Prices and the Fed

I think Mark Thoma nails this .  What he describes is exactly the way I think about the issue but have been unable to articulate. To answer the question in the title of this post, it's useful to think of an island with only two goods. One of the goods is non-renewable, but highly desirable. The other good is less preferred, but it is renewable (thinking of renewable and non-renewable energy resources, for example). The key is to distinguish between changes in prices that reflect changes in the relative scarcity of the two goods, and changes driven by increases in the money supply. Over time, as the stock of the more desired good falls due to consumption, the price of this good will rise relative to the renewable good. Consumers will be hit by increases in the cost of living -- the same basket of the two goods purchased last year now costs more. But is this the kind of increase in prices the Fed should respond to? No, the price increase -- and the increase in the c
Read more