The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cigarette tax avoidance and evasion
Abstract
Variation in state cigarette taxes provides incentives for tax avoidance through smuggling, legal border crossing to low tax jurisdictions, or Internet purchasing. When taxes rise, tax paid sales of cigarettes will decline both because consumption will decrease and because tax avoidance will increase. The key innovation of this paper is to compare cigarette sales data to cigarette consumption data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). I show that after subtracting percent changes in consumption, residual percent changes in sales are associated with state cigarette tax changes implying the existence of tax avoidance. I estimate that the tax avoidance response to tax changes is at least twice the consumption response and that tax avoidance accounted for up to 9.6% of sales between 1985 and 2001. Because of the increase in tax avoidance, tax paid sales data understate the level of smoking and overstate the drop in smoking. I also find that the level of legal border crossing was very low relative to other forms of tax avoidance. If states have strong preferences for smoking control, they must pair high cigarette taxes with effective policies to curb smuggling and other forms of tax avoidance or employ alternative policies such as counter-advertising and smoking restrictions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In 2000, cartons of cigarettes purchased on reservations in Washington retailed about $10 less than off-reservation prices, and an ∼$80 million dollars tobacco tax revenue loss was attributed to those purchases.16”
From Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015 (2016) · cites this paper as [16]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Baltagi, 1987, Quasi-experimental price elasticities of cigarette demand and the bootlegging effect, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69, 750, 10.2307/1242184 · DOI
- Baltagi, 1986, Estimating dynamic demand for cigarettes using panel data: the effects of bootlegging, taxation, and advertising reconsidered, Review of Economics and Statistics, 48, 148, 10.2307/1924938 · DOI
- Barnett, 1995, Oligopoly structure and the incidence of cigarette taxes, Journal of Public Economics, 57, 457, 10.1016/0047-2727(95)80006-U · DOI
- Chaloupka, 1997, Price, tobacco control policies, and smoking among young adults, Journal of Health Economics, 16, 359, 10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00530-9 · DOI
- Coats, 1995, A note on estimating cross-border effects of state cigarette taxes, National Tax Journal, 48, 573, 10.1086/NTJ41789173 · DOI
- Galbraith, 1997, Taxation, smuggling, and the demand for cigarettes in Canada: evidence from Time Series Data, Journal of Health Economics, 16, 287, 10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00525-5 · DOI
- Gruber, 2001, Is addiction rational? Theory and evidence, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 1261, 10.1162/003355301753265570 · DOI
- Gruber, 2003, Estimating price elasticities when there is smuggling, Journal of Health Economics, 22, 821, 10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00058-4 · DOI
- Gunby, 1994, Canada reduces cigarette tax to fight smuggling, Journal of the American Medical Association, 271, 647, 10.1001/jama.1994.03510330015009 · DOI
- Keeler, 1996, Do cigarette producers price discriminate by state? An empirical analysis of local cigarette pricing and taxation, Journal of Health Economics, 15, 499, 10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00498-5 · DOI
- Lewit, 1982, The potential for using excise taxes to reduce smoking, Journal of Health Economics, 1, 121, 10.1016/0167-6296(82)90011-X · DOI
- O’Donoghue, 1999, Doing it now or later, American Economic Review, 89, 103, 10.1257/aer.89.1.103 · DOI
- Powell, 2003, Peer effects, tobacco control policies, and youth smoking behavior, ImpacTeen Research Paper Series, 24
- Saba, 1995, The demand for cigarette smuggling, Economic Inquiry, 33, 189, 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1995.tb01856.x · DOI
- Thursby, 2000, Interstate cigarette bootlegging: extent, revenue losses, and effects of Federal intervention, National Tax Journal, 53, 59, 10.17310/ntj.2000.1.04 · DOI
- Warner, 1978, Possible increases in the underreporting of cigarette consumption, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 314, 10.2307/2286658 · DOI
- Warner, 1982, Cigarette excise taxation and interstate smuggling: an assessment of recent activity, National Tax Journal, 35, 483, 10.1086/NTJ41862461 · DOI
- Wasserman, 1991, The effect of excise taxes and regulations on cigarette smoking, Journal of Health Economics, 10, 43, 10.1016/0167-6296(91)90016-G · DOI
- Yurekli, 2000, The impact of clean Indoor-Air Laws and cigarette smuggling on demand for cigarettes: an empirical model, Health Economics, 9, 159, 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<159::AID-HEC499>3.0.CO;2-T · DOI
- Zinman, 2000, Youth smoking in the US: evidence and implications, NBER Working Paper, 7780
- Newsweek, 2000. Smuggling, the new frontier in the war against tobacco. July 31, pp. 71–74.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Common state mechanisms regulating tribal tobacco taxation and sales, the USA, 2015
DeLong, H., Chriqui, J., Leider, J., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2016) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053079 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Stehr, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Health Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 277-297
- ISSN
- 0167-6296
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cigarette tax avoidance and evasion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.08.005
- The paper
- Stehr, M. (2005). Cigarette tax avoidance and evasion. Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.08.005