The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unwilling or Unable to Cheat? Evidence from a Randomized Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark
Open accessAbstract
This paper analyzes a randomized tax enforcement experiment in Denmark.In the base year, a stratified and representative sample of over 40,000 individual income tax filers was selected for the experiment.Half of the tax filers were randomly selected to be thoroughly audited, while the rest were deliberately not audited.The following year, "threat-of-audit" letters were randomly assigned and sent to tax filers in both groups.Using comprehensive administrative tax data, we present four main findings.First, we find that the tax evasion rate is very small (0.3%) for income subject to third-party reporting, but substantial (37%) for self-reported income.Since 95% of all income is third-party reported, the overall evasion rate is very modest.Second, using bunching evidence around large and salient kink points of the nonlinear income tax schedule, we find that marginal tax rates have a positive impact on tax evasion, but that this effect is small in comparison to avoidance responses.Third, we find that prior audits substantially increase self-reported income, implying that individuals update their beliefs about detection probability based on experiencing an audit.Fourth, threat-of-audit letters also have a significant effect on self-reported income, and the size of this effect depends positively on the audit probability expressed in the letter.All these empirical results can be explained by extending the standard model of (rational) tax evasion to allow for the key distinction between self-reported and third-party reported incomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis
Allingham, M. G., & Sandmo, A. (1972) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/0047-2727(72)90010-2 · Cited by 4,970
Do Taxpayers Bunch at Kink Points?
Saez, E. (2010) · American Economic Journal: Economic Policy · doi:10.1257/pol.2.3.180 · Cited by 950
Self-citationWhy Can Modern Governments Tax So Much? An Agency Model of Firms as Fiscal Intermediaries
Kleven, H. J., Kreiner, C. T., & Saez, E. (2009) · doi:10.3386/w15218 · Cited by 88
Self-citation
Cited by
No Taxation without Information: Deterrence and Self-Enforcement in the Value Added Tax
Pomeranz, D. (2015) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20130393 · Cited by 822
Corruption in Developing Countries
Olken, B. A., & Pande, R. (2012) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110917 · Cited by 769
Alm, J. (2012) · International Tax and Public Finance · doi:10.1007/s10797-011-9171-2 · Cited by 621
Corruption in Developing Countries
Olken, B., & Pande, R. (2011) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w17398 · Cited by 470
TESTING ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES IN THE FIELD: THREAT, MORAL APPEAL AND SOCIAL INFORMATION
Fellner, G., Sausgruber, R., & Traxler, C. (2013) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1111/jeea.12013 · Cited by 370
Metadata
- Authors
- Kleven, H., Knudsen, M., Kreiner, C., Pedersen, S., & Saez, E.
- Venue
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Publisher
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Published
- 2010-02
- OpenAlex
- W1557786034
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 3
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Unwilling or Unable to Cheat? Evidence from a Randomized Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3386/w15769
- The paper
- Kleven, H., Knudsen, M., Kreiner, C., Pedersen, S., & Saez, E. (2010). Unwilling or Unable to Cheat? Evidence from a Randomized Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w15769
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.