MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1904945223 · doi:10.1093/qje/qjw009

Measuring Income Tax Evasion Using Bank Credit: Evidence from Greece *

2016· article· en· W1904945223 on OpenAlexaff
Nikolaos T. Artavanis, Adair Morse, Margarita Tsoutsoura

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quarterly Journal of Economics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersUniversity of Chicago
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)Tax evasionEvasion (ethics)EconomicsRevenueIncome taxIndirect taxState income taxMonetary economicsTax revenueTax reformGross incomeBusinessPublic economicsAccountingCensus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We document that in semiformal economies, banks lend to tax-evading individuals based on the bank’s assessment of the individual’s true income. This observation leads to a novel approach to estimate tax evasion. We use microdata on household credit from a Greek bank and replicate the bank underwriting model to infer the banks estimate of individuals’ true income. We estimate that 43–45% of self-employed income goes unreported and thus untaxed. For 2009, this implies €28.2 billion of unreported income, implying forgone tax revenues of over €11 billion or 30% of the deficit. Our method innovation allows for estimating the industry distribution of tax evasion in settings where uncovering the incidence of hidden cash transactions is difficult using other methods. Primary tax-evading industries are professional services—medicine, law, engineering, education, and media. We conclude with evidence that contemplates the importance of institutions, paper trail, and political willpower for the persistence of tax evasion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.102 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quarterly Journal of EconomicsSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207