Gaming the IRS’ Third‐Party Reporting System: Evidence from Pari‐Mutuel Wagering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study examines whether taxpayers intentionally avoid Internal Revenue Service (IRS) third‐party reports. In 2017 an IRS amendment created a quasi‐exogenous shock that reduced third‐party tax reporting of pari‐mutuel gambling winnings from certain types of wagers. I consider the effect that this rule change had on taxpayer behavior. Using a difference‐in‐differences research design comparing thoroughbred racing in the United States to Canada, I find a 27% increase in gambler's investment into wager‐types that became less likely to trigger third‐party reports. Further, I provide evidence that this effect was because of third‐party reporting, not withholding, and was stronger in more informed gambling populations. These findings suggest that taxpayers knowingly avoid third‐party reports, enabling underreporting of income to the IRS. This has important policy implications because underreported individual income is the largest driver of the $496 billion annual gap between legal tax liability and actual tax collections in the United States.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".