Dow Jones reports via NASDAQ that:
Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Doug Shulman on Tuesday pressed House lawmakers to enact President Barack Obama's proposals to fight offshore tax evasion, as well as other proposed IRS tools, at a hearing on the agency's fiscal year 2010 budget request.
But Shulman dismissed an allegation often made by Levin that offshore tax evasion costs the U.S. Treasury as much as $100 billion per year in lost revenue. "There have been some wild estimates thrown out by academics that we don't agree with," he said. "Those are broad numbers that don't have much basis."
Shulman didn't provide his own estimate of the annual cost of offshore tax evasion, but said IRS officials are working on quantifying that problem.
Wild? The figure is in terms of scale less than the figure I have estimated for losses to the UK of £18.5 billion — which seems by the day to be increasingly conservative.
And my previous work, estimating losses to high net worth individuals of $255 billion a year — now probably the most widely quoted number on this subject ever — was based on data from people who should know — like Merrill Lynch, Cap Gemini and Boston Consulting Group.
Remember revenue authorities have a bested interest in under-reporting this data: it’s very existence does not make them look good.
I stick by the numbers. They’re not wild. They’re the best there is. And it’s notable that tax authorities really are not willing to give us better data. Is that because the resulting figure is worse than we say?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard,
The operative word in your sentence is “estimated”. It depends on the assumptions from which you project your “estimates”. I think I trust the IRS commissioner’s judgement, who has access to real data, than your which are as you freely admit an “estimate”. It is nothing more or less than that. It no more or less reliable than the assumptions on which it is based.
Your referred “authoritative source” which seems to be yourself includes a huge number of weasel words and it is clear from a close reading that it is pure guesswork on your behalf.
I also think your suggestion that revenue authorities have a vested(?) interest in under-reporting this data is poor form and an attack on the integrity of Mr Sh. Are you suggesting that Doug Schulman is not faithful to his oath of office:
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Are you suggesting that he was deliberately misleading the House of Representatives in his evidence?
Or do you accept that he was giving an honest answer to a question based on the information accessible to him from the Internal Revenue Service.
Why should I believe your acknowledged “estimate” over the person responsible for collecting US taxes.
Barwick
Maybe you don’t know as many senior tax people as I do. I assure you they too are political beings – small p.
And they have no better data than me. Why should they? The data they’re given excludes what is being estimated – be definition.
I’m happy to say offshore banks use weasel words – but they’re more authoritative than the tax returns of tax evaders, of that I can be sure
You really should not push your arguments beyond the boundaries of credibility
But for the record – I think Doug Schulman was saying an estimate was just that. Almost all data government uses is just that – from GDP onwards. All I’m saying is he has not made one, we have, and on the basis of all available data we have the best figure available.
By default, that’s right.
End of argument
Richard
Talking of vested interests, lets not forget yours of TJN’s, after all your campaign is all about stirring up the people for action to improve you media standing and donations to the cause.
Over estimating the numbers is clearly in your interest, after all 100 billion grabs more headlines than 10 million.
After all how many more times are you quoted next to these figures than any of the other work you do?