The implementation of social and economic policy through the tax regime : a review of Australia's tax expenditures program

Each year the Australian Federal Treasury releases its Tax Expenditures Statement providing details of concessions, benefits, and incentives delivered through the tax regime to Australian taxpayers. The current Tax Expenditures Statement, released on 25 January 2008, lists approximately 300 tax expenditures and reports on the estimated pecuniary value in terms of revenue foregone, estimated to be a total of $50.12 billion for the 2006-07 financial year. Apart from the annual Tax Expenditures Statement, and despite the recurring fiscal impact, there is very little other scrutiny of Australia’s Federal tax expenditures program. This is despite tax expenditures often being seen as an alternative to direct expenditures with similar impact on the Federal budget. The object of tax expenditures is to provide government assistance and meet government objectives, and, as such, tax expenditures are departures from the revenue raising aspect of the tax regime. Within this context, this article examines the fundamental concept of tax expenditures as contrasted with direct expenditures and considers the role they play in the current tax regime.

Conceptualising tax expenditures : commentary

The tax expenditures concept has been part of the Australian tax review system since 1973. In view of the fact that tax expenditures are considered part of the tax-transfer system, and that paragraph 9 of the terms of reference for the Review Panel requires a consideration of all relevant tax expenditures, we can be confident that they will be considered once again in the final report of Australia’s Future Tax System Review Panel. However, an examination of previous Government and Parliamentary reviews suggests that few of the resulting recommendations are adopted. Previous recommendations have resulted in the acknowledgement of and concern over tax expenditures, but have led to only one significant advancement: the publication of an annual tax expenditures statement. It is apparent that Brooks in his paper aims to ensure, and makes a compelling case for, the significance and central role tax expenditures should play in the Review Panel deliberations. In doing so, Brooks explores the concept itself as well as the conceptual implications impacting on the more pragmatic aspects of tax expenditure analysis. At the outset, Brooks explains why tax expenditures cannot be evaluated using traditional criteria of equity, neutrality, and simplicity, but rather can only be understood and evaluated using budgetary criteria.

Tax expenditures in Australia : the elevation from ‘disguised’ expenditures to architectural pillars of the 21st century

The current Australian Treasury approach to tax expenditures management and reporting is a culmination of 36 years of Government and Parliamentary reviews and reports. The most notable outcome of these reviews and reports is the publication of the annual tax expenditures statement, which commenced in 1986. Since its inception, the Australian annual tax expenditures statements have themselves been the subject of review. Most recently, the Australian National Audit Office has undertaken a performance audit in the Department of the Treasury and released its report entitled Preparation of the Tax Expenditures Statement. In addition to this 2008 report, a second recent opportunity to consider tax expenditures within the Australian tax regime has arisen. The Australian tax system is currently undergoing a comprehensive and broad review with the terms of reference requiring a consideration of all relevant tax expenditures. While the recommendations of the Australian National Audit Office are not novel, and it is not unusual for a broader review to consider the role of tax expenditures within the Australian tax system, both the recommendations of the Australian National Audit Office and the views of the current Review Panel take on a renewed sense of importance given the proliferation of tax expenditures in Australia. Tax expenditures, in terms of number and pecuniary value, have increased significantly in Australia in recent years. The latest Tax Expenditures Statement lists around 320 tax expenditures with the pecuniary value of those expenditures estimated at $73.69 billion or 7.1% of GDP. The largest category of tax expenditures listed in the 2008 Tax Expenditures Statement, totalling $29.23 billion, relate to concessions aimed at retirement savings.

Incentivising private health insurance through the income tax regime : Capitalising on behavioural models

The Australian income tax regime is generally regarded as a mechanism by which the Federal Government raises revenue, with much of the revenue raised used to support public spending programs. A prime example of this type of spending program is health care. However, a government may also decide that the private sector should provide a greater share of the nation's health care. To achieve such a policy it can bring about change through positive regulation, or it can use the taxation regime, via tax expenditures, not to raise revenue but to steer or influence individuals in its desired direction. When used for this purpose, tax expenditures steer taxpayers towards or away from certain behaviour by either imposing costs on, or providing benefits to them. Within the context of the health sector, the Australian Federal Government deploys social steering via the tax system, with the Medicare Levy Surcharge and the 30 percent Private Health Insurance Rebate intended to steer taxpayer behaviour towards the Government’s policy goal of increasing the amount of health provision through the private sector. These steering mechanisms are complemented by the ‘Lifetime Health Cover Initiative’. This article, through the lens of behavioural economics, considers the ways in which these assorted mechanisms might have been expected to operate and whether they encourage individuals to purchase private health insurance.

An analysis of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure

Each financial year concessions, benefits and incentives are delivered to taxpayers via the tax system. These concessions, benefits and incentives, referred to as tax expenditure, differ from direct expenditure because of the recurring fiscal impact without regular scrutiny through the federal budget process. There are approximately 270 different tax expenditures existing within the current tax regime with total measured tax expenditures in the 2005-06 financial year estimated to be around $42.1 billion, increasing to $52.7 billion by 2009-10. Each year, new tax expenditures are introduced, while existing tax expenditures are modified and deleted. In recognition of some of the problems associated with tax expenditure, a Tax Expenditure Statement, as required by the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1988, is produced annually by the Australian Federal Treasury. The Statement details the various expenditures and measures in the form of concessions, benefits and incentives provided to taxpayers by the Australian Government and calculates the tax expenditure in terms of revenue forgone. A similar approach to reporting tax expenditure, with such a report being a legal requirement, is followed by most OECD countries. The current Tax Expenditure Statement lists 270 tax expenditures and where it is able to, reports on the estimated pecuniary value of those expenditures. Apart from the annual Tax Expenditure Statement, there is very little other scrutiny of Australia’s Federal tax expenditure program. While there has been various academic analysis of tax expenditure in Australia, when compared to the North American literature, it is suggested that the Australian literature is still in its infancy. In fact, one academic author who has contributed to tax expenditure analysis recently noted that there is ‘remarkably little secondary literature which deals at any length with tax expenditures in the Australian context.’ Given this perceived gap in the secondary literature, this paper examines fundamental concept of tax expenditure and considers the role it plays in to the current tax regime as a whole, along with the effects of the introduction of new tax expenditures. In doing so, tax expenditure is contrasted with direct expenditure. An analysis of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure is already a sophisticated and comprehensive body of work stemming from the US over the last three decades. As such, the title of this paper is rather misleading. However, given the lack of analysis in Australia, it is appropriate that this paper undertakes a consideration of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure in an Australian context. Given this proposition, rather than purport to undertake a comprehensive analysis of tax expenditure which has already been done, this paper discusses the substantive considerations of any such analysis to enable further investigation into the tax expenditure regime both as a whole and into individual tax expenditure initiatives. While none of the propositions in this paper are new in a ‘tax expenditure analysis’ sense, this debate is a relatively new contribution to the Australian literature on the tax policy. Before the issues relating to tax expenditure can be determined, it is necessary to consider what is meant by ‘tax expenditure’. As such, part two if this paper defines ‘tax expenditure’. Part three determines the framework in which tax expenditure can be analysed. It is suggested that an analysis of tax expenditure must be evaluated within the framework of the design criteria of an income tax system with the key features of equity, efficiency, and simplicity. Tax expenditure analysis can then be applied to deviations from the ideal tax base. Once it is established what is meant by tax expenditure and the framework for evaluation is determined, it is possible to establish the substantive issues to be evaluated. This paper suggests that there are four broad areas worthy of investigation; economic efficiency, administrative efficiency, whether tax expenditure initiatives achieve their policy intent, and the impact on stakeholders. Given these areas of investigation, part four of this paper considers the issues relating to the economic efficiency of the tax expenditure regime, in particular, the effect on resource allocation, incentives for taxpayer behaviour and distortions created by tax expenditures. Part five examines the notion of administrative efficiency in light of the fact that most tax expenditures could simply be delivered as direct expenditures. Part six explores the notion of policy intent and considers the two questions that need to be asked; whether any tax expenditure initiative reaches its target group and whether the financial incentives are appropriate. Part seven examines the impact on stakeholders. Finally, part eight considers the future of tax expenditure analysis in Australia.

Prescriptions for reform of Australia's superannuation tax concessions

The highly controversial and often politicised issue of Australia’s retirement savings regime featured prominently throughout the two day Federal Government’s October 2011 Tax Forum. Calls for reform of this regime are by no means new. Reform debate over the years has focused on each of the three separate pillars: the age pension, compulsory superannuation, and voluntary saving, as well as the interaction of those three elements. However, recently there has been a significant shift away from reliance on the age pension, with its associated risks falling to the government, to a defined contributions scheme where the associated risks fall to the individual taxpayer. Consequently, Australia’s superannuation regime is predominantly subject to current debate, and, as such, the subject of this article. This article considers the history of Australia’s retirement savings regime, along with a framework for evaluating the superannuation tax concessions. It then discusses the recommendations of the Australian Future Tax System (AFTS) Review Panel and ensuing debate at the Tax Forum. Finally, it suggests two proposals to achieve the objectives of the AFTS Review in relation to retirement, those objectives being a system which is broad and adequate, acceptable to individuals, robust, simple and approachable, and finally sustainable. The first, whilst potentially requiring some tinkering’, is relatively simple and a blue print has already been provided to the Federal Government – the adoption of Recommendations 18 and 19 of the AFTS Review. The second is one of management. Superannuation concessions are fundamentally categorised as tax expenditures and the management of these tax expenditures, not just the reporting, should be undertaken.

Tax Expenditure Management : A Critical Assessment

A tax expenditure is a 'tax break' allowed to a taxpayer or group of taxpayers, for example, by way of concession, deduction, deferral or exemption. The tax expenditure concept, as it was first identified, was designed to demonstrate the similarity between direct government spending on the one hand and spending through the tax system on the other. The identification of benefits provided through the tax system as tax expenditures allows analysts to consider the fiscal significant of those parts of the tax system which do not contribute to the primary purpose of raising revenue. Although a seemingly simple concept, it has generated a range of complex definitional and practical issues, and this book identifies and critical assesses the controversial aspects of tax expenditure and tax expenditure management.

Measuring the managerial benefits of tax compliance : a fresh approach

Managerial benefits of tax compliance have been identified by many authors in the tax compliance costs literature; they have however often been ignored when measuring the net effect of tax compliance on business taxpayers because it was believed that the measurement of such benefits was impossible or difficult. This paper first discusses the theoretical issues surrounding the valuation of managerial benefits, including the related tax/ accounting costs overlap problem; it then proposes a fresh approach for measuring managerial benefits. The proposed measurement model incorporates a subjective evaluation of useful accounting information by owner‑managers and objective measurements of accounting costs. Two main components of managerial benefits are identified: the incremental value of managerial accounting information and the savings on reporting costs. A study of small businesses conducted in late 2006, compared accounting practices between tax complying entities (TCEs) and tax compliance free entities (TFEs) and investigated how accounting information was valued by owner-managers in TCEs. The research adopted a mixed methodological design including a major quantitative phase followed by a minor qualitative phase. The results show that while a vast majority of TFEs maintained basic accounting functions, record keeping requirements imposed by tax compliance led to the implementation of more sophisticated accounting systems in TCEs. It was also found that TCE owner-managers assigned a relatively significant value to the managerial accounting information that is generated as a result of record keeping imposed by tax compliance, suggesting that substantial managerial benefits might be derived.

The managerial benefits of tax compliance: perception by small business taxpayers

Research undertaken in 2006 – 2007 investigated the perception of managerial benefits of tax compliance by small business taxpayers. Survey data from a sample of 300 small business taxpayers and responses to semi-structured interviews of owner managers were examined. The study found that a majority of small business taxpayers recognised that tax compliance activities led to better record keeping and to an improved knowledge of their financial affairs. However, there seemed to be a general reluctance by respondents to accept the idea that benefits could be derived as a result of complying with tax. The findings of this study are important as it is the first research that systematically investigated managerial benefits and their perception by small business taxpayers in Australia.