Abstract:Motivation Appropriately taxing the richest is a priority for African governments which need tax revenues to invest and pay for public services. In Uganda, the revenue authority launched a unit in 2015 to monitor the tax affairs of high net‐worth individuals (HNWIs) and very important people (VIPs), 393 persons in all. The unit combined persuasion, assistance, and enforcement. Purpose Was the unit able to improve tax compliance by the rich? Methods and approach In collaboration with the Uganda Revenue Authority, this study builds on taxpayer‐level data on tax filing and payment. The analysis employs a standard difference‐in‐difference framework, exploiting the timing of the launch of the unit (September 2015). It also makes use of the existence of the target group of 393 wealthy and a group of another 1,731 potential wealthy who have been identified but never included in the unit's operations owing to limited resources. We match the groups using a propensity score algorithm. Findings The unit has been only partly successful. While the unit increased the probability of filing a return, especially by VIPs, taxpayers declared less on different measures, with no impacts on tax liability. On tax payments, only a small and significant positive impact was found, again due to complex offsetting responses across tax categories. This study also measures the spillover effect on companies controlled by the richest: again documenting complex compensating reactions and no meaningful impacts on tax take. Lastly, while deterrence is more effective for HNWIs, taxpayer assistance and public shaming are more relevant for VIPs. Policy implications This case shows the rich can be identified and their tax monitored. It also shows the limits of what can be achieved. The Uganda unit lacked staff: it needed twice as many persons to monitor the tax of wealthy persons adequately. Moreover, it was hamstrung by the difficulties of sharing data between different departments of the Tax Authority, among government agencies, and between government and key agents such as banks. Ultimately the unit did not have the staff and data to challenge the tax avoidance schemes deployed by wealthy people and the companies they own.

Tax evasion and tax avoidance

The non-linear Effect of Income on the Shadow Economy

The political economy of big data leaks: Uncovering the skeleton of tax evasion

Income tax evasion and third‐party reported consumption and wealth: implications for the optimal tax structure

Behavioral Responses to Wealth Taxation: Evidence from Colombia

How to improve tax compliance by wealthy persons? Evidence from Uganda

Gaming the System: An Investigation of Small Business Owners' Attitudes to Tax Avoidance, Tax Planning, and Tax Evasion

Federal aggregate personal income tax evasion/unreported income and its real interest rate yield effects on longer-term treasury debt issues

Tax Evasion and Managerial Incentives: Evidence from the FATCA and Offshore Mutual Funds

Inheritance Tax Evasion in Germany

Corporate tax avoidance, economic policy uncertainty, and the value of excess cash: International evidence

Tax avoidance, investor protection, and investment inefficiency: An international evidence

Tax evasion and public governance before and after the European “big bang”: a red flag for policymakers

Influence of Inheritance Tax on the Size of Shadow Economy and the Volume of Tax Evasion

Tax Evasion and Market Efficiency: Evidence from the FACTA and Offshore Mutual Funds

Quantifying International Tax Avoidance: A Review of the Academic Literature

Taxpayer's Attitude Towards Tax Evasion in a Developing Country

Tax avoidance and tax evasion: current insights and future research directions from an emerging economy

Fiscal Consequences of Corporate Tax Avoidance

Tax Evasion, Corporate Social Responsibility and National Governance: A Country-Level Study

Income Shifting as an Aspect of Tax Avoidance: Evidence from U.S. Multinational Corporations