# USING A SAMPLE OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAX RETURNS TO EXAMINE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Airs%3A1fbd17db8017d6a9

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

USING A SAMPLE OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAX RETURNS TO EXAMINE
THE EFFECTS OF AUDIT REVALUATION ON PRE-AUDIT ESTIMATES
Martha Britton Eller and Barry W. Johnson, Internal Revenue Service
Martha Britton Eller, P. O. Box 2608, Washington DC 20002
Key Words: Audit, Stratified Sample, Non-response, Imputation
Introduction
Federal estate tax returns are filed for America’s
wealthiest decedents, and these returns contain detailed
information on decedents’ assets, liabilities and
personal characteristics. Data from Federal estate tax
returns provide a unique opportunity to study the
demographic and portfolio characteristics of America’s
wealthiest individuals. In addition, these data provide
valuable insight into the transfer of wealth between and
among generations. The Statistics of Income Division
(SOI) of IRS collects and publishes data from annual
samples of Federal estate tax returns. During the
collection process, data are subjected to extensive math
tests and are edited to remove obvious errors. Similar
to other studies conducted at SOI, data for the annual
Estate Tax Study are collected prior to any systematic
audit of returns, since the audit process can take several
years to complete. Published pre-audit data are,
therefore, likely to contain an understandable bias
resulting from taxpayers’ desire to avoid tax (Harriss,
1994), as well as taxpayers’ misunderstanding of estate
tax law. Because estate tax data are an important
research tool in both the public and private sectors, the
merits and deficiencies of such data warrant careful
analysis.
After IRS processes Federal estate tax returns for
revenue purposes and after SOI extracts data for a
sample of these returns, IRS service center tax
examiners, those with expertise in estate tax law,
review the returns to determine whether they should be
examined by estate tax attorneys in IRS district offices.
Finally, estate tax attorneys in the district offices survey
the candidates for audit and select a subsample of
returns for complete audit processing. Federal law in
effect for returns filed in 1992, the year examined in
this paper, allowed the IRS up to three years after a
return is filed or after the date it was due, whichever
date is later, to complete the audit process. However,
this statute of limitations may be suspended in special
cases.
The IRS grants estate tax attorneys, or auditors, wide
discretion in examining records and in interviewing
fiduciaries, survivors, heirs and others who may be
acquainted with decedents’ affairs. If an auditor
changes values reported on the tax return,
representatives of the estate can appeal to the IRS

Appeals Office, the U.S. Tax Court, the United States
Claims Court or U.S. District Court.
In order to understand the effects of audit revaluation
on pre-audit estimates, SOI undertook a study of postaudit estate tax returns. The 1992 Estate Post-Audit
Study, initiated in 1996, is a sample of 4,433 returns
filed in 1992. Returns were previously selected for
SOI’s annual Estate Tax Study. Filing year 1992 was
selected as the focus year for SOI’s post-audit study in
order to allow time for returns to complete the entire
audit process. For filing year 1992, a decedent’s estate
was required to file a Federal estate tax return if the
value of gross assets, at death, exceeded $600,000.
Federal estate tax returns were filed for 59,178 wealthy
estate tax decedents during that year.
This paper will discuss the sample design and
development of final weights for the 1992 Estate PostAudit Study. Estimates of audit changes in tax
assessments and asset values will be presented.
Estate Tax Study Sample Design
The sample for SOI’s Estate Tax Study, the sample
frame for the 1992 Estate Post-Audit Study, is a
stratified random sample, executed over a 3-year
period, with three stratifying variables. In every year
since 1982, the stratifying variables have been year of
death (focus year, non-focus year), total gross estate
and age at death. Gross estate is divided into 5
categories: $600,000 < $1 million, $1 million < $2.5
million, $2.5 million < $5 million, $5 million < $10
million, and $10 million or more. Age at death is
divided into age < 40, 40 < 50, 50 < 65, 65 < 75, and 75
and older. Sample rates vary from 3 percent to 100
percent, with over half the strata selected with certainty.
Returns are selected for the sample as they are
processed for IRS revenue purposes.
Weights for the Estate Tax Study sample are calculated
in several steps. First, population and sample counts
are adjusted for returns that were selected into the
sample but, upon close examination, do not satisfy the
parameters of the study. This occurs, for example,
when an incomplete return is filed because the estate
was not able to compile all the necessary
documentation by the filing deadline. In such cases, a
second and final return is filed by the estate once the

required information is obtained. Second, counts are
adjusted for the small number of returns that were
unavailable for SOI processing because they were
under review by other areas of IRS. Third, adjustments
are made for misclassified returns, which typically arise
from taxpayer or IRS processing errors that cause
returns to be assigned to an incorrect sampling strata.
Finally, data are poststratified using auxiliary data from
the IRS Master File. These auxiliary data have been
examined and corrected in an attempt to adjust for large
returns not originally available for sampling due to data
transcription errors.

Figure 1: SOI Sample Selection Criteria
(1) fees (including executors’ commissions, and
attorneys’ fees) > 5 percent of total gross estate
(2) adjusted taxable gifts > 5 percent of total gross
estate
(3) other non-corporate business assets > 5 percent
of total gross estate
(4) other stock > 30 percent of total gross estate
(5) credit for tax on prior transfers > 0
(6) art > 0
(7) decedent had a power of appointment over trust
property

1992 Estate Post-Audit Study Sample Design
The sample frame for the 1992 Estate Post-Audit Study
consisted of returns originally selected for SOI’s study
of Federal estate tax returns filed during calendar year
1992. The 1992 Estate Tax Study sample consisted of
7,559 returns out of a population of 59,178. The 1992
Estate Post-Audit Study sample was a stratified random
sample of these 7,559 returns. The sample was
stratified by a variable that predicted a return’s
likelihood of being audited, an “audit likelihood
indicator.” Because the process of determining whether
or not a return will be audited is highly subjective,
development of this post-audit project included meeting
with IRS auditors in several regions of the country to
discuss the criteria they use in selecting audit cases.
Based on these interviews, SOI developed the sample
selection critera listed in Figure 1 below. In addition to
these criteria, returns for married decedents are usually
not audited, since the unlimited marital deduction for
bequests to a decedent’s surviving spouse typically
offsets any increase in the taxable estate that might
result from audit revaluation. With this information, an
audit likelihood indicator that served as the sample
stratifier was developed. Returns with a high likelihood
of audit, those which met one or more of the criteria in
Figure 1 and were filed for non-married decedents,
were selected into the sample with certainty.
A
random sample of the remaining returns was selected at
a sampling rate of about 0.4. Overall, the final sample
included 4,433 returns, 2,433 of which were selected
because they conformed to the marital status (nonmarried) criteria and the criteria in Figure 1; the
remaining 2,000 were selected randomly.
While filing year 1992 was chosen as the focus year for
the Estate Post-Audit Study, a significant portion of the
sample, 229 returns, was still unavailable to SOI at the
study’s close. After SOI economists tested and cleaned
the data, as well as performed some limited imputation
for item non-response, weights for non-missing returns
were developed in two stages.

(8) closely-held stock > 5 percent of total gross estate
(9) real estate > 40 percent of total gross estate
(10) lifetime transfers > 30 percent of total gross estate
(11) total gross estate > $5,000,000

First, an initial base weight was calculated for nonmissing returns, taking into account both the probability
of selection in the underlying sample of estate tax
returns and the probability of selection in the post-audit
subsample. In the initial post-audit sample, there were
a small number of cases for which only a limited
amount of data on the magnitude of audit revaluations,
but no underlying detail, existed. Since researchers are
most interested in studying this detail, incomplete cases
were eliminated from the final data set. Therefore, in
the
second
stage
of
weight
development,
poststratification was used to adjust the weights of the
remaining cases. Adjustment cells were constructed
based on the size of the change in taxable estate. In
each adjustment cell, a ratio adjustment was computed
that utilized data available from both complete and
incomplete cases. Using these ratios to adjust base
weights of the cases for which complete data were
available, final weights were then constructed. The
final data file included complete records for 4,182
returns, of which 1,357 had been audited. A careful
analysis of the 229 missing returns was conducted using
the IRS Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS). It
was possible to determine whether each of the missing
returns had been audited and, if so, the outcome of
audit. The distribution of missing returns on these key
characteristics was almost identical to that of the nonmissing returns, so no additional “non-response”
adjustment was necessary.
Revaluation at a Glance
Raw audit data for the 1992 Estate Post-Audit Study
were collected from Forms 1273 and 3228 prepared by
IRS auditors during the formal audit process. These
forms, in most instances, capture both pre- and postaudit estate tax return values. Revaluation data were
extracted from the forms by IRS personnel in the
Ogden Service Center. Therefore, the revaluation data

$12.0 billion, an aggregate net difference of $117.0
million. Therefore, the post-audit value of 1992 total
allowable deductions reached $43.6 billion.

described in this paper are estimates of the audited
population based on actual IRS audit results.
IRS tax examiners audited an estimated 11,338 Federal
estate tax returns filed in 1992, representing 19.2
percent of the 59,178 returns filed during the year.
Figure 2 shows that, as the size of gross estate
increases, the rate of audit increases. Returns filed with
gross estates less than $1.0 million were audited at a
rate of 11.1 percent. However, almost 50.0 percent of
returns filed with gross estates over $5.0 million were
audited, even though the audited returns in that
category represented only 9.7 percent of the entire
audited population.

The original net estate tax liability for filing year 1992
was an estimated $10.2 billion. Almost two-thirds, 63.2
percent, of the original liability, or $6.4 billion, was
subject to audit. Overall, net estate tax liability
increased an estimated $559.8 million as a result of
audit, a change that represented 5.5 percent of the
original liability reported in 1992. Of audited cases,
60.0 percent were closed with additional net estate tax
owed, 19.0 percent were closed with no change in tax
assessment, and 21.0 percent were closed with a
reduction in the original net estate tax liability. The
value of additional estate tax owed was $676.6 million,
while the reduction in estate tax liability totaled $116.8
million. Post-audit estate tax revenue for filing year
1992, the sum of pre-audit estate tax revenue and
revenue derived from audit, reached $10.8 billion.
Figure 3: Change in Value of Total Gross Estate,
Allowable Deductions and Net Tax Due to Audit

Figure 2: Number and Percentage of Returns
Audited, by Size of Total Gross Estate
Size of Total

Returns

Returns

Percent

Gross Estate

Filed

Audited

Audited

Under $1 million

31,376 (30.6)

3,475

11.1%

$1 million under $5 Million

25,542 (59.6)

6,760

26.5%

$5 million or more

2,260

1,098

48.6%

Total

59,178 (100.0) 11,338

19.2%

(9.7)

Numbers are in millions of dollars.

Combined total gross estate for 1992, the accumulated
wealth of estate tax decedents whose returns were filed
during 1992, exceeded $100.0 billion, and 34.9 percent
of that value was subject to audit by tax examiners.
Total gross estate increased $1.2 billion, from $34.9
billion to $36.1 billion. The post-audit value of 1992
combined gross estate was $101.2 billion (see Figure
3).

Total
gross
estate

Allowable

Net estate

Deductions

tax

Pre-audit value

100,017

43,530

10,199

Value subject to audit

34,880

11,905

6,443

Percent subject to audit

34.9%

27.3%

63.2%

Audit revaluation amount

1,222

117

560

Percent change due to audit

1.2%

0.2%

5.5%

Post-audit value

101,239

43,647

10,759

Demographic Data for the Audited Population

Total allowable deductions, available against gross
estate, reduce a decedent’s taxable estate and include
deductions
for
marital
transfers,
charitable
contributions, administrative expenses, indebtedness,
taxes and casualty loss. The original, pre-audit value of
total allowable deductions for 1992 exceeded $43.5
billion, and 27.3 percent of that value, or $11.9 billion,
was subject to audit. An unexpected result, total
allowable deductions increased from $11.9 billion to

Revaluation Data by Sex of Decedent
The filing population in 1992 included more male
decedents than female decedents, with 32,843 males, or
55.5 percent of the total population, and 26,335
females, or 44.5 percent of the total population (see
Figure 4). However, females were more prevalent than
males in the audited population. Of the 11,338
decedents in the audited population, 52.9 percent, or
Figure 4: Audited Estate Tax Returns, Change in Assessment as a Percentage
of the Number of Returns Audited, by Sex
[Money amounts are in thousands dollars]
Males
Number

Females
Percent

Number

Total
Percent

Number

Percent

Filing population

32,843

55.5%

26,335

44.5%

59,178

100%

Audited population

5,340

47.1%

5,998

52.9%

11,338

100%

Additional tax assessed

2,951

55.3%

3,856

64.3%

6,807

60.1%

Tax reduction assessed

1,289

24.1%

1,095

18.3%

2,384

21.0%

No tax assessment change

1,100

20.6%

1,047

17.4%

2,147

18.9%

5,998 decedents, were female and 47.1 percent, or
5,340 decedents, were male. This last finding may be
explained by the prevalence of widowed decedents,
most often female, in the audited population. That is,
61.2 percent of the audited population were widowed
decedents, and, more than two-thirds, 68.7 percent, of
widowed decedents were female. Again, the overriding
presence of widowed decedents, and therefore female
decedents, in the audited population is a result of the
audit selection process, which favors non-married
decedents.
The estates of females in the audited population owed
an additional $292.9 million in combined net estate tax,
or 52.3 percent of the total change in estate tax liability
for the audited population, while the estates of male
decedents owed an additional $266.8 million in
combined net estate tax, 47.7 percent of the total
change in estate tax liability. This difference in the
change in tax liability by sex reflects the original
difference in pre-audit liability by sex. For, in the
original 1992 estate tax filing population, female
decedents owed 52.1 percent of the combined net estate
tax liability, or $5.3 billion, while male decedents owed
47.9 percent of the combined liability, or $4.9 billion.
Again, the prevalence of widowed decedents, mostly
female, in the audited population may explain the larger
share of additional estate tax liability assumed by
female decedents’estates.

unknown, 4.1 percent of all decedents. The audited
population looked quite different, with a larger
percentage of widowed decedents and a smaller
percentage of married decedents than in the filing
population.
Widowed decedents comprised 61.2
percent of the audited population, while married
decedents comprised only 23.1 percent of the audited
population. The remaining decedents in the audited
population were divided almost equally between the
last marital status categories, single and legally
separated, divorced or unknown (the “Other” category),
8.8 percent and 6.8 percent, respectively.
The estates of married decedents and the estates of
widowed decedents saw similar increases in net estate
tax as a result of audit. Widowed decedents’ estates
assumed 42.5 percent of the total increase in net estate
tax, or $237.8 million, while married decedents’ estates
assumed 41.2 percent of the total increase, or $230.9
million. Estates of decedents in the “Other” category
experienced a $59.3 million increase in estate tax
liability, and the estates of single decedents experienced
a $31.8 million increase in estate tax liability.
Figure 5: Estate Tax Returns Filed in
1992 and Audited Returns, by Marital
Percent
Status
80
61.2

60

In terms of the type of change in tax assessment, Figure
4 shows that the estates of males and females exhibited
similar tendencies. For both males and females, returns
closed with additional estate tax owed were dominant,
with 55.3 percent of estates for male decedents owing
additional tax and 64.3 percent of estates for female
decedents owing additional tax. Overpayment of the
original tax was more prevalent than no change in tax
assessment for both sexes. However, compared to the
estates of female decedents, the estates of male
decedents were more likely to have overpaid. While
estates of males overpaid in 24.1 percent of cases and
had no change in tax liability in 20.6 percent of cases,
estates of females overpaid in only 18.3 percent of
cases and had no change in tax liability in 17.4 percent
of cases.
Revaluation Data by Marital Status of Decedent
Married decedents comprised the largest percentage of
decedents in the 1992 estate tax filing population, with
46.6 percent of all decedents married at death (see
Figure 5). The second largest marital status category
was widowed decedents, with 40.6 percent of all
decedents widowed at death. The remaining decedents
were single at death, 8.6 percent of all decedents, or
were legally separated, divorced or marital status

46.6

40.6

40
23.1

20

8.6

8.8

4.1

6.8

0
Married

Widowed

Estate Tax Filing Population

Single

Other

Audited Population

Revaluation Data by Age of Decedent
In terms of decedent age, estate tax examiners selected
audit cases that fairly represented the 1992 estate tax
filing population, since the distribution of age in the
audited population was quite similar to the distribution
of age in the 1992 filing population as a whole (see
Figure 6). The largest group of decedents in the 1992
filing population were “80 under 90,” 32.5 percent of
the filing population, while the second and third largest
groups were “70 under 80” and “90 and older,” 26.4
percent and 16.0 percent of the filing population,
respectively. In the audited population, those estates
selected for audit, the largest group of decedents were
“80 under 90,” 34.6 percent of the audited population,
while the second and third largest groups were, as
above, “70 under 80” and “90 and older,” 24.3 percent
and 20.9 percent of the audited population, respectively.

Percent
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure 6: Estate Tax Returns Filed in 1992 and
Audited Returns, by Age
34.6
32.5
26.4
24.3
15.7
11.9

20.9
16

6 5.7

3.4 2.6
Under 50

50 under 60 under 70 under 80 under
90 and
60
70
80
90
older
Estate Tax Filing Population Audited Population

Revaluation of Assets
In the course of the annual Estate Tax Study conducted
by SOI, detailed asset data are extracted from each
Federal estate tax return included in the study. Assets,
the building blocks of total gross estate, are assigned to
one of several asset categories, which allows SOI to
produce estimates of total asset holdings, by asset type,
for the filing population. The Estate Post-Audit Study
utilized these same asset categories, permitting
comparisons between the 1992 filing population, as
reported on the original, 1992 estate tax return, and the
audited population, as reported on Forms 1273 and
3228, audit forms completed by estate tax examiners.
Asset data available from the 1992 Estate Post-Audit
Study include original (pre-audit) and corrected (postaudit) values for individual assets that were revalued
during audit.
Audited returns most frequently included cash assets,
present on 99.0 percent of all audited returns, followed
by other corporate stock, primarily publicly traded
stock, present on 78.3 percent of audited returns (see
Figure 7, Column 1). However, looking at the relative
frequency of audit revaluation among audited returns
with a particular asset, the findings are quite different
(see Figure 7, Column 3). Real estate assets, excluding
the personal residence, were most frequently revalued
among those audited returns that included real estate
holdings; 38.0 percent of audited returns with real
estate included revalued real estate assets. The stock of
closely held corporations was second in the relative
frequency of changes. Of audited returns with closely
held stock, 37.0 percent included revalued closely held
stock. Cash assets followed closely held stock, with
34.0 percent of audited returns that included cash
encountering revaluation of cash assets.
Again, if audit results for asset holdings are examined
in conjunction with asset-holding data from SOI’s
annual Estate Tax Study for filing year 1992, it is
possible to examine the degree to which revaluation
affects pre-audit estimates of assets. Comparing the
original value of revalued assets with the total, preaudit value for assets in a particular category among all

audited returns reveals that 41.3 percent of depletable
and intangible assets, such as copyrights, were
examined for revaluation purposes, making these assets
most subject to audit (see Figure 7, Column 4).
Ignoring unclassified mutual funds, an asset category
that includes funds that could not be classified by their
component assets, second among asset values subject to
audit was the total value of real estate, with 34.3
percent of real estate in the audited population
examined and revalued. Closely held stock holdings
were third in this ranking, with a little less than 27.0
percent of the value of closely held stock examined and
revalued. Farm assets as a percentage of the total value
of audited returns with farm assets exceeded 100.0
percent. This finding suggests that the original value of
revalued farm assets, as derived from the Estate PostAudit Study, is larger than the total value of farm assets
in the audited population, derived from the Estate Tax
Study. The difference between studies points out the
difficulty in identifying farm assets that are used to run
a farm or agricultural business. Because of this
difficulty, farm assets are excluded from the following
analysis.
Asset revaluation that occurred during the audit process
may be examined in a number of different ways. First,
the net aggregate change in asset value may be
examined (see Figure 7, Column 5). Closely held stock
had the largest net aggregate change in asset value, a
$319.7 million increase. The net aggregate revaluation
of mortgages, notes and claims, the second largest
revaluation, totaled $268.9 million. The third largest
increase was in other real estate, a net increase of
$140.1 million.
The average net change per revalued return is another
variable to use in analyzing asset revaluation (see
Figure 7, Column 6). The largest average net change
per revalued return was almost $500,800, the average
change for mortgages, notes and claims. The average
change for closely held stock was the second largest
change, with the value of that stock increasing, after
audit, more than $387,000 per revalued return.
Ignoring the change per revalued return for farm assets,
third in this ranking was depletable and intangible
assets, with an average change per revalued return of
$193,600.
The revaluation of assets may also be examined in
relation to the original value of revalued assets (see
Figure 7, Column 7). The post-audit increase in the
value of mortgages, notes and claims was the largest
increase as a percentage of that revalued asset, 170.2
percent. Life insurance on the life of the decedent was
second in this ranking. The net increase in the value of
life insurance was 116.9 percent of the value as

originally filed. Depletable and intangible assets
sustained the third largest increase, an increase
equivalent
to
49.0
percent
of
revalued
depletables/intangibles as originally filed. Nine of the
15 asset categories increased by 10 percent or more,
while three categories increased between 5 and 10
percent and only 2 categories increased between 0 and
5 percent. Only one asset category, unclassified mutual
funds, sustained a net decrease, -3.6 percent.
Finally, it is useful to examine asset revaluation in
relation to the original value reported in a particular
asset category across all audited returns (see Figure 7,
Column 8). With some exceptions, the revaluation of
assets represented between less than 1.0 percent and 4.0
percent of the original value on all audited returns.
Once again ignoring farm assets, the largest increase in
asset value, as a percent of total asset value, was in
mortgages, notes and claims, 28.9 percent, followed by
depletable and intangible assets, a 20.3 percent
increase. Closely held stock was next in this ranking,
although it saw a much smaller increase than
depletables/intangibles; closely held stock increased 7.7
percent of its original value on audited returns.
Comparing Columns 7 and 8 reveals that, while
revalued assets were often changed substantially during
audit (Figure 7, Column 7), the changes were, in most
cases, still a small portion of the original asset value for
all audited returns (Figure 7,Column 8). For example,
look at other non-corporate business assets. While the
value of the revalued asset increased 44.5 percent, this
change represented only 7.0 percent of the total value of
other non-corporate business assets on all audited
returns. The same is true for other assets, although in
varying degrees: limited partnerships, for which there
was a 33.0 percent increase in the revalued asset

compared to a 3.8 percent increase in the total value;
cash (26.9 percent compared to 2.1 percent); closely
held stock (28.8 compared to 7.7 percent); and bond
holdings (17.2 percent compared to 0.5 percent). Of
course, there are a couple of exceptions. The increase
in depletable and intangible assets, for example, was
large, both in relation to the original value of the
revalued asset, 49.0 percent, and in relation to the total
value of depletables/intangibles, 20.3 percent.
Mortgages, notes and claims are similar, 170.2 percent
compared to 28.9 percent. Overall, however, the
changes that estate tax attorneys made to revalued
assets during audit did not introduce large, overall
increases to total asset holdings, regardless of the
magnitude of change in the revalued asset.
References:
Erard, B. (1998) “Estate Tax Underreporting Gap
Study: A Report Prepared for the Internal Revenue
Service Economic Analysis and Modeling Group.”
(Order Number TIRNO-98-P-00406) Internal Revenue
Service.
Harriss, C. L. (1949) “Wealth Estimates as Affected
by Audit of Estate Tax Returns.” National Tax
Journal, vol. 2, number 4, pp. 316-333.
McCubbin, J. (1994) “Improving Wealth Estimates
Derived From Estate Tax Data.” Compendium of
Federal Estate Tax Data and Personal Wealth Studies,
Dept. of Treasury, IRS Pub. 1773, pp. 363-390.
The Authors would like to thank Gerald Auten for
helpful comments. Thanks also to Ogden Service
Center Personnel, Catherine Gullickson, Tamara Rib,
Dorothy Wallace, and Patricia Slaughter for their work
on this project.

Figure 7: Audit Revaluations For Audited Returns Filed in 1992, by Asset Type
Asset
Type

Personal Residence
Other Real Estate
Closely Held Stock
Other Stock
Bonds
Unclassified Mutual Funds
Cash
Insurance
Farm Assets
Limited Partnerships
Non-Corp. Bus. Assets
Mortgages & Notes
Annuities
Depletables/Intangibles
Art

All audited returns
Number
Amount
(1)
6,251
7,611
2,234
8,879
8,295
2,242
11,234
5,569
1,042
1,498
1,943
4,219
3,421
1,160
425

(2)
1,717,199,287
4,335,051,498
4,155,033,484
8,687,221,836
6,301,791,305
301,332,782
3,717,282,372
568,572,557
102,287,640
520,072,214
696,284,538
931,794,868
773,034,691
156,666,051
663,691,995

Returns
with change
(3)
15.9%
38.0%
37.0%
21.8%
11.6%
10.4%
34.0%
8.5%
22.9%
14.0%
16.7%
12.7%
6.0%
14.1%
23.3%

Value
audited
(4)
17.7%
34.3%
26.7%
24.2%
2.7%
39.7%
7.8%
6.2%
113.4%
11.5%
15.7%
17.0%
6.3%
41.3%
6.7%

Change in
asset value

Average
change

(5)
13,720,129
140,142,057
319,689,764
113,406,228
28,991,250
-4,362,642
77,693,621
41,170,651
45,794,993
19,733,013
48,536,881
268,927,346
3,241,130
31,746,604
1,464,218

(6)
13,789
48,509
387,034
58,487
30,168
-18,724
20,371
86,675
191,611
94,416
149,344
500,796
15,810
193,577
14,790

Percent
Change
(7)
4.5%
9.4%
28.8%
5.4%
17.2%
-3.6%
26.9%
116.9%
39.5%
33.0%
44.5%
170.2%
6.6%
49.0%
3.3%

Change,
audited
returns
(8)
0.8%
3.2%
7.7%
1.3%
0.5%
-1.4%
2.1%
7.2%
44.8%
3.8%
7.0%
28.9%
0.4%
20.3%
0.2%

SOURCE: Turning Administrative Systems Into Information Systems, Statistics
of Income Division, Internal Revenue Service, as Presented at the 1999 Joint
Statistical Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Baltimore, MD.,
August, 1999.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Airs%3A1fbd17db8017d6a9. Public record. Not legal advice.