GAO report on tax expenditures 

January 8:   The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) today publicly released a report on tax expenditures.

The GAO report is Tax Expenditures: Background and Evaluation Criteria and Questions, GAO-13-167SP (posted January 8, 2013, and dated November 29, 2012).


Read the report: GAO-13-167SP [PDF 2.2 MB]

Summary of GAO findings

As the GAO explained, tax expenditures are reductions in a taxpayer's tax liability that are the result of special exemptions and exclusions from taxation, deductions, credits, deferrals of tax liability, or preferential tax rates.


The GAO found that tax expenditures are similar to spending programs, and represent a substantial federal commitment to a wide range of mission areas. Using Treasury Department estimates, the GAO noted that $1 trillion in revenue was forgone from the 173 tax expenditures reported for fiscal year 2011.


Tax expenditures are often aimed at policy goals similar to those of federal spending programs. Existing tax expenditures, for example, are intended to encourage economic development in disadvantaged areas, finance post-secondary education, and stimulate research and development.


For some tax expenditures, forgone revenue can be of the same magnitude or larger than related federal spending for some mission areas. The revenue the federal government forgoes from a tax expenditure reduces revenue available to fund other federal activities, requires higher tax rates to raise any given amount of revenue, increases the budget deficit, or reduces any budget surplus.


Given the interest in tax expenditures' effectiveness, Congress asked GAO to develop a framework that could be used to evaluate their performance. In response, this guide describes criteria for assessing tax expenditures and develops questions Congress can ask about a tax expenditure's performance.


GAO's previous work has shown that, once enacted, tax expenditures and their relative contributions toward achieving federal missions and goals are often less visible than spending programs, which are subject to more systematic review. One reason for this is that they often operate, in practice, like entitlement programs not subject to annual appropriations.




©2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International"), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.


The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International.


KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever.


The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.


Direct comments, including requests for subscriptions, to us-kpmgwnt@kpmg.com.
For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at:

+ 1 202 533 4366

1801 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006.