Is E-filing a Gateway Technology?

The intervention was to train firms and provide them support in registering for e-filing.

There are three interventions:
1) Intensive treatment (Group A): firms received training and information about e-filing intended to increase awareness and trust in the system. In the training session, they learned about e-filing availability, its benefits, and registration procedures and participated in an interactive demonstration of the e-filing system. In addition, these firms received logistical support in registering for e-filing to mitigate the hindrances firms willing to use e-filing face in accessing the system: a representative of the implementing partner helped firms complete all the steps required for registration. Firms unwilling to register for e-filing had to explicitly “opt-out” of the program.

2) Training only (Group B): Firms assigned to this group received exactly the same training. However, they did not receive logistical assistance with registration procedures. Firms willing to register to e-filing had to “opt-in” and register by themselves.

3) Placebo training only (Group C): a general training on taxation not specific to e-filing.

To hold the delivery format of the treatments constant, all firms in the three groups received the same general training on taxation not specific to e-filing. The training included a review of different tax laws and procedures and a statement about the availability of e-filing on a slide listing the three modes of filing taxes: “by paper, by mail and electronically.”

2014-10-25

2015-02-14

1) Standardized summary index of technology use using the following variables: "Organization has internet on-premise", "Organization uses emails for business communication", "Maintain accounting and tax records in electronic form"

2) Firm has an online presence in 2023

3) Firm survival as of 2023 according to the administrative tax website

1) Standardized summary index of technology use: this index is obtained by (i) standardizing each variable in the index using the mean and standard deviation of the control group, (ii) averaging all standardized variables and (iii) standardizing this average using the mean and standard deviation of the control group. Impact on this index can be interpreted in percentage points of the control group standard deviation.
The following variables are included:
a) Organization has internet on premise is a dummy variable equals 1 if a firm has internet on premise measured in 2016 follow-up survey.
b) Organization uses emails for business communication is a dummy variable equals 1 if a firm uses emails for business communication measured in 2016 follow-up survey.
c) Maintain accounting and tax records in electronic form is a dummy variable equals 1 if a firm maintains accounting and tax records in electronic form measured in 2016 follow-up survey.

2) Firm has an online presence in 2023 is a dummy variable equal to one if the firm has an active website, a social media page (local social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, LinkedIn or YouTube), a registered email address, a phone number available online or if the firm can be located on Google or Yandex maps. The outcome is constructed using data from online searches conducted between August and November 2023.

3) Firm survival as of 2023 is a dummy variable equal to 1 if a firm had the status “active” on the website of Tax Committee (accessed between May and July 2023), and 0 otherwise.

1) Short term effect on business performances: standardized index of profit turnover and number of full-time equivalent employees using data from 2016 follow-up survey.
2) Long term effect on business performances: standardized index of turnover and number of employees using data from 2020 follow-up survey
3) Long term effect on internet services adoption in 2020 followup survey using the question: "Does your business use paid electronic services from Internet platforms?"

1) Short term effect on business performances is measured using a standardized index of profit turnover and number of full-time equivalent employees using data from 2016 follow-up survey.
- Firm’ profits: average between the profit reported for December 2015 and for June 2015. Top coded at the 99th percentile.
- Firm’s turnover is average between the turnover reported for December 2015 and for June 2015. Top coded at the 99th percentile.
- Number of full-time equivalent employees in 2016 is the summary of the total number of full-time employees and the total number of part-time employees divided by two. The total is then top-coded at the 99th percentile.

2) Long term effect on business performances is measured using a standardized index of turnover and number of employees using data from 2020 follow-up survey
- Firm’s turnover is a continuous variable created from a follow up survey with 174 firms (12% of the original sample) conducted in 2020. Firm turnover is measured from a direct question about the amount of firm turnover made over the last 9 months and the annual turnover made in 2019. The variable will be top coded at the 99th percentile.
- Number of employees is a continuous variable created from the same follow up 2020 survey. Firms were asked to report the total number of full-time, part-time equivalent employees employed by the firm in 2020. The variable will be top coded at the 99th percentile.

3) Long term effect on internet services adoption is a dummy variable equals 1 if a firm responded "Yes" and 0 otherwise to the following question asked in 2020 follow-up survey: "Does your business use paid electronic services from Internet platforms?"

1) Group A: Training session about the e-filing system and logistical support in registering for e-filing.
2) Group B: Training session about the e-filing system only.
3) Group C: firms did not receive e-filing training.

Experimental Design Details:
1) Group A: Training session about the e-filing system and logistical support in registering for e-filing.
Firms assigned to this group received training where they learned about the e-filing system: its availability, benefits and registration procedures. An interactive demonstration of the system was also offered to firms in this group. Moreover, firms received assistance from the implementing partner in completing all necessary registration steps.
2) Group B: Training session about the e-filing system only. Firms assigned to this group received exactly the same training. However, they did not receive logistical assistance with registration procedures.
3) Group C: firms did not receive e-filing training.

Firms in three groups were presented with a general training on taxation that did not specifically focus on e-filing.

Experimental Design Sampling protocol:
The evaluation draws from the universe of firms in Dushanbe which belong to the Tax Committee database. All legal entities and individual entrepreneurs which are (i) simplified tax regime payers (ii) have been active in the system for at least 2 years (i.e. not new enterprises or bankrupt ones) and (iii) are not currently e-filling were eligible for the study. There were 5,218 firms in the Tax Committee database that met these three criteria.

A list of 2,004 firms was randomly selected from this overall population with stratification on status of the firm (legal entities or individual enterprises) and “rayon” (administrative units dividing Dushanbe in four). This sample size of 2,000 firms was determined after discussions with Tax Committee and i-SYS (the implementing partner). This number corresponds to the expected number of firms that need to be contacted by i-SYS to obtain the attendance of 1500 firms at a training session. Since we expect the program to be more effective on legal entities which are usually bigger firms than individual enterprises, we oversampled legal entities to have 75 percent of legal entities and 25 percent of individual enterprises in the study population.

Key data sources:
Data from the original short-term study:
(1) The baseline survey conducted in 2014 prior to the program implementation. This self-administered survey was filed by each study participant at the beginning of the training sessions. It contains basic information on businesses, including questions on attitudes toward tax administration and perceived corruption.
(2) Administrative data on tax behaviors (including usage of e-filing)
(3) Data from the company in charge of implementing the program
(4) Data on program cost.
(5) Data from qualitative interviews with implementing agencies and program beneficiaries.
(6) Data from the first follow-up survey conducted in February 2016 one year after the end of the program. This survey was administered by enumerators in person to each firm in the sample (1263 firms) at the firm's premises.

We add the following additional data sources for the long-term study:
(7) Data from a second follow up survey, conducted in 2020 with a subsample of 174 firms from the overall study sample. 74 and 31 firms are in Group A and Group B respectively while 69 firms are in Group C.
(8) Online searches for firms’ online presence: two enumerators performed a systematic online search for all firms interviewed during the endline survey. Each enumerator independently assessed whether the firms had established any online presence, including websites, email addresses, social media handles, etc. Results on online search from both enumerators were combined into the single dataset after the verification of all discrepancies.
(9) Registration status (liquidated or active) of firms included in the endline survey was collected through a search on the website of the Tax Committee of the Republic of Tajikistan conducted between May and July 2023.

Hypotheses:
1) E-filing adoption has a short-term and long-term positive impact on firms' use of internet.
2) E-filing adoption (and internet adoption) has a positive impact on firm outcomes.

Not available

Randomization was done by a computer, with stratification on status of the firm (legal entities or individual enterprises), rayon (four rayons in Dushanbe) and firm sector of activity (trade, services and manufacture and other sector)

Firms

No

1498 firms
For the long-term outcomes, we focus on the 1263 firms surveyed and still operating during the 2016 follow-up survey.

1498 firms For the long-term outcomes, we focus on the 1263 firms surveyed and still operating during the 2016 follow-up survey.

1) Group A (training and logistical help to register): 594 firms
2) Group B: (training only): 296 firms
3) Group C (control): 608 firms

For the long-term outcomes, we focus on the 1263 firms surveyed and still operating during the 2016 follow-up survey.