The value-added tax (VAT) has the potential to generate significant government revenue. Despite its intrinsic self-enforcement capacity, many tax administrations find it challenging to refund excess input credits, which is critical to a well-functioning VAT system. Improperly functioning VAT refund practices can have profound implications for fiscal policy and management, including inaccurate deficit measurement, spending overruns, poor budget credibility, impaired treasury operations, and arrears accumulation.This note addresses the following issues: (1) What are VAT refunds and why should they be managed properly? (2) What practices should be put in place (in tax policy, tax administration, budget and treasury management, debt, and fiscal statistics) to help manage key aspects of VAT refunds? For a refund mechanism to be credible, the tax administration must ensure that it is equipped with the strategies, processes, and abilities needed to identify VAT refund fraud. It must also be prepared to act quickly to combat such fraud/schemes.

Explores how the value-added tax (VAT) has risen from relative obscurity to become one of the world's most dominant revenue instruments.

The IMF Fiscal Affairs Department’s Revenue Administration Gap Analysis Program (RA-GAP) assists revenue administrations from IMF member countries in monitoring taxpayer compliance through tax gap analysis. The RA-GAP methodology for estimating the VAT gap presented in this Technical Note has some distinct advantages over commonly used methodologies. By using a value-added approach to estimating potential VAT revenues, as compared to the more traditional final consumption approach used by most countries undertaking VAT gap estimation, the RA-GAP methodology can provide VAT compliance gap estimates on a sector-by-sector basis, which assists revenue administrations to better target compliance efforts to close the gap. In addition, the RA-GAP methodology uses a unique measurement for actual VAT revenues, which isolates changes in revenue performance that might be due to cash management (e.g., delays in refunds) from those due to actual changes in taxpayer compliance.