Inertia and Overwithholding: Explaining the Prevalence of Income Tax Refunds

Damon Jones

NBER Working Paper No. 15963
Issued in May 2010
NBER Program(s):   PE

Over three-quarters of US taxpayers receive income tax refunds, indicating tax prepayments above the level of tax liability. This amounts to a zero interest loan to the government. Previous studies have suggested two main explanations for this behavior: precautionary behavior in light of tax uncertainty and/or a forced savings motive. I present evidence on a third explanation: inertia. I find that tax filers only partially adjust tax prepayments in response to changes in default withholdings or tax liability. I use four different settings for identification: (1) a 1992 change in default federal withholding, (2) a panel study of child dependents and tax liability, (3) the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) during the 1990s and (4) a change in default enrollment rules for the Advance EITC option. In the first two cases, I find that individuals offset less than 30% of a change to their expected refund after one year, and about 50% of this shock after three years. Adjustments in tax prepayments by EITC recipients offset no more than 2% of a change in tax liability, though evidence from the Advance EITC indicates that information can significantly increase responses. Given the evidence on inertia, the design of default withholding rules is no longer a neutral decision made by the social planner, but rather, may affect consumption smoothing, particularly for low-income tax filers.

download in pdf format
   (332 K)

email paper

Machine-readable bibliographic record - MARC, RIS, BibTeX

Document Object Identifier (DOI): 10.3386/w15963

Published: “ Inertia and Overwithholding : Explaining the Prevalence of Income Tax Refunds,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , 4(1), February, 2012: 158 – 85.

Users who downloaded this paper also downloaded these:
Bitler and Schmidt w17668 Utilization of Infertility Treatments: The Effects of Insurance Mandates
Banks, Emmerson, and Tetlow w19907 Effect of Pensions and Disability Benefits on Retirement in the UK
Mitchell, Mottola, Utkus, and Yamaguchi w15108 Default, Framing and Spillover Effects: The Case of Lifecycle Funds in 401(k) Plans
Fitzpatrick and Jones w18530 Higher Education, Merit-Based Scholarships and Post-Baccalaureate Migration
Brunnermeier, Papakonstantinou, and Parker w14228 An Economic Model of the Planning Fallacy
NBER Videos

National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138; 617-868-3900; email:

Contact Us