S Emery1, M M White, E A Gilpin, J P Pierce. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 92093-0645, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several states, including California, have implemented large cigarette excise tax increases, which may encourage smokers to purchase their cigarettes in other lower taxed states, or from other lower or non-taxed sources. Such tax evasion thwarts tobacco control objectives and may cost the state substantial tax revenues. Thus, this study investigates the extent of tax evasion in the 6-12 months after the implementation of California's 0.50 dollars/pack excise tax increase. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective data analysis from the 1999 California Tobacco Surveys (CTS), a random digit dialled telephone survey of California households. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sources of cigarettes, average daily cigarette consumption, and reported price paid. RESULTS: Very few (5.1 (0.7)% (+/-95% confidence limits)) of California smokers avoided the excise tax by usually purchasing cigarettes from non- or lower taxed sources, such as out-of-state outlets, military commissaries, or the internet. The vast majority of smokers purchased their cigarettes from the most convenient and expensive sources: convenience stores/gas (petrol) stations (45.0 (1.9)%), liquor/drug stores (16.4 (1.6)%), and supermarkets (8.8 (1.2)%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential savings, tax evasion by individual smokers does not appear to pose a serious threat to California's excise tax revenues or its tobacco control objectives.
OBJECTIVES: Several states, including California, have implemented large cigarette excise tax increases, which may encourage smokers to purchase their cigarettes in other lower taxed states, or from other lower or non-taxed sources. Such tax evasion thwarts tobacco control objectives and may cost the state substantial tax revenues. Thus, this study investigates the extent of tax evasion in the 6-12 months after the implementation of California's 0.50 dollars/pack excise tax increase. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective data analysis from the 1999 California Tobacco Surveys (CTS), a random digit dialled telephone survey of California households. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sources of cigarettes, average daily cigarette consumption, and reported price paid. RESULTS: Very few (5.1 (0.7)% (+/-95% confidence limits)) of California smokers avoided the excise tax by usually purchasing cigarettes from non- or lower taxed sources, such as out-of-state outlets, military commissaries, or the internet. The vast majority of smokers purchased their cigarettes from the most convenient and expensive sources: convenience stores/gas (petrol) stations (45.0 (1.9)%), liquor/drug stores (16.4 (1.6)%), and supermarkets (8.8 (1.2)%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential savings, tax evasion by individual smokers does not appear to pose a serious threat to California's excise tax revenues or its tobacco control objectives.
Authors: Andrew Hyland; Cheryl Higbee; Qiang Li; Joseph E Bauer; Gary A Giovino; Terry Alford; K Michael Cummings Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: A Hyland; F L Laux; C Higbee; G Hastings; H Ross; F J Chaloupka; G T Fong; K M Cummings Journal: Tob Control Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Xu Wang; Xin Xu; Michael A Tynan; Robert B Gerzoff; Ralph S Caraballo; Gabbi R Promoff Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Marissa G Hall; Joseph G L Lee; Kathryn Peebles; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 7.552