Impact of Artificial Intelligence Algorithms on Tax Evasion Detection: Challenges for Tax Regulation and Digital Procedural Guarantees for Taxpayers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67169/publicarciencia.V8i1.53Keywords:
artificial intelligence, tax evasion, algorithmic transparency, digital tax procedural safeguards, tax administration, digital due processAbstract
Tax evasion represents one of the most persistent structural challenges for tax administrations in Latin America, with an estimated cost of US$433 billion in 2023—equivalent to 6.7% of regional GDP. Against this backdrop, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a high-potential tool for strengthening the State's enforcement capacity through the development of predictive models, which have achieved evasion detection rates ranging from 82% to 98.08%.
This article aims to analyze how predictive models used by tax authorities can contribute to boosting tax collection, while also evaluating current regulatory frameworks designed to ensure algorithmic transparency and taxpayers' digital procedural rights.
To this end, a systematic literature review of a propositive nature was conducted, following the PRISMA-ScR protocol (Tricco et al., 2018). Twenty-three sources indexed in Scopus, SciELO, and Latindex, covering the 2021–2026 period, were analyzed. Additionally, a comparative analysis was performed on five tax administrations—Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Ecuador—selected based on the CIAT Global Inventory of Tax Digitalization (2025).
The results reveal five structural regulatory gaps: the absence of binding legal instruments, the lack of specific obligations regarding algorithmic explainability, the risk of unaudited algorithmic bias, insufficient digital procedural safeguards for taxpayers, and limited institutional technical capacity to audit algorithmic systems.
Based on these findings, a minimum regulatory framework is proposed, underpinned by binding guiding principles, digital procedural safeguards for taxpayers, an institutional oversight architecture, and a set of regulatory instruments organized in layers. It is concluded that algorithmic governance in taxation requires legal and institutional mechanisms that reconcile the use of artificial intelligence with transparency, the protection of taxpayers' rights, and democratic oversight. In this context, Ecuador has an opportunity to strengthen its regulatory framework regarding the use of artificial intelligence in tax administration.
Downloads
References
Arguelles-Toache, E. (2024). Beneficios y riesgos del uso de la inteligencia artificial en el Servicio de Administración Tributaria de México (SAT): Un análisis desde la perspectiva de investigadores académicos. *PAAKAT: Revista de Tecnología y Sociedad, 14*(27). https://doi.org/10.32870/Pk.a14n27.885
Belahouaoui, R., & Alm, J. (2025). Tax fraud detection using artificial intelligence-based technologies: Trends and implications. *Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18*(9), Article 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18090502
Belahouaoui, R., & Attak, E. H. (2024). Digital taxation, artificial intelligence and Tax Administration 3.0: Improving tax compliance behavior—A systematic literature review using textometry (2016–2023). *Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 22*(3), 612–638. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-05-2023-0265
Belahouaoui, R., & Attak, E. H. (2026). Artificial intelligence in tax compliance and evasion mitigation: Trends, mechanisms, and institutional implications. *Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 19*(7), Article 513. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19070513
Bozdoğanoğlu, B., & Yücel, A. (2025). Use of artificial intelligence technology in tax management: Evaluation of the principle of transparency within the framework of international legislation provisions. *International Journal of Public Finance, 10*(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.30927/ijpf.1522095
Centro Interamericano de Administraciones Tributarias. (2025). *Inventario global 2025: ¿Dónde están y hacia dónde van las administraciones tributarias en el ámbito de la digitalización y transformación digital?* CIAT. https://www.ciat.org/inventario-global-2025
Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, & Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos. (2024). *Estadísticas tributarias en América Latina y el Caribe 2024*. OCDE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9a36f6e0-es
Collingridge, D. (1980). *The social control of technology*. Frances Pinter.
Cunha, C. R., Stamile, N., & Grupenmacher, B. T. (2024). O uso da inteligência artificial na fiscalização tributária e a opacidade algorítmica: O caso do sistema de seleção aduaneira por aprendizado de máquina (SISAM). *Pensar—Revista de Ciências Jurídicas, 29*(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5020/2317-2150.2024.13867
Duarte Sánchez, D. D., Alegre, M., & Ramírez Girett, V. A. (2023). Adopción de la inteligencia artificial en las administraciones tributarias: Revisión de literatura. *Ciencias Económicas, 4*(7), 19–29. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8941558
Faúndez-Ugalde, A., & Mellado-Silva, R. (2023). Uso de automatización de procesos robóticos por administraciones tributarias e impacto en los derechos humanos. *Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, 12*, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-2584.2023.65457
Guglyuvatyy, E. (2025). Balancing innovation and integrity: AI in tax administration and taxpayer rights. *Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12*, Article 1818. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06099-7
Haro Orozco, E. R., & Flor Mora, O. P. (2024). Evasión tributaria del impuesto al valor agregado en el Ecuador. Período 2020–2023. *Dominio de las Ciencias, 10*(4), 1404–1420. https://doi.org/10.23857/dc.v10i4.4131
Jiménez Vargas, P. J. (2026). Modelos predictivos y herramientas de transparencia en el Derecho Tributario. *Revista Española de la Transparencia*, (24), 325–356. https://doi.org/10.51915/ret.426
Lahlou, I., Kabbaj, S., & Oubal, A. (2026). From predictive accuracy to algorithmic justice: Mapping the multidimensional impact of AI in tax auditing. *Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 19*(5), Article 354. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19050354
Montalván-Gaona, A. S., Ortiz-Tinoco, D. E., & Orellana-Ulloa, M. N. (2026). Análisis del uso de inteligencia artificial en la fiscalización tributaria del SRI en Machala: Eficiencia, ética pública y evasión fiscal. *Sociedad & Tecnología, 9*(S1), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.51247/st.v9iS1.61
Morocho Ribadeneira, M. R., Moreira Mero, N. Y., Pinargote Pinargote, H. M., & Zambrano Vera, A. M. (2025). La inteligencia artificial y su impacto en las plataformas digitales del SRI en el Ecuador. *Revista Científica Multidisciplinaria G-nerando, 6*(2), 2350–2366. https://doi.org/10.60100/rcmg.v6i2.823
Ojeda Pérez, F., Guervós Maíllo, M. Á., & Preciado Álvarez, F. (2025). Los medios electrónicos y la inteligencia artificial en la gestión tributaria en México. *Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, 58*(172). https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24484873e.2025.172.19577
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. *Systematic Reviews, 10*, Article 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Palomino Guerrero, M. (2022). Inteligencia artificial: Un mecanismo para frenar la evasión fiscal sin vulnerar los derechos del contribuyente. *Cuestiones Constitucionales. Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional, 1*(46), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24484881e.2022.46.17053
Parlamento Europeo y Consejo de la Unión Europea. (2016). Reglamento (UE) 2016/679 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 27 de abril de 2016, relativo a la protección de las personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos (Reglamento General de Protección de Datos—GDPR). *Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea, L 119*, 1–88. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679
Rechtbank Den Haag. (2020, 5 de febrero). *ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878, C/09/550982 / HA ZA 18-388. Sistema de Indicación de Riesgos (SyRI).* Tribunal de La Haya. https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878
Thierer, A. (2014). *Permissionless innovation: The continuing case for comprehensive technological freedom*. Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Colquhoun, D., Straus, S. E., & Moher, D. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. *Annals of Internal Medicine, 169*(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Unión Europea. (2024). Reglamento (UE) 2024/1689 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 13 de junio de 2024, por el que se establecen normas armonizadas en materia de inteligencia artificial (Ley de Inteligencia Artificial—EU AI Act). *Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea, L*, 2024/1689. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
Xavier, O. C., Pires, S. R., Marques, T. C., & Soares, A. S. (2022). Identificação de evasão fiscal utilizando dados abertos e inteligência artificial. *Revista de Administração Pública, 56*(3), 426–440. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220210256
Yacolca-Estares, D. I., Choy-Zevallos, E. E., & Chavez-Díaz, J. M. (2026). Algorithmic tax justice in Peru. *Laws, 15*(4), Article 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws15040060
Yang, L. (2025). Predictive modeling of tax compliance risks: A comparative study of machine learning approaches. *PLOS ONE, 20*(9), Article e0331715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331715
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ingrid Angelina Soto Galarza, Steven Daniel Rivera Conforme, Víctor Fernando Barrera Rea, Blanca Amada Sandoval Medina (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
