SaneCite
Check · 9 November 2026

Checking the AI audit of Saez and Zucman’s research.

On 28 October 2026 Marginal Revolution featured an anonymous AI audit of research by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman. The audit lists 147 problems it calls serious enough to change a headline number. We call each listed problem a flag; a headline number is a number in a paper’s abstract, introduction or main tables. We checked all 147 against the papers, their sources and the authors’ own data. We check the audit’s claims and take no side where researchers dispute a method. We present the facts; readers draw the conclusions.

Full report (PDF)All 147 verdicts (CSV)JSONMethod

The results in four numbers

131 of 147

facts all right Every fact in the flag that we could check was right.

0 of 147

core facts wrong 8 had smaller errors; 8 we could not check.

21 of 147

change a headline number Shown by a calculation or by the work’s own numbers.

98 of 147

depend on a disputed choice of method Reasonable researchers differ on these. We take no side.

Summary

The audit’s facts hold up. 21 of the 147 change a headline number.

  • The audit’s facts hold up. For 131 of the 147, every fact we could check was right; 8 had smaller errors, and 8 we could not check. None had its core facts wrong.
  • 21 change a headline number. Of these, 17 are shown with material available when the work came out, and 4 only with data released later. They include 5 where the problem sits in the authors’ own released code or spreadsheets (40, 41, 43, 45 and 48) and 8 journal articles (40, 43, 45, 91, 106, 111, 124 and 147; we count a work as a journal article when its citation gives a volume and page numbers).
  • 98 depend on a disputed choice of method. Reasonable researchers differ on these, and we take no side. A second pass graded how standard each choice is.
  • 20 change no number, but in 17 of them the work claims more in words than its own numbers show. We could not check 8 more.
  • One figure has moved between the authors’ own estimates: the 2018 tax rate of the 400 richest Americans. Whether they pay more or less than the bottom half depends on which estimate one takes. We count the four flags that rest on it (9, 21, 120 and 144) as a disputed choice. The report sets out the four estimates.
The authors

We wrote to the authors first.

  • What we sentOn 29 October we emailed Emmanuel Saez, copying Gabriel Zucman, our findings in brief and the full report with every verdict. We offered the full evidence for any flag and promised to print any response in full next to our results.
  • WhenWe asked for a reply by Friday 6 November, and sent one reminder on 4 November.
  • Their replyNone, as of 9 November. We also asked which estimate of the top 400 tax rate they stand behind today.
  • What changed sinceThe copy we sent them counted 24 that change a headline number. Before publishing we checked each of those against our written rules and moved 4 (62, 84, 127 and 130), which left 20. None of those moves made a verdict harsher. Then a second pass added No. 54, so this page counts 21. That addition is harsher than the copy we sent; its card says when and why it was added.
The 21

The 21 that change a headline number.

Each is shown by a calculation or by the work’s own numbers. The numbers are ours: 1 to 30 are the random sample we checked first.

No. 6 · shown at the time

Effective Sanctions against Oligarchs and the Role of a European Asset Registry

Neef et al. · EU Tax Observatory / World Inequality Lab Note, March 2022

The note says about half of Russian household wealth is held abroad; the study it cites gives about a quarter (24%) of total wealth. The note’s summary claim survives.

No. 29 · shown at the time

The NY Billionaire Mark-to-Market Tax Act: Revenue, Economic, and Constitutional Analysis

Gamage et al. · Policy report on New York bill S8277B (2019-20), 1 September 2020; SSRN 3766547

The bill caps the gains counted as income, not the tax. With the report’s own inputs, 2020 revenue is about $9.0 billion, not $23.2 billion; most of the rest comes due in later years.

No. 30 · shown at the time

Progressive Taxation and Inequality: Minimum Taxation of High-Net-Worth Individuals in Latin America and the Caribbean

Silva et al. · International Tax Observatory report commissioned by Brazil under the PTLAC Presidency, April 2026

The report’s own revenue figures cannot lift the top rate in Brazil to 50% (about 34%, at most 46%). The Chile part was not checked.

No. 31 · shown by later data

Foreign Investment in the Dubai Housing Market, 2020-2024

Alstadsæter et al. · EU Tax Observatory Note, May 2024

The authors’ September 2025 paper splits the same $98.1 billion by residence: the offshore share is about 30%, not 43.8%. Dubai stays far above the other cities.

No. 32 · shown by later data

Global Tax Evasion Report 2024

Alstadsæter et al. · EU Tax Observatory report, October 2023

The 2021-22 points were projections; the same team’s July 2026 series gives a 6.9% loss share, not nearly 10%. The $1 trillion level survives.

No. 40 · shown at the time

Who Owns the Wealth in Tax Havens? Macro Evidence and Implications for Global Inequality

Alstadsæter et al. · Journal of Public Economics 162: 89-100

The authors’ code keeps a 2006 value for Venezuela against the paper’s stated rule; on the rule, Venezuela falls from 64% to about 25% of GDP.

No. 41 · shown at the time

World Inequality Report 2018

Alvaredo et al. · World Inequality Lab, 2017; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Belknap), 2018

An undocumented adjustment to Middle East incomes for 1980-84 sits in the published code; without it, world income growth per adult is 53%, not 60%.

No. 43 · shown at the time

The Elephant Curve of Global Inequality and Growth

Alvaredo et al. · AEA Papers and Proceedings 108: 103-108

The same code adjustment as in 41 and 45; without it, top 1% growth is 79%, not 101%, and the top 1% share rises 2.98 points, not 4.28. The elephant shape survives.

No. 45 · shown at the time

Towards a System of Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Global Inequality Estimates from WID.world

Alvaredo et al. · Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics 517-518-519: 41-59 (special issue Beyond GDP)

The code sets Middle East incomes for 1980-84 below the authors’ own inputs; without that step, the rise in the top 1% share falls from 4.28 to 2.98 points.

No. 48 · shown at the time

Equality and Development: A Comparative and Historical Perspective 1800-2025

Andreescu et al. · World Inequality Lab Working Paper 2025/25, October 2025

The released code and data do not reproduce Tables 3 and 4; the growth coefficient is 0.041, not 0.090, so 0.9 points per 10 points becomes about 0.4.

No. 54 · shown at the time

Automatic Exchanges of Information and Offshore Tax Compliance: Evidence from Colombia

Bachas et al. · Working paper, June 2026 (SSRN 7122974)

The abstract says enforcement explains 22-28% of the rise in reported offshore wealth. The paper defines that rise as financial wealth but takes its rate from the all-asset rows of its own Table A.6, which also has financial-asset rows. With those rows the share is about 19% (19.3% level, 19.1% log), and the combined 60-65% becomes about 57%. The change is small and inside the paper’s standard errors.

Added 9 November 2026 by a second pass, after the authors’ reply window (29 October letter, 4 November reminder, replies asked by 6 November) closed with no reply.

No. 91 · shown at the time

Top Incomes and the Great Recession: Recent Evolutions and Policy Implications

Piketty and Saez · IMF Economic Review 61(3): 456-478

Over 15% of national income uses shares of fiscal income; with the paper’s own Table 3, the shift is about 10% of national income.

No. 106 · shown by later data

Taxing the Rich More: Preliminary Evidence from the 2013 Tax Increase

Saez · Tax Policy and the Economy 31: 71-120

The paper’s own method on the final 2015 IRS data gives a 31.5% revenue loss, not at most 20%. The paper marked its 2015 data as preliminary.

No. 111 · shown by later data

Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data

Saez and Zucman · Quarterly Journal of Economics 131(2): 519-578

The authors’ own 2020 and 2022 data releases put the 2012 top 0.1% wealth share at about 20%, not 22%.

No. 118 · shown at the time

Scoring of Senator Warren’s Wealth Tax Proposal (letters to Senator Elizabeth Warren)

Saez and Zucman · Letter, January 18, 2019; updated letter on the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2021, February 24, 2021

The letters derive a 15% avoidance rate for a 2% tax, then apply it unchanged at 3% and 6%. Their own rule cuts the 2021 estimate of $3.9 trillion by 18-26%; the main 2019 figures move 4-6%.

No. 124 · shown at the time

Wealth Taxation: Lessons from History and Recent Developments

Saez and Zucman · AEA Papers and Proceedings 112: 58-62

On the World Inequality Database figures available in October 2021, benchmark revenue for Spain, Norway and Switzerland is 0.71, 0.45 and 1.16, not the printed 0.96, 0.86 and 1.36.

No. 133 · shown at the time

The Exorbitant Tax Privilege

Wright and Zucman · NBER Working Paper 24983, September 2018

Running the counterfactual the paper describes on the authors’ workbook gives 3.2 to 3.8 points of the 14.5-point fall, not almost half.

No. 142 · shown at the time

Inequality: Are we really all in this together?

Zucman · CEP Election Analysis Paper EA030, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE (#ElectionEconomics series), April 2015

The summary box says 1.6 to 3 times; the briefing’s own text and Figure 2 give 1.65 to 1.97 times.

No. 143 · shown at the time

Taxing Multinational Corporations in the 21st Century

Zucman · Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP) Research Brief, September 2018

The brief’s 40% is higher than its source’s 36.2%. A small difference.

No. 145 · shown at the time

A Blueprint for a Coordinated Minimum Effective Taxation Standard for Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individuals

Zucman · Report commissioned by the Brazilian G20 Presidency, June 25, 2024 (EU Tax Observatory)

On the report’s own figures, 7.1% is total group wealth growth; per member it is about 5.4%, implying a return near 5.8%, not 7.5%. Revenue is unaffected.

No. 147 · shown at the time

Introduction : Où est l’argent ?

Zucman et al. · Regards croisés sur l’économie no. 24: 10-17 (2019)

The interview says the share doubled from 20% to 40%; the authors’ own series give about 24% to 40%, a rise of about 1.6 times.

Second pass · 9 November 2026

Of the 99 choices first counted as disputed, 11 are standard, 70 defensible and 11 questionable.

After the authors’ reply window closed, we went back to the 99 flags first counted as depending on a disputed choice of method: the 98 still counted that way, plus No. 54, which this pass moved. For each we asked how standard the choice is. We wrote the rules first and recorded their hash before reading any flag: a fingerprint of the rules file, so anyone can confirm the rules did not change. Two AI readers from different model families graded each flag: Claude (Anthropic), from the paper, its appendix and code and the works it cites, and Gemini (Google), from the pages the first reader cited, blind to its grades. They agreed on 61 of 99; we settled the rest from the cited pages. A red team, a separate check that tries to break a finding by redoing it, re-tested every possible change to a headline number.

Second-pass grades for the 99 flags, with 95% ranges
GradeFlags95% range
Standard116.3-18.8%
Defensible, stated in the paper6151.8-70.6%
Defensible, not stated94.9-16.4%
Questionable116.3-18.8%
Cannot tell62.8-12.6%
Contested10.2-5.5%
  • One flag movedNo. 54 now changes a headline number. The red team upheld it and we re-ran its numbers. Its card says when it was added.
  • What this does and does not meanStandard means used in the work the paper cites, not correct. Nothing here speaks to anyone’s intentions.
  • The gradesStandard: the paper states the choice and work it cites uses it. Defensible, stated: the paper states the choice but does not show the result under the main alternative. Defensible, not stated: the paper does not state the choice. Questionable: the choice departs from the paper’s own stated method, its data’s documentation or its sources’ practice, with no reason given. Cannot tell: the text we needed was not reachable. Contested: our rules do not settle it.
  • The filesProtocol · amendments · every grade, with notes (JSON) · totals (JSON). Each flag’s grade is also in the table below.
Every verdict

All 147 flags.

Facts: are the flag’s statements about the work, its sources and its numbers right? Headline number: does the problem change one, as the audit says? Our note sits under the title where we have one. Second pass: the grade for the flags that depended on a disputed choice of method.

All 147 verdicts
Our verdict on each of the 147 flags
No.Work and our noteFactsHeadline numberSecond pass
1Zucman, Taxing across Borders: Tracking Personal Wealth and Corporate Profitsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
2Saez and Zucman, The Rise of Income and Wealth Inequality in America: Evidence from Distributional Macroeconomic Accountsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, not stated
3Johannesen and Zucman, The End of Bank Secrecy? An Evaluation of the G20 Tax Haven Crackdownrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
4Piketty and Zucman, Wealth and Inheritance in the Long RunThe flag says the authors gave no response; the chapter itself answers the gift-incentive point (p. 1337).partly rightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
5Saez and Zucman, Top Wealth in America: A Reexaminationrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
6Neef et al., Effective Sanctions against Oligarchs and the Role of a European Asset RegistryThe note says about half of Russian household wealth is held abroad; the study it cites gives about a quarter (24%) of total wealth. The note’s summary claim survives.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
7François et al., A Modern Excess Profit Taxrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
8Zucman, Global Wealth Inequalityrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, not stated
9Saez and Zucman, The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Payrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodcontested
10Atkinson et al., Top Incomes in the Long Run of HistoryCanada’s rise is about 7.4 to 7.75 points, not 7.8, so the US rise is marginally larger, not no larger. Minor.partly rightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
11Landais et al., Réponse de Camille Landais, Thomas Piketty et Emmanuel Saezcould not checkcould not checknot graded
12Landais et al., Pour une révolution fiscale : un impôt sur le revenu pour le XXIe sièclecould not checkdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
13Chetty et al., Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United Statesrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
14Zucman, Taxing across Borders: Tracking Personal Wealth and Corporate Profitsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
15Kleven et al., Migration and Wage Effects of Taxing Top Earners: Evidence from the Foreigners’ Tax Scheme in Denmarkrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
16Gidron et al., Global Profit Shifting, 1975-2023 (earlier: Global Profit Shifting, 1975-2019)No headline number changes. The abstract’s peaked, then declined timing is contradicted by the paper’s own Table A1.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
17Bustos et al., Challenges of Monitoring Tax Compliance by Multinational Firms: Evidence from ChileNo number changes. Effective tax rate is not defined in the paper, and on a payroll reading the claim holds.rightdoes not changenot graded
18Landais et al., Pour une révolution fiscale : un impôt sur le revenu pour le XXIe sièclerightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
19Saez, Taxes and International Mobility of Talentcould not checkcould not checknot graded
20Bachas et al., Automatic Exchanges of Information and Offshore Tax Compliance: Evidence from Colombiarightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
21Saez, Should We Tax Wealth?rightdepends on a disputed choice of methodcannot tell
22Boas et al., Taxing Capital in a Globalized World: The Effects of Automatic Information Exchangerightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
23Alvaredo et al., Global Inequality Dynamics: New Findings from WID.worldrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, not stated
24Chetty et al., Economic Mobilityrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
25Piketty et al., Simplified Distributional National AccountsTwo figures reproduce, but the key re-ranking term does not: we get +0.64 to +0.97 points for 2016, not +2.68, and an overlap of 81-84%, not 63-79%. The flag does not state its data version, so part of the gap may be method.partly rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
26Card et al., Inequality at Work: The Effect of Peer Salaries on Job Satisfactionrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
27Bachas et al., Automatic Exchanges of Information and Offshore Tax Compliance: Evidence from Colombiarightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
28Jakobsen et al., Wealth Taxation and Wealth Accumulation: Theory and Evidence from DenmarkThe flag says the paper reports only the top of the range; Table II prints the raw estimate (0.144) beside the adjusted one (0.312).partly rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
29Gamage et al., The NY Billionaire Mark-to-Market Tax Act: Revenue, Economic, and Constitutional AnalysisThe bill caps the gains counted as income, not the tax. With the report’s own inputs, 2020 revenue is about $9.0 billion, not $23.2 billion; most of the rest comes due in later years.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
30Silva et al., Progressive Taxation and Inequality: Minimum Taxation of High-Net-Worth Individuals in Latin America and the CaribbeanThe report’s own revenue figures cannot lift the top rate in Brazil to 50% (about 34%, at most 46%). The Chile part was not checked.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
31Alstadsæter et al., Foreign Investment in the Dubai Housing Market, 2020-2024The authors’ September 2025 paper splits the same $98.1 billion by residence: the offshore share is about 30%, not 43.8%. Dubai stays far above the other cities.rightchanges (shown by later data)not graded
32Alstadsæter et al., Global Tax Evasion Report 2024The 2021-22 points were projections; the same team’s July 2026 series gives a 6.9% loss share, not nearly 10%. The $1 trillion level survives.rightchanges (shown by later data)not graded
33Alstadsæter et al., Global Tax Evasion Report 2024rightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
34Alstadsæter et al., Global Tax Evasion Report 2024rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
35Alstadsæter et al., Global Financial Transparency and Offshore Wealth AccumulationThe numbers reproduce. The before-and-after difference is never tested and is not significant, so calling it established is overstated.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
36Alstadsæter et al., Global Financial Transparency and Offshore Wealth AccumulationThe estimates stand. The paper’s Table A.2 contradicts its sentence that the non-haven effects are almost identical.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
37Alstadsæter et al., Global Financial Transparency and Offshore Wealth Accumulationrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
38Alstadsæter et al., Who Owns the Wealth in Tax Havens? Macro Evidence and Implications for Global Inequalityrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
39Alstadsæter et al., Who Owns the Wealth in Tax Havens? Macro Evidence and Implications for Global Inequalityrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, not stated
40Alstadsæter et al., Who Owns the Wealth in Tax Havens? Macro Evidence and Implications for Global InequalityThe authors’ code keeps a 2006 value for Venezuela against the paper’s stated rule; on the rule, Venezuela falls from 64% to about 25% of GDP.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
41Alvaredo et al., World Inequality Report 2018An undocumented adjustment to Middle East incomes for 1980-84 sits in the published code; without it, world income growth per adult is 53%, not 60%.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
42Alvaredo et al., Distributional National Accountsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodcannot tell
43Alvaredo et al., The Elephant Curve of Global Inequality and GrowthThe same code adjustment as in 41 and 45; without it, top 1% growth is 79%, not 101%, and the top 1% share rises 2.98 points, not 4.28. The elephant shape survives.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
44Alvaredo et al., Towards a System of Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Global Inequality Estimates from WID.worldThe numbers reproduce. The Gini is flat, so global inequality has increased holds only for measures sensitive to the top.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
45Alvaredo et al., Towards a System of Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Global Inequality Estimates from WID.worldThe code sets Middle East incomes for 1980-84 below the authors’ own inputs; without that step, the rise in the top 1% share falls from 4.28 to 2.98 points.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
46Alvaredo et al., The Top 1 Percent in International and Historical Perspectiverightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
47Andreescu et al., Equality and Development: A Comparative and Historical Perspective 1800-2025rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
48Andreescu et al., Equality and Development: A Comparative and Historical Perspective 1800-2025The released code and data do not reproduce Tables 3 and 4; the growth coefficient is 0.041, not 0.090, so 0.9 points per 10 points becomes about 0.4.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
49Andreescu et al., Equality and Development: A Comparative and Historical Perspective 1800-2025rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
50Andreescu et al., Equality and Development: A Comparative and Historical Perspective 1800-2025could not checkcould not checknot graded
51Andreescu et al., Equality and Development: A Comparative and Historical Perspective 1800-2025rightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
52Bachas et al., Globalization, Capital Taxation, and Development: Evidence from a Macro-Historical Databaserightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
53Bachas et al., Automatic Exchanges of Information and Offshore Tax Compliance: Evidence from Colombiarightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
54Bachas et al., Automatic Exchanges of Information and Offshore Tax Compliance: Evidence from ColombiaThe abstract says enforcement explains 22-28% of the rise in reported offshore wealth. The paper defines that rise as financial wealth but takes its rate from the all-asset rows of its own Table A.6, which also has financial-asset rows. With those rows the share is about 19% (19.3% level, 19.1% log), and the combined 60-65% becomes about 57%. The change is small and inside the paper’s standard errors.rightchanges (shown at the time)questionable
55Baraké et al., Revenue Effects of the Global Minimum Tax Under Pillar Tworightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
56Blanchet et al., Real-Time InequalityThe numbers stand. The authors’ own real-time releases showed +0.25 points against +1.42 final, so the claim of real-time accuracy is overstated.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
57Boas et al., Taxing Capital in a Globalized World: The Effects of Automatic Information ExchangeThe 70% central estimate stands. The 56-95% range leaves out the uncertainty in one input, so the stated precision is overstated.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
58Bustos et al., The Race Between Tax Enforcement and Tax Planning: Evidence From a Natural Experiment in ChileThe estimates reproduce. The confidence intervals cannot rule out recovering about half the gap, so shown ineffective is overstated.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
59Bustos et al., The Race Between Tax Enforcement and Tax Planning: Evidence From a Natural Experiment in ChileThe estimates stand. Reject any substantial reduction holds only for some specifications; others cannot reject reductions of 50-100%.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
60Chancel et al., World Inequality Report 2022rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
61Chetty et al., Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobilityrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
62Chetty et al., Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobilityrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
63Chetty et al., The Determinants of Income Segregation and Intergenerational Mobility: Using Test Scores to Measure Undermatchingrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
64Chetty et al., Income Segregation and Intergenerational Mobility Across Colleges in the United Statesrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
65Diamond and Saez, The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendationsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
66Diamond and Saez, Taxing High Earningsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
67François et al., A Modern Excess Profit Taxrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
68Galle et al., Expert Report on Proposition 40, the California 2026 Billionaire Tax: Revenue, Economic, and Constitutional Analysisrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
69Galle et al., Expert Report on Valuation of Controlling Shares of Publicly Traded Companies Under the California Billionaire Tax Act (CBTA)The memo gives no number. It leaves out conditions in the statute (clear and convincing evidence, substantially), so the legal claim is overstated.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
70Galle et al., Expert Report on Valuation of Controlling Shares of Publicly Traded Companies Under the California Billionaire Tax Act (CBTA)rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
71Garcia-Bernardo et al., Did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Reduce Profit Shifting by US Multinational Companies?rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
72Guyton et al., Tax Evasion at the Top of the Income Distribution: Theory and Evidencerightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
73Jakobsen et al., Wealth Taxation and Wealth Accumulation: Theory and Evidence from Denmarkrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
74Jakobsen et al., Wealth Taxation and Wealth Accumulation: Theory and Evidence from DenmarkThe 77% reduction comes from several controls together, not income deciles alone, and earlier drafts found much smaller effects holds only for some comparisons.partly rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
75Jakobsen et al., Wealth Taxation and Wealth Accumulation: Theory and Evidence from Denmarkrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
76Johannesen and Zucman, The End of Bank Secrecy? An Evaluation of the G20 Tax Haven CrackdownThe numbers reproduce. Treaty-induced outflows are too small to show in the totals, so rather than repatriating is stronger than the evidence.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
77Kleven et al., Taxation and International Migration of Superstars: Evidence from the European Football Marketcould not checkcould not checknot graded
78Kleven et al., Taxation and International Migration of Superstars: Evidence from the European Football Marketcould not checkcould not checknot graded
79Kleven et al., Taxation and International Migration of Superstars: Evidence from the European Football Marketcould not checkcould not checknot graded
80Kleven et al., Taxation and International Migration of Superstars: Evidence from the European Football Marketcould not checkcould not checknot graded
81Kuziemko et al., How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey ExperimentsThe effects stand. The prime also moved a second attitude, but the paper itself calls its analysis of the mechanism not definitive.rightdoes not changenot graded
82Landais et al., Le modèle de micro-simulation TAXIPP - Version 0.0rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
83Landais et al., Le modèle de micro-simulation TAXIPP - Version 0.0rightcould not checknot graded
84Landais et al., A Progressive European Wealth Tax to Fund the European COVID Responserightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
85Murphy and Saez, Income and Wealth in Americarightdepends on a disputed choice of methodcannot tell
86Novokmet et al., From Communism to Capitalism: Private versus Public Property and Inequality in China and Russiarightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
87Novokmet et al., From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia, 1905-2016rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
88Novokmet et al., From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia, 1905-2016rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
89Parrinello et al., Resources for a Safe and Resilient Europe: The Case for Minimum Taxation of Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individuals in the EURevenue figures are unaffected. Neutralize the regressivity is contradicted by caveats in the note’s own source.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
90Piketty and Saez, Optimal Labor Income TaxationThe regressions reproduce. The chapter offers above 80% only as a possibility, with hedges.rightdoes not changenot graded
91Piketty and Saez, Top Incomes and the Great Recession: Recent Evolutions and Policy ImplicationsOver 15% of national income uses shares of fiscal income; with the paper’s own Table 3, the shift is about 10% of national income.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
92Piketty et al., Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticitiesrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
93Piketty et al., Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United Statesrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
94Piketty et al., Simplified Distributional National AccountsThe arithmetic reproduces and no reported number changes. The exercise cannot show where the two estimates differ, so its unrealistic verdict is not shown.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
95Piketty et al., Rethinking Capital and Wealth Taxationrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
96Piketty et al., Income Inequality in the United States: A Commentrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
97Piketty et al., Capital Accumulation, Private Property, and Rising Inequality in China, 1978-2015rightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
98Piketty and Zucman, Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700-2010rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
99Piketty and Zucman, Wealth and Inheritance in the Long Runrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
100Piketty and Zucman, Wealth and Inheritance in the Long Runrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
101Reck et al., Response to a Comment by Auten and Splinter on Tax Evasion at the Top of the Income Distribution: Theory and EvidenceThe reply states +0.9 to +1.2 points (p. 23), not +1.5. No printed number changes. If anything too low is not borne out by later versions (0.8 to 1.1 points).partly rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
102Saez, Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (annual updates)rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, not stated
103Saez, Taxes and International Mobility of Talentrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
104Saez, Income and Wealth Inequality: Evidence and Policy ImplicationsThe values reproduce. A 1962-2014 US series is used to rule out avoidance over a century and across countries, which overstates its reach.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
105Saez, The Research Agenda after Capital in the Twenty-First Centuryrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodstandard
106Saez, Taxing the Rich More: Preliminary Evidence from the 2013 Tax IncreaseThe paper’s own method on the final 2015 IRS data gives a 31.5% revenue loss, not at most 20%. The paper marked its 2015 data as preliminary.rightchanges (shown by later data)not graded
107Saez, Taxing the Rich More: Preliminary Evidence from the 2013 Tax Increaserightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
108Saez and Seim, Wealth Tax Enforcement in Sweden: Filing Requirements and Pre-Populated Returnsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
109Saez and Stantcheva, Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights for Optimal Tax TheoryA published theorem (Sher 2024) shows these weights produce preference cycles, so the unify claim is overstated. No number changes.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
110Saez and Zucman, Who Benefits from Tax Expenditures on Capital? Evidence on Capital Income and Wealth Concentrationrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
111Saez and Zucman, Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax DataThe authors’ own 2020 and 2022 data releases put the 2012 top 0.1% wealth share at about 20%, not 22%.rightchanges (shown by later data)not graded
112Saez and Zucman, Progressive Wealth Taxationrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
113Saez and Zucman, Response to Summers and Sarin, A wealth tax presents a revenue estimation puzzlerightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
114Saez and Zucman, Scoring of Senator Sanders’ Wealth Tax ProposalThe $4.35 trillion and the simulation stand. Fully eliminate the gap is contradicted by the note’s own figure: the gap shrinks by about two-thirds.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
115Saez and Zucman, Scoring of Senator Sanders’ Wealth Tax Proposalrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
116Saez and Zucman, The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Payrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodcannot tell
117Saez and Zucman, The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Payrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
118Saez and Zucman, Scoring of Senator Warren’s Wealth Tax Proposal (letters to Senator Elizabeth Warren)The letters derive a 15% avoidance rate for a 2% tax, then apply it unchanged at 3% and 6%. Their own rule cuts the 2021 estimate of $3.9 trillion by 18-26%; the main 2019 figures move 4-6%.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
119Saez and Zucman, Scoring of Senator Warren’s Wealth Tax Proposal (letters to Senator Elizabeth Warren)rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
120Saez and Zucman, The Rise of Income and Wealth Inequality in America: Evidence from Distributional Macroeconomic Accountsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
121Saez and Zucman, Trends in US Income and Wealth Inequality: Revising After the RevisionistsThe flag says the residual is mostly not partnership depreciation; the paper’s 1.6% and the flag’s own 1.42% put that item at about half.partly rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
122Saez and Zucman, How to Get $1 Trillion from 1000 Billionaires: Tax their Gains Nowrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, not stated
123Saez and Zucman, Top Wealth in America: A Reexaminationrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
124Saez and Zucman, Wealth Taxation: Lessons from History and Recent DevelopmentsOn the World Inequality Database figures available in October 2021, benchmark revenue for Spain, Norway and Switzerland is 0.71, 0.45 and 1.16, not the printed 0.96, 0.86 and 1.36.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
125Silva et al., Progressive Taxation and Inequality: Minimum Taxation of High-Net-Worth Individuals in Latin America and the Caribbeanrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, not stated
126Silva et al., Progressive Taxation and Inequality: Minimum Taxation of High-Net-Worth Individuals in Latin America and the Caribbeanrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
127Tippet and Zucman, Taxing Extreme Wealth in the United Kingdom: Revenue Estimates for a 2% Minimum Tax on Ultra-High-Net-Worth Householdsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
128Tippet and Zucman, Taxing Extreme Wealth in the United Kingdom: Revenue Estimates for a 2% Minimum Tax on Ultra-High-Net-Worth Householdsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
129Tørsløv et al., Externalities in International Tax Enforcement: Theory and Evidencerightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
130Tørsløv et al., The Missing Profits of NationsThe 36% headline stands. A units mismatch in the replication spreadsheet means that taking tax-haven data at face value cuts shifted profits by about half, not 18%, and the stated lower bound falls from 22% to 10-12%.rightdoes not change; a claim is overstated in wordsnot graded
131Tørsløv et al., The Missing Profits of Nationsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
132Tørsløv et al., The Missing Profits of Nationsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
133Wright and Zucman, The Exorbitant Tax PrivilegeRunning the counterfactual the paper describes on the authors’ workbook gives 3.2 to 3.8 points of the 14.5-point fall, not almost half.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
134Zucman, La richesse cachée des nations: enquête sur les paradis fiscaux / The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havensrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
135Zucman, La richesse cachée des nations: enquête sur les paradis fiscaux / The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havensrightdepends on a disputed choice of methodcannot tell
136Zucman, The Missing Wealth of Nations: Are Europe and the U.S. net Debtors or net Creditors?rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
137Zucman, The Missing Wealth of Nations: Are Europe and the U.S. net Debtors or net Creditors?rightdepends on a disputed choice of methodquestionable
138Zucman, The Missing Wealth of Nations: Are Europe and the U.S. net Debtors or net Creditors?rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
139Zucman, Taxing across Borders: Tracking Personal Wealth and Corporate Profitsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
140Zucman, Taxing across Borders: Tracking Personal Wealth and Corporate ProfitsOverstated by about a quarter holds only if shifted profits would otherwise pay the 23% average rate; at the 35% statutory rate, the paper’s about 20 percent survives.partly rightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, not stated
141Zucman, Taxing across Borders: Tracking Personal Wealth and Corporate Profitsrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, stated in the paper
142Zucman, Inequality: Are we really all in this together?The summary box says 1.6 to 3 times; the briefing’s own text and Figure 2 give 1.65 to 1.97 times.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
143Zucman, Taxing Multinational Corporations in the 21st CenturyThe brief’s 40% is higher than its source’s 36.2%. A small difference.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
144Zucman, Can a Wealth Tax Work?rightdepends on a disputed choice of methodcannot tell
145Zucman, A Blueprint for a Coordinated Minimum Effective Taxation Standard for Ultra-High-Net-Worth IndividualsOn the report’s own figures, 7.1% is total group wealth growth; per member it is about 5.4%, implying a return near 5.8%, not 7.5%. Revenue is unaffected.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
146Zucman, The Billionaire Tax: A (Modest) Proposal for the 21st Centuryrightdepends on a disputed choice of methoddefensible, not stated
147Zucman et al., Introduction : Où est l’argent ?The interview says the share doubled from 20% to 40%; the authors’ own series give about 24% to 40%, a rise of about 1.6 times.rightchanges (shown at the time)not graded
Method

What we did.

  • Method firstWe wrote down our method before reading any flag in detail. We checked a random 30 first, then the other 117 under the same rules. The random 30 gave 3 that change a headline number (10%, 95% range 3.5% to 25.6%); the full set gives 21 of 147 (14%).
  • Each flagWe read the version of the work the audit cites, checked each fact the flag states, and redid the calculations from the authors’ papers, appendices, code and data where they are public.
  • Two AI readersClaude (Anthropic) read each flag with the papers, data and code. Gemini (Google) read only the cited pages, blind to the first reader’s verdicts. Disagreements were settled under fixed written rules.
  • Proof a person can redoThe audit itself used Claude, so every verdict had to rest on a page, table or calculation a person can redo. Otherwise it is could not check.
  • Recheck before publishingBefore publishing we checked every changes a headline number verdict against our written rules again. Of those, 4 did not meet them: 62, 84 and 127 rest on a disputed choice of method, and in 130 the headline figure does not change.
  • What the verdicts meanChanges needs a calculation or the work’s own numbers. Depends on a disputed choice of method means reasonable researchers differ. Where the authors’ own data releases disagree with each other, we count the flag there too.
Limits

What this check is not.

  • Not peer reviewThese are AI-assisted checks with recalculation. Every verdict cites its evidence: pages, quotes and calculations, which we send on request to letters@sanecite.com.
  • Not everythingWe did not check the audit’s 1,888 moderate and minor flags, or its figure that most errors overstate the papers’ claims.
  • Not every sourceSome sources need a login or sit behind a paywall or bot check. We did not get around them.
  • Rules written lateThe rules for settling disagreements between the two readers were written after both had finished, not with the method we wrote down first.
  • No claim about intentWe make no claim about anyone’s intentions.
Version

Which version of the audit this page covers.

  • The first versionWe saved the audit site on 29 October 2026 at 8:43 PM UTC and read all 2,035 flags from it. The site keeps that version online as its original version.
  • The 30 October revisionIt splits the 147 into 53 defects and 94 contested choices, drops its newly found and previously known tags, and says no finding overturns a core result outright.
  • Checked againOn 31 October we saved the revised site and compared every flag. None of the 2,035 changed in text, severity or tags, apart from the dropped tags. On 9 November the site still served the same version.
  • CorrectionsIf we have anything wrong, write to letters@sanecite.com. We will correct it here and say what changed.