From my perspective, I can certainly say that it's a contributing factor. Oftentimes people use the two terms interchangeably—“review” versus “audit”—but in our world, there's a process of verification and review .
A taxpayer sends information to us, and we check that information. It could be against a third party source or against another piece of information that we have. That can be a relatively straightforward exercise as compared with an audit, which is much more in depth and probes into particular books and records to make sure we understand totally what's going on.
They are two different things, then. One, understandably, would take a longer time than another. It can contribute to a perception of how much of a review or how much of a burden a small enterprise or an individual has.
At the same time, I don't want to diminish the fact that it is something we are thinking about—i.e., whether we have the right risk process in terms of where we focus our activities. There is something to be said, certainly, at the small individual end of things, about whether we could move toward the world where we put a little bit more emphasis on education—we have a liaison officer initiative—and try to get compliance right from the start instead of a process whereby something gets submitted and then we have a conversation afterwards.
It is an area that I think we're sensitive to in terms of substance and impacts on taxpayers but also with respect to perception, as you mentioned. This issue of review versus audit is probably something we need to better explain to people. Again, what are we doing, why are we doing it, and how do these things differ?