DOUBLE NATURE OF TAX RISK

Abstract

Introduction. Tax risks are an essential component of the modern economic environment. Many scientific works are devoted to the study of this phenomenon. However, their analysis shows that the views of scientists on the essential nature of tax risk are somewhat different: some see in risk only a negative aspect, which consists in potential financial losses; others insist that tax risk can have both a negative and a positive component. The latter involves the possibility of receiving certain economic benefits from making risky decisions. In this article we will try to understand what is the reason for such disagreements. Purpose. The purpose of the article is to reveal the nature of tax risk based on a comparison of the interpretations of this concept by various scientists, to formulate one's own vision of tax risk, as well as to evaluate the fairness of the statement that tax risk has both a negative and a positive component. Methods. As research methods to achieve the set goal, general scientific methods of cognition were used, including: analysis – to clarify the essence of the concepts of "risk" and "tax risk" and assess the validity of the statement about the presence of a positive component in the risk; deduction – when dividing the risk into a phenomenon and a process or action; synthesis – when formulating one's own definition of the concept of tax risk. Results. To date, there is no unambiguous interpretation of the concept of «risk». And this is not surprising, because risk is a rather broad, complex and multifaceted phenomenon. It accompanies almost all spheres of life and exists regardless of whether we are aware of its presence in a specific situation or not. At the conceptual and everyday level, in the minds of people, «risk» is identified with a certain danger, threat, and the possibility of losses. Modern scientists come to the same conclusions when studying this concept. At the same time, there are scientists who believe that risk is not always a negative phenomenon, and as a result of the occurrence of one or another risk, a business entity may have a positive result. In the event that the subject takes a risk, he can be in a winning position, which would not happen in case of not accepting the risk, rejecting it. In our opinion, the mentioned scientists arrived at such a vision of risk due to the fact that they considered risk not as a phenomenon, but as a process or action. We do not support such a two-faceted approach neither to defining the essence of risk in general nor to tax risks in particular, and we believe that as a phenomenon «risk» should always be associated with the occurrence of an unfavorable outcome. Another thing is that the result of a certain decision (action, choice), which contains an element of risk, can have various consequences – both positive and negative. But the presence of an element of risk in such a choice, action or decision is precisely associated with an unfavorable outcome. In simple words: if the consequence of the decision can only be a positive result, then there is no element of risk in it. And if a decision or choice can lead to both favorable and undesirable consequences, then we are dealing with the presence of risk. And if a certain risk was realized, it always means the realization of a negative, undesirable scenario, which one wanted to avoid when making a decision or making a choice. Conclusion. The difference in the views of modern scientists on the nature of tax risk, in our opinion, is due to the fact that one group of scientists considers risk as a phenomenon, and the other as a decision-making process that can have both negative and positive consequences. We are inclined to the fact that the presence of an element of risk in a certain decision or action de facto predicts the probability of the implementation of the negative scenario. This is the key difference between a risky and a risk-free decision. Based on this, the approach that singles out the positive component of risk, in our opinion, needs to be updated and revised.