=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2422/paper30
|storemode=property
|title=Matrix Models for Assessing the Taxation Subjects’ Interaction Under Uncertainty of Socio-Economic Processes
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2422/paper30.pdf
|volume=Vol-2422
|authors=Hanna Kucherova,Olha Bilska,Liudmyla Serhieieva
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/m3e2/KucherovaBS19
}}
==Matrix Models for Assessing the Taxation Subjects’ Interaction Under Uncertainty of Socio-Economic Processes==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2422/paper30.pdf
371
Matrix Models for Assessing the Taxation Subjects’
Interaction Under Uncertainty of Socio-Economic
Processes
Hanna Kucherova[0000-0002-8635-6758], Olha Bilska[0000-0002-0940-8294]
Classic Private University, 70B, Zhukovskoho Str., Zaporizhzhia, 69002, Ukraine
kucherovahanna@gmail.com, lexusol1987@gmail.com
Liudmyla Serhieieva[0000-0003-3207-0698]
Zaporizhzhia State Medical University, 26, Mayakovskoho Ave., Zaporizhzhia, 69000, Ukraine
sergeeva@optima.com.ua
Abstract. Topicality of research into interactions between tax environment
subjects is justified by growing uncertainty of changes in socio-economic
processes. The aim of this study is to assess interaction between taxpayers,
controlling bodies and public authorities in view of dominant paradigms and
results of expert and sociological research on subjects with regard to the degree
of their influence on tax environment climate. Interaction is defined as a certain
type of relations between subjects that result in developing mutual influence
which induces corresponding changes of their states. Interaction is essentially a
poorly structured category, which dictates a need to use soft modeling and
subjective evaluation methods (matrix models). According to the degree of
influence on tax environment climate, public authorities are proved to be the most
influential subject, while taxpayers are found to be the least influential.
Summative value of subjects’ interaction is set as Very Good. It is determined by
taxpayers’ data as the best among other subjects. Based on the analysis of
dynamics in parameters and activity of interaction subjects it is argued that in
order to improve subjects’ interaction productivity, it is appropriate to improve
the mechanisms of subjects’ interaction with public authorities of all others.
Keywords: assess, controlling bodies, interactions, influence, matrix models,
public authorities, taxpayers.
1 Introduction
Research into interaction between different subjects of socio-economic system in
regard to taxation is getting increasingly popular as current social and economic
processes are highly dynamic and taxation mechanisms need to be adjusted to ensure
timely and adequate response to changes. Ongoing crisis in Ukraine redoubles
uncertainty in decision-making, therefore a vast majority of actors in the state socio-
372
economic system compensate for the lack of information with subjective perception of
objective circumstances of taxation.
The period of reforms has added weight to the roles of those subjects of the socio-
economic system that make tax decisions, including authorities, taxpayers, controlling
bodies and communities whose tax relations are regulated by regulatory and legal
provisions. Present gaps and shortcomings of these provisions in Ukraine have shifted
the focus of the scope of research towards subjectivism, which is seen as a derivative
of an individual subject’s knowledge and experience. Therefore, validity of decision-
making requires additional substantiation through expert judgment.
It should also be noted that so far Ukraine has carried out reforms of both taxation
system structure and taxation mechanisms which determined the trends of redefining
the aims and ways of interaction between taxation subjects. In order to adequately
respond to structural and dynamic changes in the socio-economic system, we should
regularly assess its subjects’ interaction in respective tax environment and identify
high-potential options of main trends development, which is actually the aim of this
study. Objective assessment will allow us to substantiate or specify the areas which
require further improvement of subjects’ interaction in order to ensure long-term
equitable relations and good balance of all actors’ interests. The dynamics of these
subjects’ interaction values will determine the productivity of their relations.
Interaction is a means of studying subjects and their environment, certain activity
and type of behavior, a mechanism of their organization under certain conditions – all
in one. Types of relations between subjects in tax environment are determined by their
socio-economic roles (a taxpayer or a representative of controlling bodies [12],
structural and functional relations established by the system to enable actualization of
both system properties and interaction subjects properties within the system. In the
context of this research relation is determined by the way subjects' interaction in tax
environment is organized, their state being mutually conditioned by each other and
itself. Relations represent a broader concept than interaction and have a different nature.
They can only emerge between subjects in tax environment on condition that states of
subjects or the system are fixed, acceptably equilibrium and stable enough. In this
context, legal and regulatory framework acts as a stabilizing factor, knowledge of laws
and regulations has a positive effect on conscientious payment of taxes [13; 16; 17; 18].
Awareness, understanding, quality and simplicity of tax processes [1; 2; 5; 14], a
positive attitude to taxation, and financial resilience [7; 8] predominantly (but not a
hundred percent) ensure the required level of trustworthiness and timeliness of tax
liabilities. In general, established relations between subjects in tax environment are
realized within the framework of their interaction, which determines its effectiveness
and productivity. In order to ensure objective assessment, functional and structural
relations must be actualized, i. e. it is necessary to identify the set and structure of
relations actual at period t.
Assessment of subjects’ interaction in tax environment is generally based on
analytical approaches and sociological research, a vast majority of which present their
results in the form of a qualitative characterization of a selected set of parameters in
certain areas of subjects’ interaction. The above is explained by poor structuring of
subjects interaction in tax environment due to informal factors of influence. For
373
example, a global monitoring of interaction between taxpayers and controlling bodies
is being done by stakeholders in the context of Forum on Tax Administration (FTA)
[21] based on the International Survey on Revenue Administration (ISORA). The data
it presents give full and clear idea of the tax administration system in terms of services,
favorable conditions, technological development, easing administrative pressure for all
groups of taxpayers and controlling bodies.
McKinsey assess interaction between taxpayers and controlling bodies using their
own practices. Results of their research [4] suggest that across the globe, tax authorities
diverge in the maturity of their relations with taxpayers in the following main areas:
scale of digitized interactions, scale of advanced analytics, process automation, and
talent management. Leading scientists explain differences in subjects’ interaction in tax
environment from the standpoint of development determinants of specific tax systems
and scientific paradigm evolution.
At the level of individual research groups, leading scientists empirically substantiate
the need to expand the standard neoclassical paradigm of rational egoism by taking into
account multivarious behavioral strategies as a result of profound differentiation of
taxpayers [2]. As a result of adopting a broader range of motivational factors of
behavior, the paradigm of enforcement was updated and complemented with
conceptual provisions of service trust models of interaction [1; 16; 17] and relation
ethics [3]. In particular, this study [9] suggested ways of organizing interaction between
public authorities and taxpaying individuals by means of transforming cooperation
forms from antagonistic to service trust ones. The determinants of building synergetic
subject interaction in tax environment are considered to be power of the government
and trust in it [5]. However, productivity and effectiveness of interaction between
controlling bodies and taxpayers also depends on their good will to cooperate which is
a compromise between a decision as to compliance with tax legislation and personal
attitudes, opinions and assessments in terms of taxation. [16; 17]. Another research [15]
studies reflexive interaction with taxpayers, controlling bodies and public authorities
and arrives at the conclusion that they are satisfactory due to shortcomings of taxation
regulatory framework and controlling bodies operation.
Thus, subjects’ interaction in tax environment is a poorly structured category and
quantitative evaluation of its parameters is always characterized with fuzzy reliability
and unified approaches. The aim of this research is to assess subjects’ interaction in tax
environment based on theories of dominant paradigms and multiple-criteria results of
sociological and expert assessments of taxpayers, controlling bodies and public
authorities with regard to the degree of their influence on tax environment climate.
2 Methods
Interaction is a certain type of relations between subjects that result in developing
mutual influence which induces corresponding changes of their states. Subjects’ mutual
influence is formed in the course of two reciprocal processes. One arises as a result of
subject’s own activity and potency, the other is a result of response to this activity.
374
Combined, they form the dynamics of interrelation as a result of manifestation of
dynamic change properties.
Forward call (process) from one subject to another is determined by the purpose of
the interaction (Cp) and resources involved to achieve it (Rcp, ij=); backward
call is determined by the subject’s reaction to the call which is formed depending on
the congruence of interaction purposes (Cp ≡ Co), availability and sufficiency of
resources (Rco) presented in the format of possibilities and will to meet the purposes set:
ji=, Fig. 1. There is also interaction of a subject with itself which is
determined by self-organization processes (іі and jj).
Fig. 1. The structure of interaction between і and j.
Thus, these forward and backward processes characterize the effectiveness of
interaction between the subjects in a particular situation, which is determined by the
change of subjects’ state m as a result of their mutual influence ΔStm.
Direct evaluation of the subjects’ states in tax environment is made by expertise,
based on objective and subjective tax consequences for all interaction parties.
In the study [15], subject interaction structure is formalized through a system of
weight adjacency matrices Aij=||v|ij|2x2 where v(Ii, Ij) is the forward relation weight and
v(Ij, Ii) is the backward relation weight. Adjacency matrix elements are determined by
expertise in the absence of relevant statistical information and represent a set of subject
interaction effectiveness values.
0 v( I i , I j )
Aij v ij . (1)
2 2 v (
j i I , I ) 0
However, this approach does not take into account the difference in weights of
interaction subjects which also depends on their socio-economic roles. For example, in
tax environment authorities and controlling bodies are closer to each other than to
taxpayers due to the fact that controlling bodies act as an executive authority while
taxpayers are interaction subjects with their own purposes regarding income
distribution, which are opposite to the authorities’ ones, and also a source of forming
state resources and social demand for public services. That is, the role of taxpayers in
tax environment is multifaceted.
375
Thus, interaction subjects’ roles determine how much they influence the process of
tax environment formation. It is logical that the state and controlling bodies have more
leverage in the process of managerial decision-making in tax environment while
taxpayers can only respond and adjust their economic mechanisms to new tax realities.
Taking into account the difference in subjects’ influence on the process of tax
environment formation (di), it seems appropriate to define the weight adjacency matrix
of subjects’ interaction more precisely:
d 0 v di ( I i , I j )
Aij v ij dj . (2)
ij 2 2 v (I , I ) 0
j i
Matrix eigenvalue λ characterizes the value of m-subjects’ interaction and is determined
in the following way:
λ I m v I ,I v I ,I , 0;1.
di dj
i j j i (3)
In order to estimate the influence on the process of tax environment formation (di), we
designed a pairwise comparison matrix underlying analytic hierarchy process [20]:
T
A aij
mm
and relative priority vector d 1,...., d m using the geometric mean formula
where relative weight values for every row of matrix А are calculated as follows:
m a
1i ,..., aim
di m , i 1, m , where m is the number of subjects which interact in tax
1i,..., im
m a
i 1
a
environment.
Calculated adjacency matrix eigenvalues determine the proportion of subjects’
influence on each other in tax environment while their batch forms a generalized
adjacency matrix A*. Generalized value of subjects’ interaction can be determined as
the root of the averaged sum of squares of the generalized adjacency matrix elements:
n
2
a i
OI i 1
,OI 0;1 . (4)
n
Further development of subjects’ interaction in tax environment under invariable
factors of influence can be forecast using an autonomous impulse process [19] when
the state of interaction at a certain moment is calculated as follows:
p (t ) p (o) At , X (t ) X (0) A0 A A2 ... At , (5)
where p(t) is the vector of changing values of subjects’ interaction in the corresponding
period of simulation, p(0) is the vector of initial impulses, A is the adjacency matrix, t
is simulation periods (t is 0, 1, 2, 3, …, k) which represent the sequence of changes in
the interaction state, Х(t) is the value of subjects’ interaction in the t simulation period,
376
Х(0) is the value of subjects’ interaction in the initial simulation period, A is a unit matrix
As a result, we can build a set of forecasting scenarios of subjects’ interaction
development, S={Si}.
3 Materials
Key roles of subjects that determine the general climate in tax environment need
clarifying. Despite generally accepted grouping of taxpayers into large, medium and
small ones according to the size of their business, in Ukraine it is large and small
economic entities that set trends for taxation due to their fiscal significance and
vulnerability, respectively. The above can be explained by the fact that medium
taxpayers’ characteristics partially overlap with those of both small and large taxpayers,
therefore, in the context of statistical significance, when grouped according to certain
issues, they are most often grouped with small payers and occasionally with large ones.
In addition, in the course of active reforms of Ukrainian taxation system, tax
consciousness has significantly improved in terms of acquired knowledge [14]. At the
same time, updated tax mechanisms are not free from legislative shortcomings and
gaps, which informed taxpayers use to their advantage. Hence, if previously we used to
single out the state and controlling bodies, currently the judicial branch is gaining
momentum while usual importance is being given to legislative branch and controlling
bodies which act as executive branch. The above can be explained by the fact that a
large number of decisions made by controlling bodies are appealed in court. For
example, according to the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine, in 2018 [11] 18.8 thousand
law suits on taxation were heard in court (generally on the following: “...seeking
revocation of tax decision-notice..., appeal of customs decisions”) totaling 61.3 billion
UAH [11]. The proportion of judgments in favor of controlling bodies is 62.5% which
is 63.1% of the total value [11]. The rest of these cases, 37.5% with the share of 36.9%
of the total sum, were ruled in favor of taxpayers [11]. Also, in 2018 there were
4.6 thousand cases appealing customs decisions totaling 3.2 billion UAH and 10.8% of
the judgments are in favor of controlling bodies which amounts 5.87% of the total sum
[11]. The structure presented confirms the fact that actions of controlling bodies are
partially frivolous which results in a large proportion of their decisions being appealed.
It accounts for the negative attitude of taxpayers to controlling bodies, lack of trust in
the government and taxation in general, which drives their tax behavior to be more
opportunistic.
In the context of this study we determine the elements of subjects’ interaction
adjacency matrix using the data of the TADAT Performance Assessment Report of the
State Fiscal Service (SFS) [22] and data of the Annual Business Climate Assessment
(ABCA) [6] regarding taxation, to which we apply the standard values of Harrington's
desirability scale [10], namely very good: 1.00–0.80; good: 0.80–0.63; satisfactory:
0.63–0.37; bad: 0.37–0.20; very bad: 0.20–0. Then we conform the TADAT SFS
Performance Assessment scale, where criteria were assessed according to the
[A,B,C,D] scale from the best (A) to the worst (D) value, with Harrington’s desirability
scale in the following way: А–1; В–0.8; C–0.63; D–0.37. The resulting integrated
377
criteria values according to Harrington’s desirability scale are presented in Table 1.
Thus, in terms of tax administration the level of interaction between controlling bodies
and taxpayers is 0.72. This value underlies the corresponding adjacency matrix of
subjects’ interaction. In order to assess the interaction between the authorities and
controlling bodies from taxpayers’ perspective, we analyzed the results of Annual
Business Climate Assessment (ABCA) [6] regarding taxation and found the following:
─ Taxpayers find the level of trust in government low, 50% of respondents see the
government as an impediment to do business, 25% of respondents consider main
government institutions to be essential obstacles for business development.
─ About 50% of respondents among small business representatives believe that
informal relations with authorities are key to their business success. Direct support
by the government is believed to be ineffective for business development, priority is
given to creating proper business climate.
─ 35% of individual respondents and 38% of legal entities think that their business
growth is impaired by high rates of taxes and fees, 22% of individuals and 29% of
legal entities blame it on burdensome tax administration and accounting, 18% of
individuals and 29% of legal entities refer to instability and frequent changes of
economic legislation, 18% of individual respondents and 25% of legal entities
mention regulatory pressure and other non-tax factors. Accordingly, with business
growth and increasing size of enterprise tax conditions get significantly worse.
Table 1. Integrated values of criteria of subjects’ interaction in Ukrainian tax environment*
Criteria Actual TADAT Harrington’s scale Geometric
value value mean
Integrity of the Registered
С; С 0.63; 0.63 0.63
Taxpayer Base
Effective Risk Management С; D; С; С 0.63; 0.37; 0.63; 0.63 0.55
Supporting Voluntary Compliance В; В; В 0.8; 0.8; 0.8 0.8
Accountability and Transparency В; В; С; А 0.8; 0.8; 0.63; 1 0.8
Geometric mean for controlling bodies 0.67
Effective Tax Dispute Resolution А; В; А 1; 0.8; 1 0.93
Efficient Revenue Management В; С; С 0.8; 0.63; 0.63 0.68
Geometric mean for authorities 0.79
Timely Filing of Tax Declarations В+; С 0.9; 0.63 0.75
Timely Payment of Taxes А; А; А; В 1; 1; 1; 0.8 0.94
Accurate Reporting in
D+; В; D 0.47; 0.8; 0.37 0.52
Declarations
Geometric mean for taxpayers 0.71
Geometric mean for all subjects 0.72
* Calculated based on the data [23]
Thus, government influence on taxpayers is characterized as negative, hindering
business development, which corresponds to approximately 0.20 on Harrington’s
desirability scale. As far as controlling bodies are concerned, their value is only
important for taxpayers in the context of informal relations and is estimated to be 0.37
on the scale. Taking into account that taxpayers have more trust in business
378
environment (other economic entities), improving business climate and, according to
the SFS report (see Table 1), they timely file their tax declarations, pay taxes and fees,
provide accurate and valid reports, we can calculate the value of their self-organization
processes as a geometric mean of corresponding criteria, which equals 0.71. Then,
bearing in mind market realities as to possible purpose inconsistency or lack of
resources that interaction subjects may have, backward relation constitutes 0.63 on
Harrington’s scale.
4 Results
As a result, we have the following adjacency matrix of interaction between taxpayers
P, with other subjects (public authorities D, controlling bodies K):
0 0.37
APK v , PK 0.50,
PK 2 2
0.67 0
0 0.37
APD v , PD 0.27,
PD 2 2
0.20 0
0 0.71
APP v , PP 0.67.
PP 2 2
0.63 0
Different degree of interacting subjects’ influence on tax environment should be
considered. Subjects that interact in tax environment can be assessed according to their
influence on tax environment using a pairwise comparison matrix, see Table 2.
Table 2. Subjects’ pairwise comparison matrix according to their influence on tax environment
formation, di.
Line numbers and names Line numbers of compared subjects Priority
Weights, di
of compared subjects 1 2 3 4 5 vector, d i
1. Legislative branch 1 2 4 6 8 3.29 0.46
2. Judicial branch 0.50 1 3 4 6 2.05 0.29
3. Controlling bodies 0.25 0.33 1 2 5 0.96 0.13
4. Large taxpayers 0.17 0.25 0.50 1 5 0.64 0.09
5. Small and medium taxpayers 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.20 1 0.24 0.03
Total 7.18 1
Thus, the value of interaction on the level of specific subjects should be adjusted by
the degree of their influence on tax environment formation. Therefore, the elements of
weight adjacency matrices are specified as follows:
0 0.370.09 0.03 dPK
APK v dPK 0.13 , PK 0.92,
PK 2 2
0.67 0
379
0 0.37 0.09 0.03 d PD
APD v d PD 0.46 0.29 , PD 0.52,
PD 2 2
0.20 0
0 0.710.09 0.03 dPP
APP v dPP 0.09 0.03 , PP 0.95.
PP 22
0.63 0
Specifying the degree of influence according to the weights in Table 2, we determine
the values of interaction on the level of large (VP) and small (MP) taxpayers, judiciary
(S) and legislative institutions (Z).
K K 0 0.37 0.09 K
AVP v VP 0.13 , VP 0.93,
2 2
0.67 0
Z 0 0.37 0.093 Z
APZ v VP 0.46 , VP 0.66,
2 2
0.20 0
S 0 0.370.09 S
APS v VP 0.29 , VP 0.76,
2 2
0.20 0
MP 0 0.710.09 MP
APP v VP 0.09 , VP 0.96.
2 2
0.63 0
Similar calculations for controlling bodies arrive at the following results:
0 0.670.13
APK v
PK 2 2
0.09 0.03 , PK 0.95,
0.71 0
0 0.67 0.13
AKD v
KD 2 2
0.46 0.29 , KD 0.89,
0.79 0
0 0.67 0.13
AKK v
KK 2 2
0.13 , KK 0.91.
0.37 0
As we can see, controlling bodies have the same influence on other subjects, as
according to the SFS Report they function as executive authorities in terms of taxation,
so the value of forward relation is 0.67 for all subjects. According to the SFS
assessment, public authorities’ value is 0.79. Self-organization processes in controlling
bodies are determined as built in the way their functions duplicate, so it corresponds to
0.37 on Harrington’s scale.
The results of subjects’ interaction with public authorities are presented below:
380
0 0.680.46 0.29
ADP v
DP 2 2
0.09 0.03 , PD 0.85,
0.71 0
0 0.930.46 0.29
ADK v
DK 2 2
0.13 , DK 0.91,
0.37 0
0 0.680.46 0.29
ADD v
DD 2 2
0.46 0.29 , DD 0.81.
0.72 0
The state interacts with taxpayers through the mechanisms of income formation, whose
value is 0.68 according to the SFS Report criteria. Public authorities interact with
controlling bodies in terms of taxation through effective tax dispute resolution using
regulatory means. Its value is 0.93 according to the SFS Report criteria. Forward self-
organization processes for public authorities in terms of taxation is evaluated according
to the SFS Report criteria and equals 0.79, while backward processes are evaluated
according to the criteria of all interaction subjects and equals 0.72.
Based on the received eigenvalues of adjacency matrices, a generalized matrix of
interaction between public authorities, controlling bodies and taxpayers in tax
environment can be designed:
0.95 0.50 0.27
*
A 0.95 0.91 0.89 .
0.85 0.91 0.81
Summative value of subjects’ interaction in tax environment is, formula (4):
m
2
a
i 1
i
OI 0.81.
m
Based on the formula (5), we can study the dynamics of subjects’ interaction activity
and parameters of this interaction. The results are shown in Figures 2, 3.
As can be seen from Figure 2, the intensity of interaction for public authorities and
controlling bodies is almost identical up to step 3, after which the activity of public
authorities gradually slows down. On the one hand, it is due to their close functional
and structural relations in taxation process. On the other hand, in the course of time a
system needs more time for the procedure of managerial decision-making, which, in
the context of the subjects’ interaction, is reflected by delayed response, in our case on
the part of public authorities. At the same time, the trends in the interaction of
controlling bodies and taxpayers get closer in steps 1–3, and then controlling bodies’
activity curve is more moderate, but it corresponds with taxpayers’ one.
Based on the dynamics of parameters which describe subjects’ interaction
(Figure 3), we can see that the curves of public authorities and controlling bodies are
close in steps 1–2. After that, public authorities’ dynamics fall behind in tempo.
381
Taxpayers’ interaction parameters are more dynamic as compared to other subjects’
interaction. Thus, it can be argued that in order to improve the interaction results for all
subjects in taxation environment, it is appropriate to revise and adjust the mechanisms
of subjects’ interaction with public authorities, whose parameter dynamics grows
dissonant with other subjects’ interaction trends in the course of time.
Fig. 2. Subjects’ interaction activity dynamics.
Fig. 3. Subjects’ interaction parameters dynamics.
5 Conclusions
This research deals with assessment of interaction between taxpayers, controlling
bodies and public authorities in view of dominant paradigms and results of expert and
sociological research on the subjects with regard to the degree of their influence on tax
environment climate. Interaction is defined as a certain type of relations between
382
subjects that result in developing mutual influence which induces corresponding
changes of their states. Subjects’ mutual influence is presented as two reciprocal
processes: forward process arises as a result of subject’s own activity and potency and
is determined by interaction purpose and resources involved, backward process is a
result of response to the activity, it is formed depending on the congruence of
interaction purposes, availability and sufficiency of resources presented in the format
of possibilities and will to meet the goals set. There is also interaction of a subject with
itself which is determined by self-organization processes. Interaction is essentially a
poorly structured category, which dictates a need to use soft modeling and subjective
evaluation methods. The suggested approach is based on an adjacency matrix whose
elements are eigenvalues of weight matrices of subjects’ pairwise interaction. Matrix
elements are determined by expertise. Based on the pairwise comparison matrix,
subjects are differentiated according to the degree of their influence on tax environment
climate. As a result, public authorities are found to be the most influential subject, while
small and medium taxpayers are the least influential. Summative value of subjects’
interaction is 0.81 which is determined by taxpayers’ data as the best among other
subjects. Dynamics of parameters and activity of interaction subjects have been studied
by means of autonomous impulse process. It has been proved that in order to improve
subjects’ interaction productivity, it is appropriate to improve the mechanisms of
subjects’ interaction with public authorities of all others. The results of this research
allow us to substantiate strategies aimed at improving and optimizing subjects’
interaction in tax environment upon the criterion of maximizing effectiveness and
productivity. In addition, significance of the issue justifies the need for a system of
subjects’ interaction monitoring for the sake of higher accuracy of tax result
assessment. Future research will develop strategies to improve and monitor subjects'
interaction in tax environment.
References
1. Abdul-Razak, A., Adafula, C.J.: Evaluating taxpayers’ attitude and its influence on tax
compliance decisions in Tamale, Ghana. Journal of Accounting and Taxation. 5(3), 48–57
(2013). doi:10.5897/JAT2013.0120
2. Alm, J. Kirchler, E., Muehlbacher, S., Gangl, K., Hofmann, E., Kogler, C., Pollai, M.:
Rethinking the research paradigms for analysing tax compliance behaviour. In CESifo
forum. München: ifo Institut-Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität
München. 13.2, 33–40
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254452677_Rethinking_the_Research_Paradigm
s_for_Analysing_Tax_Compliance_Behaviour (2012). Accessed 21 January 2019
3. Alm, J., Torgler, B.: Do ethics matter? Tax compliance and morality. J Bus Ethics. 101, 1–
17 (2012)
4. Barnay, A. Davis, J., Dimson, J., Gibbs, E., Korn, D.: Four innovations reshaping tax
administration. McKinsey and company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-
sector/our-insights/four-innovations-reshaping-tax-administration (2018). Accessed 21
January 2019
5. Batrancea, L.: Taxpayers And Tax Authorities Interacting Within The Mena Region: The
Nexus Between Trust, Power And Compliance. Annals of Faculty of Economics, University
383
of Oradea, Faculty of Economics. 1(2), 241–250. https://ideas.repec.org/a/ora/journl/
v2y2014i2p241-250.html (2014). Accessed 21 January 2019
6. Bespalko, V. Freik, N., Fedets, I., Kuziakiv, O.: Annual Business Climate Assessment,
ABCA. USAID. http://www.ier.com.ua/en/sme_development/ABCA (2016). Accessed 8
January 2019
7. Devos, K.: Factors influencing individual taxpayer compliance behaviour. Springer Science
& Business Media. (2014). doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7476-6
8. Fadzilah, E.N., Mustafa, R.M., Putri, N.K.: The Effect of Tax Understanding, Tax Payness
Consciousness, Quality of Tax Service, and Tax Sanctions on Compulsory Tax of SMEs In
Banyumas. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Economica. 13(4), 28–38 (2017)
9. Gangl, K., Hofmann, E., Kirchler, E.: Tax authorities’ interaction with taxpayers: A
conception of compliance in social dilemmas by power and trust. New Ideas Psychol. 37,
13–23 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.12.001
10. Harrington, E.C.: The Desirability Function. Industrial quality control. 21, 494–498 (1965)
11. Information about appeals decisions Official portal State Fiscal Service of Ukraine.
http://sfs.gov.ua/diyalnist-/pokazniki-roboti/vregulyuvannya-podatkovih/informatsiya-
schodo-oskarjen-rishen/ (2018). Accessed 21 January 2019
12. Kim, J.S.: Analysis of the Tax Consciousness of a Taxpayer and a Tax Agent. The Journal
of the Korea Contents Association. 8(10), 142–150 (2008).
doi:10.5392/JKCA.2008.8.10.142
13. Kirchler, E., Niemirowski, A., Wearing, A.: Shared subjective views, intent to cooperate and
tax compliance: Similarities between Australian taxpayers and tax officers. Journal of
Economic Psychology. 27(4), 502–517 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.joep.2006.01.005
14. Kucherova, H.: Methods of Evaluating Taxpayers’ Tax Consciousness. In: Nestorenko, O.,
Pokusa, O. (ed.) Transformations in Contemporary Society: Economic Aspects, pp. 243-
250. Opole, The Academy of Management and Administration in Opole (2017)
http://pedagogika.wszia.opole.pl/ebook/Monografia_2017_3.pdf Accessed 19 January 2019
15. Kucherova, H.Y., Komazov, P.V.: Substantiation of tax consciousness model for subjects
of taxation on the basis of reflexive interaction. Central European journal for science and
research. 3(16), 9–19 (2015)
16. Muehlbacher, S., Kirchler, E., Schwarzenberger, H.: Voluntary versus Enforced Tax
Compliance: Empirical Evidence for the “Slippery Slope” Framework. European Journal of
Law and Economics. 32, 89–97 (2011)
17. Muehlbacher, S., Kogler C., Kirchler, E.: An Empirical Testing of the Slippery Slope
Framework: The Role of Trust and Power in Explaining Tax Compliance, University of
Vienna Working Paper. (2011). doi:10.1007/s10657-011-9236-9
18. Pertiwi, D.N.: The Influence of Tax Consciousness, Service Tax Authorities and Tax
Sanctions on Tax Compliance (Survey On Individual Taxpayer Conducting Business
Operations and Professional Service in Jakarta). Dissertation, State Islamic University Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta (2013)
19. Roberts, F.S.: Discrete Mathematical Models, with Applications to Social, Biological and
Environmental Problems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1976)
20. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)
21. Tax Administration: Comparative Information on OECD and Other Advanced and
Emerging Economies. OECDiLibrary (2017). doi:10.1787/23077727
22. Wolf, N.B., Khwaja, M., Andreasson, A., Fink, F.: Performance Assessment Report Ukraine
Tax Administration Diagnostic Assessment Tool (TADAT). The World Bank.
http://sfs.gov.ua/data/material/000/259/339853/Ukraine_TADAT_2018_Performance_Ass
384
essment_Report_Final_EN_6455958_v1_DMSDR1S.pdf (2018). Accessed 21 January
2019
23. Kucherova, H., Serhieieva, L., Bilska, O.: Assessment of tax subjects’ interaction under
uncertainty of socio-economic processes. SHS Web of Conferences. 65, 01002 (2019).
doi:10.1051/shsconf/20196501002