Hi, the naming of the Scenario Types are simply for organisation purposes (tax, actual, scenario type1 etc.) They are all "equal" in terms of what they offer.
Some advantages of using a different scenario type to you Actual process would be:
- Allows different & extended dimensionality to be assigned.
- Can vary certain member settings by scenario type (i.e. the In Use property on the members)
- Can create completely different workflow hierarchies (in combination with workflow suffixes on the cube)
- Can easily vary member formula logic by scenario type.
So for the high level tax requirements you mention above, it sounds like it could make sense to use a different scenario type.
One thing that a different scenario type in the existing cube wouldn't allow, is a different entity dimension. So when that is a requirement you may need to look at separate cubes.
This is a pretty high level summary and you should find plenty more information throughout the design and reference guide and our training materials.