納稅者權利保護法第7條第8項規定是一項特殊的立法,將學說上「稅捐規避行為不可罰」的概念予以明文化,但又透過但書規定,對隱匿重要事項或提供不正確資料者加以處罰。本文將先從稅捐規避與稅捐逃漏的概念、界限以及在我國實務中的發展脈絡進行解析,以此作為分析納稅者權利保護法第7條解釋及適用之基礎,再檢視法院判決使用納稅者權利保護法第7條第8項但書規定之情形,並據此提出本文之結論。 本文發現,立法者陸續將實質課稅原則、稅捐規避之構成要件及稅捐規避之不可罰性入法,其實是因為不滿稅捐實務操作實質課稅原則之方式,但對稅捐規避之概念並沒有完全掌握。而在我國以漏稅罰為稅捐逃漏制裁體系重心的法制現象,實務上漏稅罰的操作、連補帶罰、輕重失衡等現象也受到學說上批評。 納稅者權利保護法第7條之立法,不僅立法技術上不夠精細,而且也不足以改變前述立法者所想要改變或學說上批評的現象。經本文檢視法院判決,固然在論理上有更加精細,但過去的一些問題仍繼續存在,包括稅捐規避概念的掌握、故意過失的論述、漏稅罰應受處罰之行為不明等,甚至製造了新的問題,例如納稅者權利保護法第7條第8項但書規定之定性及隱匿重要事實之認定。 因此,本文認為納稅者權利保護法第7條第8項但書規定的立法例並非恰當,仍需從整體稅捐逃漏裁罰體系進行調整。就此本文贊同應參考德國租稅通則第370條逃漏稅捐罪、德國租稅通則第378條重大過失漏稅罰的立法例進行修法,從而兼顧國家稅收與納稅者權益的保障。
Article 7, Paragraph 8 of the Taxpayer Rights Protection Act is a special piece of legislation. On one hand, it puts the concept of "tax avoidance cannot be penalized" in to law, which is a concept widely recognized in academic circles. However, it also includes an exception, those who conceal important facts or provide incorrect information may be penalized. This article begins by analyzing the concepts and boundaries of tax avoidance and tax evasion, as well as their development in our country’s legal practice, to establish a foundation for interpreting and applying Article 7 of the Taxpayer Rights Protection Act. The article then examines how courts have applied the provisions of Article 7, Paragraph 8 of the Act and draws conclusions based on this analysis.