論往年虧損扣除及投資收益免稅於所得稅法上之意義及其合併適用

我國所得稅法第39條明定往年虧損扣除，同法第42條規範轉投資收益，不計入所得額課稅。而財政部66年3月9日台財稅字第31580號函釋規範，於營利事業按所得稅法第39條但書，其得自本年度純益額中扣除之前十年內各期虧損，應先行將其於各期依同法第42條規定免計入所得額之投資收益，計入各期之盈虧計算沖抵後，該餘額始為得自本年度純益額中扣除之數額。行政法院亦認為該函釋與所得稅法之立法意旨相符，認為所得稅法第39條及第42條皆為稅捐優惠，若未依該函釋先行抵減，將造成納稅者受有雙重優惠。惟本文認為無論係往年虧損扣除，抑或是轉投資收益不計入所得額課稅，二者皆非租稅優惠，而是體現量能原則之租稅減免。自得一併適用，並無所謂雙重優惠之問題。本文第一章緒論點出問題意識：我國所得稅法第39條及第42條是否皆為租稅優惠。第二章對量能原則及租稅優惠之區辨為探討。第三章及第四章，則分別確認所得稅法第39條虧損扣除、第42條轉投資收益不計入所得額課稅於所得稅法上之定性，皆非租稅優惠，而是體現量能原則之租稅減免。第五章則進一步主張，二者合併適用時，亦不應產生誘導之效果，並對前開財政部66年函釋適用所致違憲結果加以批判。第六章為本論文結論。

關鍵字

所得稅法第39條；所得稅法第42條；虧損扣除；轉投資收益；期間稅；租稅優惠；重複課稅

並列摘要

Article 39 of Taiwan's Income Tax Act prescribes the losses deduction system, and Article 42 of the same Act regulates the participation exemption. The Ministry of Finance, R.O.C. issued the Directions of No. 31580 on March 9, 1977（abbreviated to The Ministry of Finance Directions on 1977）. The Directions prescribes that when the enterprises ask losses deduction according to Article 39, the participation exemption which the enterprises has acquired, shall be deducted from the amount of the losses. And Supreme Administrative Court of Taiwan held that The Ministry of Finance Directions on 1977 is consistent with the purpose of statute of the Income Tax Act. Moreover the Court held that both of the Article 39 and Article 42 of Taiwan's Income Tax Act are Tax preferences. If the participation exemption which the enterprises has acquired was not deducted from the amount of the losses, the taxpayer will receive double preferences. While, in my opinion, not only the losses deduction system, but also the participation exemption, is not tax preference. They are both the tax exemption due to Ability to Pay Principle. Therefore there are no double preferences. Chapter one points out the issue of thesis: Are the Article 39 and Article 42 of Taiwan's Income Tax Act both tax preferences? Chapter two illustrates the differences between Ability to Pay Principle and tax preferences. Chapter three and chapter four discusses the Article 39 and Article 42 of Taiwan's Income Tax Act both are not tax preferences, but tax exemptions due to Ability to Pay Principle respectively. Chapter five argues that when the Article 39 and Article 42 of Taiwan's Income Tax Act are applied together, they still should not have an inducing effect, and criticize the unconstitutional results caused by The Ministry of Finance Directions on 1977. Chapter 6 is the conclusion.

並列關鍵字

Article 39 of Taiwan's Income Tax Act ； Article 42 of Taiwan's Income Tax Act ； Losses Deduction ； Participation Exemption ； Periodical Tax ； Tax Preferences ； Double Taxation