租稅法上舉證責任、證明度與類型化方法之研究－以贈與稅課徵要件上贈與合意之證明為中心

The Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof and Typification in Tax Law

盛子龍(Tzu-Lung Sheng)

《東吳法律學報》 24卷1期 (2012/07) Pp. 41-86

https://doi.org/10.6416/SLR.201207.0041

摘要

在實務上，父母將金錢轉入以子女名義開立之帳戶，經稽徵機關核課贈與稅，父母雖以其並無贈與意思為理由提起行政救濟，然絕大多數均遭法院判決駁回。就此本文評論之判決所提出之理由極具代表性，其勝負之關鍵涉及下列租稅證據法上三個重要問題，亦即本文將嘗試探討之重點：（1）父母與其子女間之財產移轉是出於贈與意思之舉證責任應由何造負擔。（2）租稅法上之證明度為何。（3）父母有無贈與意思，證明上相當困難。實務上往往運用租稅法上類型化方法予以克服。究竟租稅法上類型化方法之意義及運用之界限為何，應予釐清。

關鍵字

舉證責任 ； 協力義務 ； 證明度 ； 類型化方法 ； 表見證明

並列摘要

In the practice of the tax law, the Parents transfer the money to the account opened on behalf of children, that will lead to gift tax levy by the Tax Collection Authority. The parents appeal to the Administrative Court by reason of without favor intention but the Court dismissed the vast majority notwithstanding. At this point, the reasons brought up from the judgement commented in the text that are very representative. What the key factors of success or failure of appeal refer to the following three important issues of Evidence Act in tax law is the focus of this article that will attempt to discuss: 1. Who should bear the burden of proof of favor intention of the grant between the plaintiff and their children; 2. How to judge the standard of proof in tax law; 3. Whether the taxpayer is with intent to gift, that is quite difficult to prove. Can it be overcome by the typification in tax law? What is the significance and application limitation of the typification in tax law?

並列關鍵字

Burden of Proof ； The Obligation to assist the reporting of the required information ； Standard of Proof ； Typification in Tax Law ； Prima Facie Eviden

參考文獻

吳東都(2001)。行政訴訟之舉證責任─以德國法為中心。學林。

姜世明(2002)。新民事證據法論。學林。

盛子龍(2011)。租稅法上類型化立法與平等原則。中正財經法學。3，149-194。

藍元駿(2010)。納稅人權利保護─稅捐稽徵法第一章之一逐條釋義。元照。

陳敏(1988)。租稅稽徵程序之協力義務。政大法學評論。37，37-78。