台灣土地課稅制度：問題、影響與改革

Land Taxes in Taiwan: Problems, Impact and Reforms

蔡吉源(Chi-Yuan Tsai)

《臺灣土地研究》 3期 (2001/11) Pp. 37-82

https://doi.org/10.6677/JTLR.200111_(3).0003

摘要

土地交易課稅之稅基是依買賣前後期公告現值之差距為之。公告現值有可能大於或小於買賣價格，再加上並未充份考慮賣方在持有期間的改良成本及管理費用，因此，與公平合理徵稅有很大的距離，尤其是租稅假期（tax holiday，即兩個年度公告現值調整期間）所有交易（及產權移轉）均不必納稅，形成嚴重的租稅漏洞。其所以發生如此嚴重缺失，均源於台灣平均地權土地稅制在土地價格體系的自我混淆。例如，土地持有課徵地價稅，其稅基以公告地價為主；土地交易課徵土地增值稅，其稅基以公告現值為主。全國平均公告地價略為公告現值四分之一。在台灣課徵地價稅之都市土地其公告地價略等於法院拍賣價與政府公地出售價的8.9%到37.6%之間，公告現值略等於國有財產局公地出售價格的22.71%到76.63%之間。換言之，我們既沒有公開的土地市場價格，也沒有合理的評估市場價值。由於資訊不公開，所以一般市場買賣價格都變成秘密。做為市場價值評估的重要參考資料—一般市場買賣價格—既然無法公開取得，則公告現值及公告地價就變成毫無意義可言，而扭取了地價稅與土地增值稅的經濟功能及財政功能。尤有進者，實質地價稅率相對偏低，實質增值稅率相對偏高。兩者合併考慮，就能發現偏低的平均實質地價稅負擔（約0.1%）與偏高的平均實質土地增值稅負擔（約10%）造成嚴重的鎖定效果（lock-in effect），使市地供求失衡。本文利用簡單數學模型模擬，顯示現行稅制有利土地投機哄抬地價。為達公平正義原則，吾人認為改革土地稅制刻不容緩。改革方向應該減輕土地交易稅負，適度提高土地持有稅負，以消除土地投機，活絡房地產市場，促進經濟發展。

關鍵字

鎖定效果 ； 地租稅 ； 地價稅 ； 土地增值稅

並列摘要

The tax base for land transaction tax is determined by the official present value (OPV) before and after the transaction. The official present value may be either larger or smaller than the transaction price; furthermore, it does not fully take into consideration the seller's improvement costs and management expenses during the period in which they held the land. There is thus a considerable gap between this system and fair, equitable taxation. This is particularly true because no tax need be paid on transactions (and transfers of title) during tax holidays (i.e. the period between consecutive annual adjustments of the official present value), creating a serious flaw in the taxation system. The reason why such a serious failing has developed is because of the confusion in the land valuation system under Taiwan's land rights equalization tax system. For example, when land value tax is levied on the ownership of land, the tax base, official land value, is derived mainly from the official present value. On average, official land value (OLV) in Taiwan is only one quarter of official present value. On urban land subject to land value tax, the official land value varies between 8.9% and 37.6% of the price that the land would reach if sold by court auction or by the government; official present value varies between 22.71% and 76.63% of the price at which land is sold by the National Property Bureau. In other words, there is neither an open land market price nor a reasonable appraised market value. Owing to the fact that information is not made freely available, the prices paid in ordinary market transactions are kept secret. As one of the most important bases for market value appraisal - the regular market sale price - is not available, the official present value and official land value become meaningless, and the economic and fiscal functions of land value tax (LVT) and land value increment tax (LVIT) are warped. Even more serious, the effective land value tax rate is too low, while the effective land value increment tax rate is too high. If one studies the two in combination, one can see that the combination of an excessively low average effective land value tax burden (around 0.1%) and an excessively high effective land value increment tax burden (around 10%) results in a serious lock-in effect, causing a loss of equilibrium in market supply and demand. In this article, simple mathematical models are used to show that the current tax system encourages land speculation and the pushing up of land prices. I believe that the reform of the land tax system is an urgent task if fairness and justice are to be achieved. The method of reform adopted should be to reduce the land transaction tax burden, while raising the tax burden on the ownership of land, in order to eliminate land speculation, revitalize the real estate market and promote economic development.

並列關鍵字

lock-in effect ； site rent tax ； land value tax ； land value increment tax

參考文獻

Bentick, B. L.(1979).The Impact of Taxation and Valuation Practices on the Timing and Efficiency of Land Use.Journal of Political Economy.87(4)

Case, K. E.(1994).Land Use and Taxation: Applying the Insights of Henry George.Cambridge, Mass:Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Eckert, J. J.(1990).Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration.Chicago:International Association of Assessing Officers.

George, H.(1883).Progress and Poverty.NYC:Appleton-Century-Crobts Ind..

Harrison, F.(1983).The Power in the Land.London:Shepheard-Walwyn Ltd..