論租稅行為罰與漏稅罰之競合：以司法院大法官釋字第503號解釋論為中心

Punishes by the land and other taxes behavior with the tax evasion punishes it to compete gathers: Releases the interpretation no.503 explanation take the judicial yuan grand justices to discuss as the center

許慧儀(Hui-Yi Hsu)

《致理法學》 7期 (2010/03) Pp. 25-61

摘要

本號解釋乃係確立了一事不二罰之原則。稅法為掌握納稅義務人，並確實查明課稅事實關係，乃課予稅捐義務人一系列的協力義務，包括稅籍登記義務（例如辦理營利事業登記義務），帳簿設置登載義務，發票開立取得保存義務，稅捐申報義務以及接受調查備詢等義務，在納稅義務人違反此類行為義務的情形，稅法多規定應科處罰鍰，由於此種處罰，通常並不以發生納稅義務人短漏稅款之結果為要件，因此被歸類為行為罰。反之，如果納稅義務人因故意或過失違反稅法上誠實申報義務，或違背義務致使稽徵機關不知有關課稅的重要事實，致發生短漏稅捐結果，對於此種違反稅捐秩序的行為，所科處的行政秩序罰（罰鍰），一般即稱之為「漏稅罰」。納稅義務人違反前述稅法上的協力義務，並進而發生短漏稅款結果之同一行為，雖分別觸犯行為罰與漏稅罰的規定，但因其具有特別關係、補充關係或吸收關係，故只能為一個處罰，否則，即有違法治國家一罪不二罰之原則。行政法院於84年9月20日第2次庭長評事聯席會議，已作成一致之決定，認為稅捐稽徵法第44條係就未漏稅階段之違規為處罰，營業稅法第51條第3款或第5款則係對已達漏稅階段之違規為處罰，祇依營業稅法第51條第3款或第5款規定處罰已達行政上之目的，毋庸二者併罰。財政部85年4月26日台財稅第851903313號函釋，亦認為營業稅法第51條與稅捐稽徵法第44條毋庸併罰，應擇一從重處罰。刑事犯為反道德、反倫理之惡性行為，在刑事處罰上，猶有法條競合、想像競合、牽連犯之從重處罰規定。租稅秩序罰，並無倫理之非難性，僅為達成行政目的之必要手段。租稅犯侵害法益之嚴重性不及刑事犯，更應有採「處罰競合」或「吸收主義」之必要，否則，即係處罰過苛，於手段與目的間不成比例關係，顯然違反憲法第23條之比例原則。

關鍵字

行為罰 ； 漏稅罰 ； 協力義務 ； 特別關係 ； 補充關係 ； 吸收關係 ； 一罪不二罰 ； 從一重處罰 ； 法條競合 ； 處罰競合 ； 比例原則

並列摘要

This no.503 of interpretation explained that one act shall not to be punished twice. The tax law to grasp the taxpayer, verifies truly assessment relationship, and assess a series of unites efforts the duty, including tax registration, the book establishment publishes the duty, the receipt draws up obtains the preserved duty, the duty reported that the duty as well as accepts the investigation to prepare inquires and so on duties. When the taxpayer violates this kind of behavior duty, the tax law multi-stipulations should sentence the fine. Due to the punishment, usually take does not have the taxpayer short to leak result of the tax money as the important document, so usually classify to behavior punishment. Otherwise, if the taxpayer intentionally or negligently violates the tax law of the honest declaration duty or violates the voluntary cause levy institution not to know the related assessment the important fact and occur to leaks the duty result short. We always call this ＂tax evasion punishment.＂ The criminal violates the morals, counter-ethics malignant behavior, in criminal punishment still have the law competes gathers, the imagination competes gathers and implicates violates punishes the stipulation severely. The land and other taxes order punishes, and does not have ethics to rebuke the nature, is only achieves necessity of method the administrative goal. The land and other taxes violate gravity of the violation law profit to be inferior to the criminal, should have picks ＂the punishment to compete gathers＂ or ＂the absorption principle＂ the necessity, otherwise, is exactly punishes excessively strict, differs so much as to be beyond comparison the relations in the method and the goal, obviously violates the proportion principle revealed in section 23 of our constitution.

並列關鍵字

Behavioral punishment ； Punishment for tax evasion ； Res judicata ； Principle of proportionality ； Ideal Concurrence ； Implicated Offence