論產業創新條例以稅捐優惠作為鼓勵研究發展之正當性

在知識就是力量的時代，何人所能掌握的知識越多，何人的競爭力就隨之越高。因此，各國為了提升其競爭力，對於能夠發現新知識之研究發展採取了鼓勵的態度，蓋研究發展所產生的知識具備外溢性，對於整個社會以及經濟成長均有助益。其中，鼓勵研究發展之手段中又以稅捐優惠為常見—因而產生「該當研究發展之要件者，給予稅捐優惠之法律效果」公式，於我國，亦不例外的落實於《產業創新條例》中。惟臺灣身為稅捐國家，本應以稅捐為財政收入主要來源，為求稅制健全，不應以違反量能原則之減稅為常態。因此，產業創新條例為鼓勵研究發展而給予稅捐優惠即具有高度之爭議性，蓋稅捐優惠係國家為管制誘導人民之行為不行為而給予之稅捐贈禮，減免特定人之稅捐的同時必然造成了稅捐負擔不公之現象（此即稅捐負擔之差別待遇）。換言之，稅捐優惠係國家為追求特定公益目的而犧牲量能平等負擔原則。因此，就稅捐優惠於憲法上之合憲性即有必要予以審查。另一方面，稅捐優惠之違憲審查不同於平等原則之審查，必須更全面的進行權衡，包括將社會福利國家之促進納入考量。再者，在稅捐構成要件需符合稅捐法定主義與法律明確性之雙重要求下，「研究發展」將受到嚴格考驗。首先，研究發展之要件抽象且不確定，其要件透過授權子法解釋再由司法判決予以具體化，並經行政實務反覆運用，可能違反稅捐法定主義；再者，研究發展本身係一不確定法律概念，因其所具有之高度專業性而將落入「判斷餘地」之範圍，然在保障納稅者權利之理念下，納稅人之可預見性不得被完全忽略，因此造成適用上的齟齬，本文認為有必要找出調和方法。第三，從專利權可推定研究發展事實之存在，然而在我國實務上不乏已取得專利權者申請研究發展稅捐優惠卻被否准之案件，而司法實務對於自行研發取得專利權者能否享有研究發展稅捐優惠之見解不一，此係因我國專利權之保護要件與「現行之」研究發展之構成要件並不相同。附帶一提的是，專利權中之設計專利，自始為產業創新條例所排除。綜上所述，產業創新條例之研究發展稅捐優惠制度在我國造成之問題並不在少數，許多問題更是稅法上的基本問題，更是稅制改革之重點方向。因此，本文將整理這些問題，並透過對於歐盟條例及相關規範、OECD之法城手冊以及中國法之初探，探討我國研究發展稅捐優惠制度之問題，並提出本文見解與結論期能成為稅制改革之建議。

關鍵字

研究發展；稅捐優惠；產業創新條例；投資抵減；專利權之保護要件；歐盟條例；法城手冊；中國企業所得稅法。

並列摘要

In the era of "knowledge is power", the one who acquired more knowledge, the one acquired more competitiveness. Therefore, in order to enhance competitiveness, many countries adopted an encouraging attitude towards research and development(R&D) that can discover new knowledge. Because the knowledge generated by R&D have spillover, which can benefit the whole society and economic growth. Among them, the means of encouraging R&D are common with tax incentives, that formulated the formula for "the legal effect of tax incentives for those who meet the requirements of research and development", and implemented in the "Statute for Industrial Innovation". However, Taiwan as a tax country, taxation as the main source of fiscal revenue. In pursuit of the soundness of the tax system, tax reduction in violation of ability-to-pay shall not be normal. Which means "Statute for Industrial Innovation" is highly controversial in terms of using tax incentives means to encourage R&D, since the tax concession is a tax donation given by the state to control or induce the behavior of its people. Reducing the taxes of certain people will inevitably lead to the unfair burden of tax burden. Actually, tax concessions are the principle that the state sacrifices ability-to-pay principle for the purpose of pursuing specific public welfare purposes. therefore, the constitutionality of tax concessions is necessary to review. On the other hand, the constitutional review of tax incentives is different from the review of the principle of equality, which must be more comprehensively weighed. Including the consideration of the promotion of social welfare countries. Furthermore, in the case of the tax constituents, it is necessary to meet the requirements of principle of taxation by law and principle of clarity and definiteness of law. R&D will be tested. First, the legal elements of R&D are abstract and uncertain. The legal elements are explained by the authorization sub-law and then embodied by judicial decisions and applied repeatedly through administrative practice, which may violate the requirements of principle of taxation by law. Furthermore, R&D itself is an indefinite legal concept. Because of its high degree of professionalism, it will fall into the scope of "authorized discretion". Thus, under the concept of protecting the rights of taxpayers, the predictability of taxpayers must not be completely ignored, that creating discord on the use. As a result, it is necessary to find a method of blending. Third, the patent right can presume the existence of the facts of R&D. However, in our country's practice, there are many cases in which patent holders have applied for R&D tax incentives but they have been denied. And the judicial practice has different opinions on whether the people who obtain the patent right by themselves can enjoy the R&D tax concessions. This is because the legal elements of Taiwan’s patent rights are not the same as the current legal elements of R&D. Incidentally, design patent in patent right was excluded from the Statute for Industrial Innovation. In summary, the R&D tax incentives of Statute for Industrial Innovation have caused many problems in Taiwan. Many problems are more fundamental issues in tax law, and It's the key direction of tax reform policy. Therefore, this essay will sort out these issues, and through the EU regulations and related norms, the OECD's Frascati Manuel and Chinese law to explore the problems of Taiwan's R&D tax incentive system. Finally, put forward the suggestion and conclusion period of this essay can be the proposal of tax reform policy.

並列關鍵字

research and development(R&D) ； tax incentives ； Statute for Industrial Innovation ； Tax credit of investment ； the legal elements of patent rights ； EU regulations ； Frascati Manual ； Chinese corporate income tax law.