論我國新制房地合一交易所得稅：兼論與土地增值稅之比較及關係

2016年1月1日實施「房地合一交易所得稅」，以應近年大眾對於不動產交易所得課稅制度之高度關注。本次修法：「房地合一交易所得稅」維持與土地增值稅並立制度，且仍依「土地漲價總數額」核課土地增值稅，但對土地漲價總數額以外之房地所得，則係依實際交易價格課徵「房地合一交易所得稅」。相較於舊制，新制有許多重大突破：一、從房屋、土地完全分離課稅方式，改以「房地合一」課稅。二、以房屋、土地實際成交所獲之所得作為所得稅稅基，更符合經濟實質及量能課稅原則。雖然新制有上述重要變革，惟仍存有諸多爭議。首先，立法者保留土地增值稅，並與房地合一交易所得稅雙制並行，除導致土地增值稅既存問題無法解決，亦生兩法規範價值矛盾情形，因土地增值稅與房地合一交易所得稅兩規範體系不完全相同。其次，硬將一次交易所獲取的不動產交易所得，分成「土地漲價總數額」以內所得繳納「土地增值稅」、「土地漲價總數額」以外所得繳納「房地合一交易所得稅」，將使同筆所得適用不同稅目，進而適用相異稅率、稅捐優惠等，此種差別待遇除違反平等原則，亦背離經濟實質。因此，本文認為應修正現行制度中土地增值稅與房地合一交易所得稅並立稅制：廢止土地增值稅，改依實價課不動產交易所得稅，理由如下：首先，土地增值稅毋庸必然存在，憲法第143條第3項為方針條款，立法者具體如何規範，有一定形成空間。再者，房地合一課稅具可行性，縱使房屋、土地各自擁有獨立之所有權，但稅捐法有自己的規範目的，相關概念之適用民法不必然具優先性，必要時仍得依規範目的，即稅法中之量能課稅原則加以調整。此外，應維持現行法之實價課稅方式，因不動產作為課稅標的有其獨特性，其為眾人生存所需資源，應以實際交易所得作為稅基，方得正確反映納稅義務人的稅捐負擔能力。因此，本文認為對於房屋、土地交易所得應採單一稅目「不動產交易所得稅」，並參考現行法之優點，例如：稅基以實際交易價格作為計算基準，並與一般所得分離課稅，實際上現行法之「房地合一所得稅制」即提供一值得參考之雛形。故本文第四章「房地合一交易所得稅制度:課稅構成要件」，重點即評析「房地合一所得稅制」實體法規範。稅捐主體部分，維持自然人及營利事業作為納稅義務人。稅捐客體部分，本文認不應設計「日出條款」，稅捐客體應僅適用於新制施行後取得並出賣不動產所得者。另外，稅基部分，使用期間之房屋稅、地價稅應得作為所得稅之費用扣除額，方符客觀淨值原則。再對因贈與或繼承方式取得不動產所有權者，為避免現行法下「擬制所得額」現象，本文認應以原始所有權人取得不動產之成本，作為再次出售時之成本扣除額，而繼承人或受贈者曾繳納之遺產、贈與稅，亦得作為費用扣除。最後，就取得、持有及交易期間之認定，因持有期間之判定將實質影響稅基之計算，故不得徒以申報作業要點規範，而應由法律規範，或至少應有母法為明確授權依據，才符稅捐法定主義。另外稅率部分，於「個人以自有土地與營利事業合作興建房屋」情形，不應全然較一般短期持有適用較低之稅率，概出售合建分售之房地，不能完全排除非投機行為，故應個案以合目的方式解釋適用。此外，給予出售自住房地所得者稅捐優惠有其必要性，因自住房地與生存權、遷徙自由保障高度相關，但優惠內容仍須以定額免稅或房屋及土地面積限制方式加以節制。此外，應就持有期間長短調整適用不同稅率，長期持有者得適用較低稅率，目的為避免急遽、閉鎖效應；短期持有者適用較高稅率，目的為避免投機性行為，但應縮小現行法中稅率級距之差異，如此除簡化稅制也降低納稅義務人稅捐規避之誘因。另外，對於出售農業用地及其農舍之所得，應以補助方式取代現行法之稅捐優惠。而對於被徵收前移轉之公共設施保留地之稅捐優惠，應僅限適用於公共設施保留地第一次移轉，因從第二次移轉公共設施保留地後，土地所有權人之經濟上犧牲已反映於土地取得成本，故無再予其稅捐優惠之必要性。最後，第五章「房地合一交易所得稅之稽徵現況及建議」。首論當事人協力義務，筆者認買賣雙方須於簽訂不動產契約後共同向稽徵機關申報，否則雙方當事人間不得移轉不動產所有權，同時應許買方作為代繳義務人，以免納稅義務人(賣方）遲不納稅，損及買方之權利。除了當事人之協力義務，稽徵機關亦應履行其職權調查義務，除向當事人調查交易情形及取得成本外，在符合補充性及必要性之情境下，稽徵機關也得向第三人調查，而不動產交易中常見之第三人包括：金融機構、建設公司及實價登錄制度之義務人。

關鍵字

房地合一；所得稅；土地增值稅；實價課稅；房地合一交易所得稅稽徵程序

並列摘要

The 'Integrated Housing and Land Income Tax' was implemented on January 1, 2016, in response to expert’ and mass’ attention to this issue. In comparison with the pre-revision regulations, the income within 'the total amount of land value increment' is still taxed by 'Land Value Increment Tax,' but the income over 'the total amount of land value increment' is taxed by 'Integrated Housing and Land Income Tax.' Thus, 'Land Value Increment Tax' and 'Integrated Housing and Land Income Tax' are jointly implemented. This amendment solves some existing problems. Before 'Integrated Housing and Land Income Tax' was implemented, 'Land Value Increment Tax' had only taxed land’s income within 'the total amount of land value increment.' And the income derive from the house are subject to 'income from property transactions' in the 'Income Tax Act.' However, we generally transact house and land in one price; as such, it seems impractical to separate income of house and land. Thus, tax collection authorities simply taxed income from house based on 'tax estimation' instead of real market prices. To solve the above problem, there are some reforms in 'Integrated Housing and Land Income Tax.' First, both house and land income can be taxed by 'Integrated Housing and Land Income Tax.' Second, the tax-base is dependent on real transaction prices rather than 'tax estimation,' thus it is more consistent with the principle of actual economic relationships and interests. Even though there are some important amendments in the 'Integrated Housing and Land Income Tax' as mentioned above, it remains controversial in other aspects. First, maintaining 'Land Value Increment Tax' means retaining the existing problems. Next, due to the distinct procedures of these two regulations -dividing one transaction into house and land parts and applying different tax categories- tax rate and tax payable may lead to discrimination against Taxpayer’s constitutionally-protected equal rights. Hence, the underwrite suggests that income derived from real estate should be one tax category: 'Real Estate Income Tax.' Before applying 'Real Estate Income Tax,' several important issues need to be discussed. First, maintaining 'Land Value Increment Tax' is unnecessary. Article 143 in the Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) is part of 'fundamental national policies' and 'program clauses,' legislators have flexibility to enact regulation on land policy. Second, the concept of the Civil Code should not always take precedence over the Tax Act, because the Tax Act has its own legislative purpose, such as the 'Ability-to-Pay Principle.' Besides, considering the ability of taxpayers, the tax should stick to market price. Because house and land are necessities for the masses, which is different from other properties. Therefore, current 'Integrated Housing and Land Income Tax' provides a valuable framework. That is why the Chapter 4 'Integrated Housing and Land Income Tax：Constituent Elements' on this article focus on its substantial regulation. The underwrite suggests retaining the individual and the profit-seeking enterprise as 'taxpayers,' but for taxpaying objects, new regulation should not be applied to pre-acquired real estate. Next, on the part of taxable base, in accordance with net principle, 'House Tax' and 'Land Value Tax' should be deducted from Income Tax. Besides, for one who acquires real estate because of gift or inheritance, it is usually without obtained cost. So, the current regulation might 'overestimate income.' The underwrite suggests when the donee or heir sell the house and land, we should take the original cost (the decedent or donor voluntarily acquire that real estate) as deduction of income tax to avoid the above problems. This way, Estate Tax and Gift Tax should be as cost deduction in 'Real Estate Income Tax' as well. In addition, the standard to calculate 'term of owning real estate' influences the amount of tax payable. So it should be regulated by law or at least authorized by law, not just by the tax collection authority’s direction. As for tax rate, firstly, for 'an individual who sells house and land where the house is built in partnership with a business entity,' its tax rate is lower than general ownership who sells house and land within 2 years. The purpose of taxing higher tax rate for short-term holding is to deter opportunistic behavior. However, 'the house is built in partnership' criterion does not effectively rule out the possibility of opportunistic behavior. So, the Article about 'the house is built in partnership' should not categorically apply lower tax rate in short-term holding. Next, 'self-use house and land held by an individual, his (her) spouse, or their minor children' can apply some tax preference. This is because self-use house and land are strongly connected with 'right to life' and 'freedom of migration.' Nevertheless, the preference should be limited by the quota of tax-deducted or by the area of house and land. In regards to 'term of holding real estate,' applying different tax rate is able to avoid 'bunching' and the 'locked-in' effect. So, People who hold house and land for a long time can apply lower rate. On the other hand, people who hold house and land for a short term should apply higher rate to avoid opportunistic behavior. Since the tax brackets between different holding terms is too large, the underwrite suggests to shortening the tax brackets; this not only simplifies the tax system, but also reduces the incentive for tax avoidance. In addition, income from selling agricultural lands and constructing farmhouse should apply subsidy instead of tax preference. Next, when it comes to 'land reserved for public facilities,' the tax preference should only apply for the first transfer. This is because landowners who obtained land reserved for public facilities after the first transfer has already bought in at the lower price. That is, the loss of market price was already reflected in land price. It is unnecessary to give more tax preference after the first transfer. Finally, Chapter 5 proposes 'Present Situation and Suggestion of Tax Collection Procedure' and discusses 'Litigants’ Obligation to Assist' in the first place. Taking 'Land Value Increment Tax' as a reference, the underwrite suggests that both taxpayer and buyer should declare the tax after the real estate transaction. For the purpose of avoiding taxpayers intentionally delaying payment, buyers should have the right to be 'designating taxpayers.' Otherwise, sellers cannot transfer ownership of house and land to buyers. In addition, the obligation of administrative authority investigation is also important. When taxpayer refuse to declare, and it’s hard for authority to find the data, tax collection authorities should investigate not only litigants but also third-party assistants. The common three party mechanisms in Real Estate Income Tax includes financial institutions, construction companies, and obligations of 'Actual Transaction Price Policy'.