薪資所得扣除成本費用之憲法課題

The Constitutional Issue of the Deduction for Costs of Income from Wages

官瑀婕(Yu-Chieh Kuan)

指導教授 ： 葛克昌

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.02227

摘要

我國現行個人綜合所得稅，係就個人綜合所得總額，減除免稅額及扣除額後之綜合所得淨額計徵之（所得稅法第13條）。所得稅法第14條第1項將個人所得區分為十類。其中，第二類「執行業務所得」明文定有得以「收入減除成本及必要費用」後之餘額作為所得額，係對「淨所得」課稅理念之落實；惟同條項第三類「薪資所得」則未設有相同規定，僅能適用同法第17條第1項第2款第3目規定，每年至多得扣除新台幣十萬元之「薪資所得特別扣除額」，且該條立法目的亦未明確指出此項扣除額的法律性質。上述執行業務所得與薪資所得在成本費用扣除相關規範上的差別待遇（下稱「系爭法規範上差別待遇」），長久以來使稽徵機關與行政法院誤解薪資所得「未」包含成本費用。然而，事實是：薪資所得不僅「包含」成本費用，且應「准予扣除」，始符合個人綜合所得對「淨所得」課稅的基本前提。系爭法規範上差別待遇之存在，致使薪資所得者倘發生每年超過10萬元的成本費用，就超過之金額即須自行負擔，致使其實質稅負往往明顯高於其他種類所得者，十分不公平。

在分類上，執行業務所得與薪資所得雖然具有獨立性工作與非獨立性工作之細微差異，惟在事物本質上，兩者同屬「提供勞務所得之報酬」，乃毋庸置疑。既然事物本質相同，亦不存在得為合理差別待遇之理由，則基於稅制之公平，均應允許扣除成本費用，以真實反映納稅義務人的稅捐負擔能力，並符合綜合所得稅對淨所得課稅之基本倫理要求。

系爭法規範上差別待遇不僅僅單純是立法技術的缺失，更是涉及憲法層次的重要課題。稽徵實務上，因執行業務所得與薪資所得區別爭議衍生之稅務訴訟，可能發生在許多行業別中。惟本文不將焦點侷限於特定行業從業人員所得之定性，而擬採取較宏觀的角度，自與系爭法規範上差別待遇相關的憲法基本權利（平等權、工作權）、納稅人權利保護與稅法基本原則（例如量能平等原則、客觀營業保障淨所得原則、實質課稅原則）等面向探討此一議題，論證「薪資所得包含成本費用，且應該准予扣除」之核心概念；並整理外國立法例，最後提出作者之建議，以期提供我國現行稅制修正之方向。

關鍵字

薪資所得 ； 執行業務所得 ； 薪資所得特別扣除額 ； 量能課稅平等原則 ； 實質課稅原則 ； 平等權 ； 工作權

並列摘要

According to article §13 of Income Tax Act in Taiwan, consolidated income tax of an individual shall be levied on the amount of his net consolidated income which shall be the gross consolidated income minus the amount of tax-exempt income, and various deductions. This article demonstrates that net income is the most essential foundation of calculating the amount of taxable income in personal income tax.

Among the ten types of income which are set in Article §14I of Income Tax Act, costs and expenses of “income from professional practice” could be deducted to calculate the actual amount of income. However, without specific provision in the same article, costs and expenses could not be deducted when calculating the real amount of “income from salaries/wages”. According to article §17I 2(3) of Income Tax Act, taxpayers who have income from salaries/wages can only deduct their costs and expenses directly related to work by the system of “special deduction of income from salaries/wages”, while NT$100,000 is the limitation per year.

As a result of the different legal treatments of these two types of income in Income Tax Act, civil servants in the administrative organ and judges in administrative courts hold the view that costs and expenses shall not be included while using the term “income from salaries/wages”. However, this kind of opinion cannot be justified. According to the principle that personal income tax shall be levied on the actual amount of net income, it is obviously clear that costs and expenses shall be included while calculating deductions.

Due to the reason that both income from professional practice and income from salaries/wages include costs and expenses, the different legal treatment between these two types of income is unequal. Although income from salaries/wages is not considered as an income from independent work, while levying income tax, it reveals the same character as what income from salaries/wages does. To be more specific, both of these two types of income are undoubtedly being sorts of “compensation for services”. Since they have the same character, income from salaries/wages and income from professional practice must be treated equally while deducting costs and expenses.

In addition, this kind of unequal legal treatment is an important issue not only in legislative omission but also in the constitutional law, which is relevant to basic principles of tax law (such as ability-to-pay principle, the objective net principle, and the principle of "substance-over-form") and taxpayers’ rights (such as right to equality and right to work. This thesis discuss the essential relationship between costs and expenses and income from salaries/wages from these dimensions with the view of comparative law and then put forward the author’s own opinions and suggestions in the last chapter.

並列關鍵字

Income from salaries/wages ； Income from professional practice ； Special deduction of income from salaries/wages ； Ability-to-pay principle ； the principle of substance-over-form ； Right to equality ； Right to work

參考文獻

6. 李惠宗，〈憲法工作權保障系譜之再探－以司法院大法官解釋為中心〉，憲政時代，第29卷，第1期，2003年7月。

7. 李惠宗，〈職業自由主觀要件限制之違憲審查－司法院大法官釋字第五八四號解釋評析〉，憲政時代，第30卷，第3期，2005年1月。

20. 陳清秀，〈論客觀的淨額所得原則（上）〉，法令月刊，第58卷，第8期，2007年8月。

3. 林子傑，《人之圖像與憲法解釋》，台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2006年。

6. 黃士洲，《稅法對私法的承接與調整》，台灣大學法律研究所博士論文，2007年1月。