就源扣繳所得稅及其相關法律爭議之研究──兼論所得稅法之修正建議

就源扣繳雖然已根深蒂固於各國所得稅制度之中，甚至被譽為現代所得稅制度之「基石」，司法院釋字第673號也認為扣繳制度並未違憲，惟在我國法上，不但應扣繳所得之範圍十分廣泛，幾乎涵蓋大部分類型之所得（多數國家僅有少部分類型之所得，例如薪資、利息或境外居住者之所得必須扣繳），且又採行稅款扣繳與憑單申報併行制度，導致扣繳義務人所負擔之義務，遠較其他國家為重。抑且，扣繳義務人雖係無償之行政助手，但其如違反扣繳義務，除須負擔賠繳責任外，尚可能受到漏稅罰之裁處。就此以言，現行所得稅扣繳制度是否全無檢討改進之空間（例如：給予扣繳義務人補償），俾符合憲法第23條比例原則之要求，容有商榷之餘地。再者，所得稅法第89條第1項第1、2款以「機關、團體、學校之責應扣繳單位主管」及「事業負責人」為扣繳義務人是否妥適，在學說與實務上存在重大爭議。對此，司法院大法官釋字第673號雖認為其合憲，但該解釋係以比例原則進行審查，對於平等原則則隻字未提。是以，扣繳義務人將來可否聲請補充解釋，請求司法院大法官依平等原則宣告上揭條文違憲，亦值探討。除此之外，所得稅法針對扣繳以及申報、填發義務之違反，設有諸多不同類型的法律效果，包含：賠繳責任、滯納金與稅捐處罰。其中，稅捐處罰又可涵蓋行政秩序罰（行為罰與漏稅罰）、行政刑罰與懲戒罰。然則，扣繳義務性質上屬於單純之行為義務，故現行條文對於扣繳義務人處以沒有最高金額上限的滯納金（最高為應納未納金額15％）與漏稅罰（最高為應扣未扣稅額3倍），顯然過苛，不符合比例原則，應予修正改進。

關鍵字

就源扣繳；扣（免）繳憑單；即時徵繳；扣繳義務人；賠繳責任；滯納金；稅捐處罰

並列摘要

Withholding not only intertwines with the income tax system in most countries, and is even regarded as the “cornerstone” of modern income tax system. Also, Judicial Yuan In-terpretation No. 673 stated that the withholding system does not violate the Constitution. However, under current Taiwan Income Tax Act (“ITA”), not only the scope of with-holding is wider than other counrtries, the withholding agent is obliged to report addition-al withholding statements. Moreover, although withholding agent is only an administra-tive auxiliary to the tax authority whom receive no remuneration, in the event where withholding agent violates its obligations, the agent should pay the under withheld tax and may suffer from tax penalty. To this end, whether Taiwan’s income tax withholding system is in accordance with the principle of proportionality stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution and the means to mitigate the unconstitutionality (such as rebating the withholding agent for the services it provided) should still be opened for debate. Further, pursuant to Article 89, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 and 2 of the ITA, the with-holding agent for income paid by government institution, organization or school is the head of the unit responsible for withholding in the government institution, organization and school. As for income subject to withholding which is paid by enterprise, the tax should be withheld by the responsible person of the enterprise. Although the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 673 declared that the above provisions do not contridict the principle of proportionality and is therefore constitutional, most scholars hold opposing opinions against the result of the Interpreation. As such, whether with-holding agent could raise petition with the Jutices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan for supplemental interpretation based on the principle of equality is worth studying. In addition to the above, upon the violation of withholding/fiing/issuing obligations, withholding agent may face different consequences, such as paying the under withheld tax and surcharge for delinquent payment. Tax penalty including administrative, criminal and disciplinary punishement may also be imposed on such withholding agent. However, the amount of surcharge (up to 15% of unremitted tax) and administrative fine (up to three times of under withheld tax) prescribed in the ITA do not have maxium limitation. As withholding obligation is a pure duty of act, the current penalty provisions are clearly too harsh and infringe the principle of proportionality. Hence, amendments should be made to the current ITA.

並列關鍵字

withholding at source ； withholding and non-withholding statement ； pay-as-you-earn ； withholding agent ； duty to pay the under withheld tax ； surcharge for delinquent payment ； tax penalty

參考文獻

13、黃士洲（2011）。《實質課稅與納稅人權利保障》。台北：翰蘆。

3、李志宏、施肇榮（2012）。〈所得稅制與健保費制（中）：扣繳義務人與扣費義務人〉，《臺灣醫界雜誌》，55期9卷，頁37-42。

6、李建良（2008）。〈經濟管制的平等思維──兼評大法官有關職業暨營業自由之憲法解釋〉，《政大法學評論》，102期，頁71-157。

23、封昌宏（2012），〈學校違反所得稅法的扣繳義務該罰誰──評司法院大法官釋字第673號解釋〉，《東吳法律學報》，23卷3期，頁125-149。

38、陳榮宗（1982）。〈破產財團之法律性質與破產管理人之法律地位〉，《臺大法學論叢》，11卷2期，頁121-141。

國際替代計量

就源扣繳所得稅及其相關法律爭議之研究──兼論所得稅法之修正建議

全文下載

主題瀏覽