憲法第十九條規定人民有依法律納稅之義務,係指人民依法律所定之納稅主體、稅目、稅率、納稅方法及納稅期間等項目而負納稅之義務。然而涉及租稅事項之法律,其解釋應本於租稅法律主義之精神,依各該法律之立法目的,衡酌經濟上之意義及實質課稅之公平原則為之。因此租稅法所重視者,應為足以表徵納稅能力之實質的經濟事實,而非其外觀之法律行為或形式上之登記事項,對實質上相同經濟活動所產生之相同經濟利益,應課以相同之租稅,始符合租稅法律主義所要求之公平及實質課稅原則,且實質課稅原則為租稅法律主義之內涵及當然趨勢。所以,在探究任何交易或行為是否構成課稅要件時,不可僅憑外觀之法律形式或架構來加以判斷,更重要的還須對其交易或行為的經濟實質加以考量。亦即租稅的課徵除符合租稅法律主義之精神,同時須考量實質課稅原則。 租稅屬於法律保留之範圍,租稅法律主義係稅法之重要基本原則,惟基於租稅公平原則,實務亦早已發展實質課稅原則,行政機關或司法機關應審慎使用實質課稅原則否認租稅規避行為,以免行政機關濫用課稅權,並確保人民對稅法規定的預測可能性,維護法秩序的安定,應由立法機關以立法方式修訂相關之法律漏洞。 本論文經由以下四個案探討之過程作出結論並提出建議。 一、債券「前手息扣繳稅款」扣抵營利事業所得稅爭議之探討-財政部為扶植債券市場之發展,和租稅稽徵上之便利,以及單純的徵納雙方關係較有規律的考量下,針對債券交易所產生所得及所得稅法相關規定,分別於民國六十四年及七十五年作出解釋,作為債券交易如何扣繳、課稅方式之具體依據,債券「前手息」課稅之爭議即源於此二解釋。 二、盈餘證券化案例探討-我國股票交易所得免稅,所以有不少的租稅規劃方式,例如:將股利所得化為免稅證券交易所得、債券附買回交易、投資債券型基金及以公司持有不動產等,都是透過證券交易所得免稅加以規劃。本案例以「盈餘證券化」方式,規避個人的綜合所得稅,卻遭國稅局依據實質課稅原則,認定其係透過虛偽交易,安排進行股權移轉,明顯是濫用法律,對其補稅罰鍰。 三、認購權證課稅爭議-認購權證之權利金收入及發行後因避險操作所產生之交易損益的課稅爭議,由台北高等行政法院作出首宗判決案例。認購權證之所得稅課徵問題,所得稅法並無明文規定,因此其損益之計算係依據財政部八十六年十二月一日台財稅八六一九二二四六四號函釋規定,然此一函釋卻引起徵納雙方課稅爭議。 四、已扣繳稅款之權益問題探討-應扣繳之所得已由扣繳義務人扣取,惟扣繳義務人並未依法將所扣取稅款繳納公庫,此時所得人可否就已被扣取之稅款申請扣抵應納稅額。 本研究提出以下建議:一、金融商品之課稅制度作一整體性之課稅架構。二、考慮恢復課徵證券交易所得。三、運用實質課稅原則,應儘量維持法律的安定性。四、謹守租稅課徵之基本原理原則。五、調合租稅法律主義與實質課稅原則。六、適時檢討及修正相關不合時宜之租稅法律條文。七、明定實質課稅原則於稅法條文中。
According to the rule 19 of Constitution, the resident has the duty to pay the tax. However, concerning the tax-equality, the purpose of Legislation should consider the economic content or the tax-equality and principles. It emphasizes on the economic fact of the taxable payment, but instead of the surface of Tax Law. Therefore, if any transaction behavior causes the taxable payment, we cannot judge it by the surface of Tax Law, but take account of substance versus form doctrine. The principle of statutory tax-paying is the most important and basic in Tax Law. To reduce the probability of the tax-avoidance, the government should consider substance versus form doctrine carefully, and ban the organization to abuse the right of imposition. There are four cases discussed in this research as follows. 1. Ministry of finance depending on the rule of the gain from bond transaction and Tax Law explains how to pay the tax of bond transaction in 1975 and 1986. Those explanations cause the problem of the bond or debenture. 2. It uses the method of income of the security to evade the individual income tax, but according to substance versus form doctrine, National Tax Administration affirmed that it is an illegal behavior through the lying transaction. We think that National Tax Administration distorted Tax Law. 3. The court adjudicated the first case of the conflict between the margin of call warrants and the gain of the hedging. Tax Law doesn’t prescribe the tax of the gain of call warrant. Hence, the calculation of the tax is related to the rule of Ministry of finance in 1997, but this calculating method raises the contestation between the taxpayer and the government. 4. The taxpayer always deducts the un-taxable income. However, it makes the conflict between the government and the taxpayer as he applies the deduction in the taxable income. We have some suggestions in the above cases as follows. 1. The government should create a healthy taxable construction of the financial product. 2. It should be considered to recall the taxable mechanism of the security exchange income. 3. According to substance versus form doctrine, the government should maintain the law stabilization. 4. National Tax Administration must follow the taxable basic principles. 5. It is important to confirm the principle of statutory tax-paying and substance versus form doctrine. 6. Legislature should modify or annihilate the disagreed rules of Tax Law. 7. Legislature and government must make Tax Law confirm with substance versus form doctrine.