稅務訴訟舉證責任之探討－以營業稅與營利事業所得稅為中心

Discussion of Responsibility for Certified in Tax Lawsuit-Focus on Business Tax and Income Tax of Business Enterprises

紀淑美(SHU-MEI CHI)

指導教授 ： 郭振恭

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201000027

摘要

稅務訴訟舉證責任之探討
—以營業稅與營利事業所得稅為中心—

論文摘要

在租稅國家，人民與國家間最主要之法律關係，即為納稅義務，而法治國家
要求之依法行政原則，其中依法課稅也成為重要之要素。故國家行使課稅權，係直接侵害人民之財產權，為典型之干預行政，應受到嚴格法律保留原則之拘束。
稅法是政府行使課稅權與人民納稅的共同規範，必須經過立法程序公佈實施，且政府非依法律不能向人民徵稅，人民亦係依法始有納稅義務，這是現代民主國家的租稅法律主義。因此租稅法律主義（或稅捐法定主義或租稅法定原則），為憲法上民主國家原則與法治國家原則在租稅領域之具體表現，具有保障人民財產權以及法安定性的功能。憲法第十九條規定：「人民有依法納稅之義務。」即係揭示稅法基本原則之一的租稅法律主義。大法官釋字第二一○、二一七、三三七、四一三、四七八、五○五、五六六、六○七、六二二、六二五、六三五號等解釋意旨，乃指出人民僅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而負納稅之義務或享受減免稅捐之優惠，主管機關基於法律概括授權而訂定之施行細則，僅得就母法納稅義務及其要件有關之事項予以規範，不得另為增減。然而由於稅法所需掌握之經濟現象複雜多變，立法技術上常須運用抽象、語意不明確之不確定法律概念，如「公益」、「正當理由」、「顯著不相當之代價」等制定法規。
「舉證之所在、敗訴之所在」，舉證責任分配乃稅務訴訟的勝敗關鍵。稅務訴訟案件類型層出不窮，即使是同一類型案件，由於個案舉證情況不同以及法官個人見解歧異，實難僅憑同類判決的常態，來準確評估訴訟勝敗的風險。稅務訴訟近來的發展趨勢有二大方向：一、為運用實質課稅原則，防杜脫法避稅行為（中華民國九十八年五月十三日華總一義字第○九八○○一一八八四一號稅捐稽徵法增訂第十二條之一條文；並修正第二十四條、第三十三條及第四十八條之一條文）可見一斑。二、為逐步加重納稅義務人於稽徵、訴訟程序上的協力義務，來減輕稽徵機關的職權調查義務。稅捐法令，無論是課稅要件或稽徵程序的規定，都只不過是廣義行政法的一環，除了受行政法一般原理原則的拘束（諸如平等原則、比例原則，行政程序法第四條至第一○參照），更不能牴觸憲法所明示保障人民基本權利（憲法第八條以下）與稅捐法定主義（憲法第十九條意旨）。其次，現行稅務訴訟的標的主要在訴請撤銷違法的稅捐處分，稅捐處分的違法瑕疵除稽徵機關適用稅法規定的錯誤外，如有違反行政法與憲法基本原則者，例如稽徵機關未盡職權調查能事或違反信賴保護等，亦屬未適法。
鑑於稅務訴訟的專門技術性，為一般民事、刑事訴訟所難以比擬，除須熟悉法律三段論法的邏輯以及一般訴訟運作外，更宜逐步充實行政法學與稅法學的基礎知識，尤其是國內稅務訴訟實務發展未臻成熟，許多令人值得稱道的實務見解，均可發現係擷取國內稅法學論者的研究理論。因此，在稅法學術與實務不斷交互影響的發展背景下，有效地引用學界論者的見解，一方面可增強已方爭點論理的說服力，另一方面更對既存的不合理慣例（例如財政部八十三年七月九日台財稅第八三一六○一三七一號函釋有關取得不實憑證涉及加值型及非加值型營業稅法第五十一條第五款及稅捐稽徵法第四十四條擇一從重處罰之規定）予以評判，以符合租稅之公平正義。
針對稅務爭訟上舉證責任如何分配的問題，按我國行政訴訟法第一三六條規定，係準用民事訴訟法第二七七條，即「當事人主張有利事實者，應負舉證責任」。但法條上所謂的「有利事實」，其概念內容並不明確，基於原告與稽徵機關同為訴訟上的當事人，所以實務上常見原、被告兩造相互指稱對方應負舉證責任，然行政法院援引前述條文，判決原告敗訴，或以被告機關未盡職權調查之責，撤銷原處分，並未詳述其判斷的緣由。甚且，不同法庭間針對相同案例事實，引用相同法條，卻作出不同的判決結果的情形，亦屢見不鮮。
另就行政法院判決實務而言，行政法院判例具有事實上的拘束力，而未選入判例的個別判決，雖僅是個別法官針對個案所持見解，然亦可援引供其他法院判決參考，特別是針對個別稅法爭議、舉證責任的歸屬、各庭見解不一時，適時地援引背景事實相似的個案，亦不失為增強己方論證基礎。又通常相類似的個案（例如營利事業所得稅未依規定提示帳證逕依所得稅法第八十三條核定案例），行政法院多已經累積相當數量的判決，蒐集並研析判決，即可大略研析出勝敗關鍵點，亦有助於釐清一套完整、有意義的訴訟上主張脈絡。是故，縱使個案係因未履行協力義務，怠於提示證明所得額或生產情況的帳證，於營利事業所得稅部分，遭按財政部頒定之當年度之所得額第八十三條，以同業利潤標準推計課稅，或按同法第二十八條與營利事業所得稅查核準則第五十八條規定，以同業耗用標準剔除原物料耗用，其課稅基礎均非前開規定，毋寧仍回歸營利事業所得稅的課徵基本規定，即同法第三條之規定。又營業稅部分，以虛設行號裁罰為例，雖財政部八十三年台財稅字第八三一六○一三七一號函業已釐定取得不實發票的處理原則，然僅作為認定此類違章事實的參考，違章裁罰的法律基礎仍應回歸營業稅法第五十一條第五款虛報進項稅額的裁罰規定。個案所適用的課稅或裁罰稅法規定一經確定，依規範要件分類說，亦連帶地確定客觀舉證責任的分配以及本證、反證的舉證負擔。此外，個案常一併涉及補稅與裁罰爭議，確立補稅與裁罰各自所憑稅法基礎不同，亦有助於說明補稅與裁罰係屬兩事，而應適用不同的處理法則。
稅捐稽徵法第十二條之一於九十八年五月十三日增訂有關課徵租稅構成要件事實之認定及舉證責任；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。稅捐稽徵機關認定課徵租稅之構成要件事實時，應以實質經濟事實關係及其所衍生實質經濟利益之歸屬與享有為依據。前項課徵租稅構成要件事實之認定，稅捐稽徵機關就其事實有舉證之責任。納稅義務人依本法及稅法規定所負之協力義務，不因前項規定而免除。本次增訂之立法理由，係為避免納稅義務人質疑稅捐稽徵機關濫用實質課稅原則，造成徵納雙方之爭議，增列稅捐稽徵法第十二條之一明定實質課稅原則。又同法第四十七條於九十八年五月二十七日修正有關徒刑之適用對象，對於公司法規定之公司負責人、民法或其他法律規定對外代表法人之董事或理事、商業登記法規定之商業負責人、其他非法人團體之代表人或管理人亦適用之。為避免產生是否僅由名義負責人代為受罰之疑義，應回歸刑事法理由實際負責之人負擔刑責，遂增訂第二項。另依稅捐稽徵法第四十七條立法意旨及刑事法理，基本上係對實際參與業務執行之人，課以刑事責任。本次修正，於法條中明定登記之負責人與實際負責業務之人不同時，以實際負責業務之人為準，與現行是類案件實務上作法並無相悖，對納稅義務人權利保護將更臻周延。
本文核心論述，除探討舉證責任可分客觀舉證責任與主觀舉證責任，行政法院之審理原則採職權調查主義，不受當事人主張之拘束，並由此推演出當事人不負擔主觀舉證責任，是以法院將責由可自實體法獲得利益之當事人負客觀舉證責任；惟基於租稅公平，是否應賦予納稅義務人負擔主觀舉證責任？同時檢討「舉證責任」及「證明度」之牽連性為何？本文以營業稅及營利事業所得稅為研究範疇，分析舉證責任配置之適切性，乃是依最近五年行政法院受理訴訟案件之統計資料，營業稅及營利事業所得稅佔所有受理行政訴訟案件之比例高達六成以上。其次，說明我國稅捐稽徵法第三○條有關稽徵機關行使調查權及納稅義務人配合調查之法源依據，就稅務訴訟而言，納稅義務人之協力義務，目的在於證明與課稅構成要件相關之事實，其雖僅為證據方法之一，但平等原則又為稽徵機關量能課稅之指導原則之一，在稽徵程序中，稽徵機關基於主客觀之不能，造成職權調查功能不彰且納稅義務人於其生活範圍內所支配之課稅資料具有完整之掌控能力，是否經由法律明確規範納稅義務人應負積極協助義務，以消除武器不平等之情形？再就財政部頒訂「稅捐稽徵機關稅務案件協談作業要點」作為稽徵機關與納稅義務人進行協談之依據，惟依該要點協談之結果，對稽徵機關及納稅義務人並無拘束力，僅供雙方參考，建議增訂稅捐稽徵法第三○條之一有關稅務協談機制合法性之規定，又是否可於課稅事實未明時，於客觀舉證責任配置法則外，於法律明文增列兩造議定和解契約之規定，以疏解訟源？並提出個人見解，希能維護納稅義務人權益、落實稅負公平、簡化稅務行政及遏止逃漏稅捐，對稽徵實務及納稅義務人均有所助益，以減少紛爭。
本文計有八章，分別為第一章：緒論；第二章：營業稅及營利事業所得稅稅務訴訟現況，分析近年來我國行政訴訟案件中，有關舉證責任爭議之案件類型及最高行政法院與各高等行政法院之見解；第三章：行政訴訟之職權調查主義，先就舉證責任之學說及實務見解予以說明，並討論民事訴訟法上舉證責任之規定準用於行政訴訟時，應以何種基準，資為適用之依據；第四章：日本與德國法制有關舉證責任之介紹，我國行政訴訟法源於民事訴訟法，而民事訴訟法之規定大都源於德國法，近年因區域性，亦有參考日本法之趨勢；第五章：行政訴訟舉證責任之分配；介紹行政訴訟法上舉證責任之相關規定及兩造於訴訟進行中，當待證事實不明確時，「舉證責任」乃主導能否勝訴之關鍵，分就學說、實務與類型論述；第六章：稅務訴訟之證明程度，因稽徵機關或行政法院雖本諸職權調查事實，惟因主客觀條件之不足，極待納稅義務人盡其協力之義務，乃透過立法責成納稅義務人應負申報義務、稅籍登記、確保課稅資料及忍受監督等協力義務，對於違反者除裁處行為罰外，對於逃漏稅金額之計算係以推計方式，來核定納稅義務人之課稅所得額（營利事業所得稅稱之）及短漏報銷售額或取得不實進項憑證之金額（營業稅稱之）；第七章：營業稅與營利事業所得稅爭訟之舉證責任，將近年來最高行政法院與高等行政法院之相關判決，整理有關舉證責任目前實務見解之趨勢，以為稅捐稽徵機關及納稅義務人在稅務訴訟案件中，獲得公平與合理之待遇，防止濫訟之情事；第八章：結論與建議。

關鍵字

稅務訴訟舉證責任之探討 ； 營業稅與營利事業所得稅為中心

並列摘要

Discussion of Responsibility for Certified in Tax Lawsuit
-Focus on Business Tax and Income Tax of Business Enterprises

Summary of Thesis

In Tax collected country, the principle of law relationship between citizens with nation is responsibility for paid tax. Also, it is important element of collection tax by law based on the rule of administrative operating.

Tax act is the common regulation between citizens with nation for government to collect tax and this regulated the one of paid tax by citizens. The above regulation must be approved by legislative administration and will be executed after announcement from legislative administration. As a result, government cannot collect tax without this tax act approved. This means citizens have their responsibilities on paid tax that based on the above common regulation has been announced.
Consequently, this is a principle of tax act in current many democratic countries. Some of unidentified concept of law explanation should be more reliable for the usage of recent law regulation. The more clear explanation on tax act in regulation, the better execution on tax collection for administration.

There are different scenarios happened on tax lawsuits, even though the same type of lawsuit cases will have different results since having unique certified one of tax lawsuit by administration. Also, this will happened on the believe own by judge himself or herself. Thus, it makes more difficult for us to evaluate its risk based on the common sense of former same type of judgment which was happened before in other court’s judgment.
The two trends of current development in tax lawsuits will be as follow: 1. to use the principle of exact tax collection act in order to get rid of citizens’ violate paid tax. 2. to eliminate their pressure on government’s tax collection administration by supporting citizens on audit or understanding the procedure of tax lawsuits. As a result, the rules of administrative act and institutional law will not only be applied by tax lawsuits, but also play an important role of philosophy and thinking on tax act completed.

They are always happened on different result of courts’ judgments for citizens by used the same rule of tax act since certified the tax lawsuit by judges in other courts. Moreover, to confirm the individual case applied to suitable tax act with correct explanation on tax act will be the first step of three stages for tax act study. From the top of institutional law to the fundamental of procedure act of administrative function, tax lawsuit act of administrative function will influence more or less on their explanation and understanding of individual tax act.

On the other hand, for instance of some judgment by administrative court which is happened before will have the influence on other future judgment since judges would like to personal reference on it. The rest of them still can be referred by judge himself or herself from different courts although some references are not elected to case study of judgment. Specially, for argument of unique tax act and the belonging to responsibility for certified tax lawsuit by different courts will be easy to be referred on the same tax lawsuit with the similar background on former lawsuit happened before.
Once the judgment has been confirmed in its tax amount and penalty of individual case, meantime the charge fee on all responsibility of certified tax lawsuit will be assured together. More, the argument between tax collection repaid and penalty will be judged by different tax collection act. This will help explain on these are two scenarios with unique tax lawsuit. To apply on different tax act by tax collection administration is necessary.

The tax collection administration has duty to certify the assurance of elements for tax collection with its realistic and profit ownership on citizens. Also citizens can not waive the duty to cooperate with tax collection administration for survey in their tax lawsuits subjected to above conditions with its regulations on tax act. This rule will eliminate in their argument between citizens with tax collection administration for fighting the administration to violate in fundamental sprit of tax collection act.

The core of my thesis is discussing in the responsibility of certified in tax act, also the philosophy to survey in tax collection act by court of administration. Whether the responsibility of certified tax lawsuit which is originally come from tax collection act should be given to citizens or not since it has been already had by court? In meanwhile, to further discussion of its relationship between duty of certified tax lawsuit with confirmation possibility of tax lawsuit itself will be strongly related with this thesis. Consequently, the scope of my thesis will be included in business tax and income tax of business enterprise by discussing their appropriated function in dispatching the duty of certified tax lawsuit in current tax act vs. original from government’s tax collection administration.

Finally, there are total eight chapters included in this thesis discussion for the end of this summary. Chapter 1, preface; Chapter 2, current situation of business tax and income tax of business enterprises; Chapter 3, the investigation philosophy of tax lawsuit for administration; Chapter 4, introduction on rule of responsibility for certified tax lawsuit in Japan and Germany; Chapter5, different type of study and theory for the responsibility of certified tax lawsuit in society; Chapter6, confirmation possibility on tax lawsuit in current tax collection act; Chapter 7, the responsibility of argument between business tax with income tax of business enterprises for citizens and tax collection administration; Chapter 8, conclusion and suggestion.

並列關鍵字

Discussion of Responsibility for Certified in Tax Lawsu ； Focus on Business Tax and Income Tax of Business Enterp

參考文獻

9.陳榮宗，舉證責任之分配（一），臺大法學論叢第6卷第2期，1976年，頁223至250。

25.劉其昌，稅徵法部分條文修正案分析，稅務旬刊第2087期，2009年9月20日出版，頁19至25。

7.李吟芳，納稅義務人協力行為之研究，政治大學法學研究所碩士論文（2007），頁109。

8.李介民，稅法上非正式行政行為之研究，東海大學法律學研究所博士論文（2008年元月），頁107至145。

10.陳榮宗，舉證責任之分配（一），臺大法學論叢第7卷第2期，1977年，頁251至301。