- 學位論文
土地限制使用稅務問題之研究-以土地稅為中心-
The Study on the Taxation of Land Restriction and Zoning Regulation - Focus on Land Tax -
摘要
土地限制使用法令，係遵循國土綜合開發計畫之指導原則，由各目的事業主管機關依職掌法令分別修正管制，致限制使用法令文義，若未從國土綜合開發計畫之環境敏感地劃設目的，限制發展保護分區之核心區、緩衝區與過渡區等空間結構管制特性、原則及策略全面性瞭解，實難窺視全貌。 限制使用與土地稅減免法令，因涉及人民其他自由權利之限制及稅捐法定主義，法規範係屬相對法律保留事項，應由法律加以規定，如以法律授權主管機關發布命令為補充規定時，其授權應符合具體明確之原則。土地稅減免之實質內容，更應符合稅捐平等原則與過度禁止原則等憲法要求，並且必須有正當理由或強烈公益需求，作為差別待遇之合理基礎，始符合憲法第7條實質平等衡量標準。 土地限制使用適用土地法第194條減免規範，文義見解歧異可分「法律位階」、「依法律限制」及「不能使用」等三部分。「法律位階」部分有稅法優位及規範差異等主張；「依法律限制」部分有法律規定及公權力限制等主張；「不能使用」部分有完全不能使用及客觀不能使用等主張，本文認為其與土地稅法及其授權之土地稅減免規則存有規範差異，土地經公權力限制而為客觀不能使用，既得適用土地法第194條土地稅減免。 此外，對現行限制使用法令及土地稅減免規則等法制內容檢討結果，部分限制使用法令尚有法律明確性授權之違反，土地稅減免規則存有欠缺法律明確性授權、怠於減免規範及法令變遷致產生規範漏洞等問題，尚待目的事業主管機關與稅捐稽徵機關儘速檢討修正，始符合正當法律程序及憲法財產權保障意旨。
並列摘要
The land restrictions and zoning regulations complied with the National Comprehensive Development Plan, which are amended and restricted respectively by regulating authorities of target business in accordance with functioned regulations. This resulted in a dilemma in viewing the whole picture if it is not understood from the zoning purpose of environment-sensitive lands in National Comprehensive Development Plan, and the strategy, principles and identities of zoning structure of Central Zones, Buffer Zones and Transition Zones in Development-restrained zones. Regulations of restricted use and land tax exemption pertain to the Principle of Legal Reservation, and should be stipulated by law due to engagement in restraints over people’s other rights and Principle of Statutory Taxpaying. If the law delegates the competent authorities to announce administrative orders as supplement rules, such authorization shall comply with the intelligible principle. The substantial content of land tax exemption shall be consistent with the Constitutional requirements in Principle of Fair Taxation and The Principle of Proportionality (Verhaeltnismaessigkeitsprinzip). Reasonable cause or compelling public interests are also required in grounds of discrimination, and therefore complied with the substantive equality requirement stipulated in Article VII of Constitution. Article 194 of Land Act, the exemption rules, applied to the land restrictions and zoning regulations. The divergent definitions can be divided into three categories— “the pyramid structure of law,” “restriction by Act” and “unable to use”. The theory of “pyramid structure of law” contended the regulation divergence and superior priority of taxation law; the “restriction by Act” argued the legal requirements and restriction over police power; and the “unable to use” contended the totally unable to use and objectively unable to use. This Study thought the existed regulation divergences between land tax act and its delegated rules and regulations in land tax exemption, where the lands are restricted by police power, and therefore become objectively unable to use; the land tax exemption stipulated in Article 194 of Land Act may therefore apply. In addition, when reviewing the current content of tax exemption of land restriction and zoning regulation, parts of land restrictions are inconsistent with the intelligible principle, and the regulations governing land tax exemption existed problems of lacking intelligible delegation, indolent in exemption as well as loopholes caused by regulation changes, which waits for review and correction from regulating authorities of target business to comply with the Due Process of Law and property rights protection promulgated by the Constitution.