- 學位論文
上訴人特性對租稅行政訴訟判決之影響---以綜合所得稅為例
The Impact of Appellant Characteristics on Verdicts of the Supreme Administrative Court --- Individual Incometax as Example
摘要
以往研究文獻顯示，當最高行政法院在決定是否受理稅務訴訟案件時，若上訴人是政府稽徵機關，則其被受理的機率高於上訴人是個人或法人，再者，受理後經實質審理的判決結果，稽徵機關獲得有利判決的機會亦高於個人或法人(黃士洲、簡銀瑩與林世銘，2015)。依行政訴訟法之規定，律師與會計師均得擔任行政訴訟之訴訟代理人，依王全三、廖珮真與林敬偉(2010)的實證研究結果顯示，在訴訟效率部分，會計師的表現優於律師，能顯著縮短訴訟天數、節省法院及原告之經濟資源；惟在訴訟效果方面，則未有充分證據顯示律師與會計師間具有重大差異。惟國內目前的實證研究期間均只有一年，為強化證據說服力，本研究拉長研究窗期，進一步彙整上訴人的身分、訴訟代理人的專業背景、上訴人的政治關係，以探討其是否影響最高行政法院的判決，實證結果顯示，經最高行政法院審理後之判決結果，政府稽徵機關獲得有利判決之機率顯著大於個人；而訴訟代理人專業背景對判決結果的影響，律師的表現優於會計師；在政治連結方面，則未有充分證據顯示其與判決結果具有關聯。
並列摘要
Previous literature shows that compared to the appeals launched by individuals and corporate entities, appeals lodged by the tax authorities have a significantly higher probability of advantage at the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC); appeals lodged by individuals and corporate entities, on the other hand, are likely to be procedurally dismissed by the SAC (Huang, Jian, and Lin, 2015). According to the Administrative Procedure Law, both lawyers and CPAs can act as a litigation attorney. Wang, Liao, and Lin (2010) indicate that CPAs perform more efficiently than lawyers because litigation time period is significantly shorter for CPAs-agents than for lawyer-agents, which in turn reduces the economic cost for the court and the plaintiff. However, there is no significant difference in effectiveness between lawyer-agents and CPAs-agents. Besides, the time frame of current empirical study in Taiwan is limited to one year. To strengthen the persuasiveness of evidences, this empirical research elongates the period of study. In order to discuss the factors that affect the judgment of the SAC, we further collect the appellants’ identity, the agents' professiona1 background, and the appellants’ political connection. The empirical evidence shows that compared to the appeals launched by individuals, appeals lodged by the tax authorities have a significantly bigger probability of winning the verdict of the SAC. As for the impact of the litigation attorney’s professiona1 background on the verdict, lawyers outperform CPAs. Furthermore, no evidence shows that appellants’ political connection is significantly related to the verdict.