薪資所得與執行業務所得爭議之研究-以大學教師所得為中心

林祐成(Lin Yu Cheng)

指導教授 ： 黃俊杰

國立中正大學/管理學院/會計資訊與法律數位學習碩士在職專班/碩士(2013年)

摘要

薪資所得與執行業務所得之爭議，正持續隨經濟發展及行業別種類之增加而不斷增加。本文以最高行政法院101年度裁字第196號裁定為例，研究我國現行法就薪資所得與執行業務所得之爭議，及現行規範密度之適足性。本文架構分為五章，第一章為緒論，介紹本研究之研究動機、目的、方法、問題之提出及相關文獻之回顧。第二章介紹執行業務所得與薪資所得之概念與區別，藉由蒐集財政部解釋函令、行政法院見解及學者見解加以歸納整理分析，並提出己見。第三章則回應第一章問題提出，先介紹大學教師領取校內所給付報酬之種類並分析其性質，再以最高行政法院101年度裁字第196號裁定為例，介紹本案原告之主張、被告之主張、臺北高等行政法院之理由及最高行政法院裁定之理由，並以評析其理由之妥適性，作為小結。
又因大學教師可能不僅支領校內之報酬，亦可能支領校外報酬，故本文第四章則介紹大學講師領取校外所給付報酬之種類，而其中常有爭議者，即為撰稿、版稅及演講鐘點費之性質認定問題，其究應屬大學講師「演講」之鐘點費而屬執行業務所得？或應認係「講授課程」之鐘點費而屬薪資所得？擬於本文第四章探討大學教師於校外領取報酬之性質認定問題。最後於第五章則提出本研究之結論與建議。

關鍵字

所得稅 ； 薪資所得 ； 執行業務所得 ； 大學教師

並列摘要

The controversy between salary income and business implementation income is continuously enlarged along with economic development and the increase of business category. This article takes no. 196 adjudication of year 2012 Tsai-Tzu of Supreme Administrative Court as example to study the controversy between salary income and business implementation income in domestic effective law as well as the adequacy of the effective regulatory density. The architecture of this article can be divided into five chapters, the first chapter is introduction, which will be the introduction of research motive, objective, method, the proposition of problems and the review of related literature for this research. The second chapter will be introduction of the concept and difference between business implementation income and salary income, through the collection of explanation letter and order from the Ministry of Finance, the viewpoints from the Administrative Court as well as the viewpoints from the scholars are summarized and analyzed, in the mean time, opinions from the author are proposed. Third chapter will be a reply of the problems proposed in chapter 1, first, the category of the salary paid within the campus to teachers in the university will be introduced and its characteristics will be analyzed, then no. 196 adjudication of year 2012 Tsai-Tzu of Supreme Administrative Court is taken as example for the introduction of the proposition of plaintiff and the proposition of the accused of this case, the reason of the Taipei High Administrative Court and the reason of the Supreme Administrative Court, moreover, the appropriateness of the reason will be commented, analyzed and ended with a conclusion.
Moreover, because teachers in the university might not only receive the income within the campus, but also the income out of the campus, hence, in chapter 4 of this article, category of out-of-campus income received by lecturers in the university will be introduced, among them, the most frequently controversial one is the characteristic identification for article writing, royalty on books and hour pay for lecturing, that is, should it be identified as hour pay of “lecturing” or business implementation income of a lecturer in the university? Or should it be identified as hour pay of “course lecturing” and seen as salary income? Therefore, in chapter 4 of this article, the characteristic identification of out-of-campus income received by teachers in the university will be investigated. Finally, chapter 5 will be conclusion and suggestion of this research.

參考文獻

2.陳清秀，稅法總論，元照，2008年，五版。

3.黃俊杰，財政憲法，翰蘆，2005年，初版。

6.陳清秀，論客觀的淨額所得原則（上），法令月刊，第58卷，第8期，2007年8月。

3.湯瓊淑，綜合所得稅執行業務所得之研究，國立彰化師範大學會計學系企業

4.柯格鐘，論所得稅法之所得分類，月旦法學教室，第59期，2007年9月。