因租稅核課處分而溢繳稅款之退稅請求權

The Right of Tax Refund from Tax Assessment for Overpaying the Tax Dues

曹馨方(Shing-Fang Tsao)

指導教授 ： 盛子龍

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200901408

摘要

摘 要
本論文內容共分為五章。
第一章緒論，首先說明本論文之問題意識、研究目的及範圍、研究方法及論文架構與內容摘要等，簡略說明本論文所欲處理之主要問題及研究範圍。
第二章退稅請求權之基本法理，關於退稅請求權之理論基礎及要件，以及有關退稅請求權成立之法律上原因之討論，並說明納稅義務人請求退稅時在現行法上之請求依據，詳加探討稅捐稽徵法第二十八條之規定，以及修正前後之相關問題。
第三章租稅核課處分形式存續力之排除，討論租稅核課處分之性質及效力，當租稅核課處分發生形式存續力時退稅請求權行使之問題，並討論與退稅請求權有關之訴訟類型，及當納稅義務人申請退稅未獲准許欲提起救濟時，有關行政訴訟類型之選擇。
第四章確定判決既判力之突破，討論有關租稅核課處分經行政訴訟確定，在行使退稅請求權時，如何突破確定判決既判力之問題，以及此時，稽徵機關對於租稅核課處分變更及廢棄之可能。
第五章結論，綜合前述各章之結論。當租稅核課處分發生形式存續力時，納稅義務人得依稅捐稽徵法第二十八條第二項規定，及行政程序法第一百二十八條等規定，請求稽徵機關重開行政程序撤銷或變更原租稅核課處分，惟納稅義務人依稅捐稽徵法第二十八條第二項規定申請退稅時，如有故意或重大過失遲誤法定救濟期間，或未盡協力義務之情形，應予目的性限縮排除適用。而租稅核課處分經行政救濟遭駁回確定後，倘原租稅核課處分確有違法應予撤銷或變更，且符合行政程序法第一百二十八條規定程序重開之要件，亦得申請稽徵機關重開行政程序為「第二次裁決」，將原租稅核課處分撤銷或變更。倘申請遭稽徵機關駁回，仍得採用與原處分相同之法律救濟途徑，蓋前後二次爭議之標的並非相同，原判決既判力因行政程序重開而被排除。

關鍵字

退稅請求權 ； 稅捐稽徵法第28條 ； 形式存續力 ； 既判力 ； 溢繳稅款 ； 租稅核課處分

並列摘要

Abstract
The inner text of the thesis is divided into five chapters.
Chapter 1 covers the introduction, which describes first the thesis’s core issues, research scope and objectives, research methodology, thesis framework and content summary, briefly explaining some of the main issues the study attempts to explore, and the scope of research.
Chapter 2 pertains to the rudimentary legal theories of tax refund rights, focusing on the discussion of the theoretic basis and critical elements of tax refund rights, and the legal premise for sustaining the tax refund rights, and also describes the basis by which a taxpayer is eligible to file for tax refund under the current law, by analyzing in-depth stipulations set forth under Article 28 of the Tax Collection Act, and some of the problems before and after the legislative amendment.
Chapter 3 pertains to the elimination of sustainability in norm by which tax assessment rules are made, by discussing the nature and validity of tax assessment rules, issues concerning exercising tax refund rights in the face of a sustainability in norm form justifying for tax assessment rules, and to discuss the litigation types related to tax assessment rules, and options in litigation when bringing remedies in the instance where a taxpayer’s petition for tax refund has not been approved.
Chapter 4 focuses on breakthroughs in ascertaining the res judicata, by discussing the confirmation of administrative litigation on tax assessment rules, the issue of how best to achieve breakthrough the confirmation of res judicata when exercising tax refund rights, and the probability, at such time, that a taxing authority is likely to modify or rescind the tax assessment rules.
Chapter 5 covers the recapitulation in the form of a conclusion that summarizes all previous chapters covered. In the face of a sustainability in norm at the time tax assessment rules occur, a taxpayer may petition, in accordance with stipulations set forth under paragraph 2, Article 28 of the Tax Collection Act and that under Article 128 of the Administrative Procedure Act, with the taxing authority to withdraw administrative procedure or modify the previous tax assessment rules, provided that the objective shall be restricted and the eligibility eliminated when a taxpayer is found with deliberate or gross negligence in delays by failing to exert whose due diligence during the legally designated remedies period when filing for a tax rebate as per stipulations set forth under paragraph 2, Article 28 of the Tax Collection Act. And once the tax assessment rules have been rejected and confirmed by through the administrative remedy, and under the circumstances where the previous tax assessment rules should be found illegal to justify for a withdrawal or modification, meeting also the critical criteria of a rehearing procedure as stipulated under Article 128 of the Administrative Procedure Act, a petition may be filed with the taxing authority to reopen the administrative procedure in a “second trial”, by which to withdraw or modify the previous tax assessment rules. If the petition should be overruled by taxing authority, the same legal remedies means identical to that of the previous rules may still be sought, and in light that the premise of the two disputes are not identical, the res judicata of the previous judgment is thus being eliminated amid the reopening of the administrative procedure.

並列關鍵字

tax assessment ； overpaying the tax Dues ； article 28 of the tax collection act ； the right of tax refund

參考文獻

蔡茂寅，《行政程序法實用》，2007年三版。

黃俊杰，《行政程序法》，2008年9月，二版。

陳愛娥，《工業區開發管理基金與公法上之不當得利返還請求權-評司法院大法官釋字第五一五號解釋》，台灣本土法學雜誌，第十九期，2001年2月。

黃士洲，《稅務訴訟的舉證責任》，2002年8月初版。

江嘉琪，《行政契約關係與行政處分之容許性》，律師雜誌，第三０三期。