股權移轉行為與所得稅法第66條之8之法律爭議

Equity Transfer and Legal Issues Concerning Article 66-8 of the Income Tax Act

黃詠婕(Yong-Chieh Huang)

指導教授 ： 葛克昌

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.00966

摘要

盈餘係股利之源泉，股利係公司分派之盈餘。公司營利若有盈餘，股東即得基於股東權項下之盈餘分派請求權，請求參與分配其所投資公司之營運成果，投資者自公司組織依其權益比例所取得之投資收益，則稱為股利所得，我國所得稅法則稱為「營利所得」。據此，吾人可知，「股利所得」或是「營利所得」實係基於股東或投資者的身份始能享有之所得。倘股份一經轉讓，其屬於股東之權利義務即由受讓人繼受，因此附屬於股東權之從屬權利如股息和紅利，亦隨同移轉於受讓人。公司股之轉讓構成證券交易行為，因轉讓股票所生之資本利得（Capital Gain），則為證券交易所得。據此，股權移轉行為在稅法之重要性在於：其具有決定所得屬性之重要地位。此外，除非證券之取得成本與出售價格相同，否則，證券交易所得或損失幾乎是股權移轉行為之必然結果。

由於證券交易所得不論課稅或免稅，皆有違反量能原則之疑慮，故是否應予課稅，長期存有正反兩面之見解。我國所得稅法第4條之1則係採取免稅之政策，司法院釋字第565號解釋並認為此種「租稅優惠」，係以證券交易所得免稅之手段，達成獎勵投資、活絡經濟之目的。惟股利所得（或營利所得）與證券交易所得採取不同之課稅待遇，存在人民得加以規劃之空間，長期施行之結果，的確也模糊了節稅與避稅之分際，實務上出現了所謂「以營利所得轉換為證券交易所得」之用語，其內涵模糊不清。民國87年為消弭股利所得重複課稅之問題而增訂兩稅合一制度中，增訂了所得稅法第66條之8，該法以「不當之股權移轉」作為租稅規避防杜條款之構成要件。在該條之適用下，人民所為具備一些特定條件之股權移轉行為，被認定是規避營利所得之行為，在個案中被調整補稅，某些案例並被處以罰鍰。

問題發生於：證券交易所得之產生，必須經由股權移轉行為。簡言之，所得稅法第4條之1係藉由「誘導人民為股權移轉行為」以達成「活絡經濟」之目的。惟，所得稅法第66條之8，又以「股權移轉行為」作為租稅規避防杜要件。然而，租稅優惠之本質即係以「違反量能平等負擔原則」作為誘因，期能誘導人民為一定行為而達成特定財政收入以外之目的，故以比例原則作為審查依據。惟「證券交易所得免稅」是否能夠達成「活絡經濟」之政策目標，從而通過比例原則之檢證？長期以來備受質疑。倘若以一無法達成目的之手段，誘導人民為股權移轉行為，事後卻又制定規範，將同樣的股權移轉行為評價為規避手段，此種前後矛盾之行為，並非無得加以質疑之處。此外，若免稅政策無法達成目的，則在租稅規避行為之認定上，行為人即難以脫免不當取得租稅利益之指責。簡言之，其行為極易被認定為係租稅規避。凡此，可謂是立法者所設下的重重陷阱。對於此類案例之補稅，甚至處罰，恐有嚴重侵害人民權利之虞。

本文主要透過最高行政法院判決與財政部解釋函令之研究，瞭解實務對於所得稅法第66條之8之適用狀況，並釐清租稅規避之理論，於個案裁判中應如何加以適用。此外，基於憲法保障人民權利之意旨，探討國家三權機關在租稅規避防杜任務上，各應負擔如何之職權及其應遵守之憲法界限，並評析現行實務處理之缺失。

關鍵字

股權移轉 ； 證券交易所得 ； 量能原則 ； 租稅優惠 ； 法律漏洞 ； 租稅規避 ； 稅捐逃漏 ； 未分配盈餘 ； 股東往來 ； 租稅規避防杜條款

並列摘要

Abstract
Dividend is a distribution of a portion of a company's earnings. According to the Company Act of the R.O.C, shareholders of a company are entitled to claim the dividends distributed from the company if there is earning surplus. The gross dividend received by each shareholder should be subject to taxation according to the Article 14, Income Tax Act. If shareholders transfer all the shares of a company, they would not be entitled to the distribution of dividends or bonus, and would not have profit-seeking income. However, they could have the income from the security transactions if there is capital gain from that transaction. Under Article 4-1 of the Income Tax Act, income tax levy on gains derived from the securities transactions has been temporarily suspended.

Whether taxation on security transaction gains should be imposed has remained a controversy for years. Whether this tax is imposed or not, it remains suspicious if this could violate the principle of the ability to pay, which derived from the Article 7 of Constitution of R.O.C. However, interpretation by the Judiciary Yuan, No. 565 has provided that it is a policy that provides the tax incentives within a defined limit, and it represents a reasonable differential prescription made by an administrative agency under authorization of law based upon its professional judgment of the interim needs for economic development and the actual condition of the capital market for the purpose of promoting the public interest, and is not contrary to the principle of equality under Article 7 of the Constitution. However, Article 66-8 of the Income Tax Act prohibits taxpayers from evading or reducing the tax burden by means of transfer of shareholder's equity or any other false arrangement.

The issue is that while shareholders sell their stocks, equity transfer must be the consequence. There is a prominent contradiction that the legislator uses “equity transfer” as a tax benefit element in the article 4-1 of the income tax act, but uses the same concept as an element of article 66-8 of the income tax act, which is an anti-avoidance rule. This may severely infringe upon people’s fundamental right that is protected by our Constitution.

並列關鍵字

Equity transfer ； Income tax on gains derived from the securities transactions ； Tax avoidance ； Taxation according to ability to pay ； Tax incentives ； Legal loophole ； Tax avoidance ； Tax evasion ； Unappropriated retained earnings ； Shareholders’ account ； Anti-avoidance rule

參考文獻

財政部稅制委員會（2005），《所得稅法令彙編》。

黃茂榮（2009），〈實質課稅原則〉，《植根雜誌》，第25卷第12期。

葛克昌（1996），〈社會福利給付與租稅正義〉，《國家學與國家法》，元照，初版。

汪瑞芝、陳明進（2003），〈兩稅合一前後上市公司股權規劃之實證研究〉，《當代會計》，第四卷第二期。

賴英照（1986），〈公司法論文集〉，《財團法人中華民國證券發展基金會》。