企業併購法施行將近七年之際，其第四章「租稅措施」共有十條條文，在修法後的解釋適用上卻仍顯困難重重，導致我國企業併購的稅務爭議一直呈現眾說紛紜且矛盾不止的景象。以企業併購為主題的學術論文或坊間書籍，多淪為人云亦云的稅法摘要，未能深入討論併購案中參與之各企業的租稅待遇及對併購公司股東稅負的影響，另外更缺乏國內併購稅務實例的分析介紹，以探求租稅措施各條文之實用性。 基於澄清問題本質，本論文嘗試選取該法第34、38、39、40、41條文，分別從法律形式、文義內容、立法理由、歷史解釋、合憲目的、會計觀點等不同角度分析『租稅減免』、『盈虧互抵』、『免徵營所稅』、『連結稅制』及『跨國併購』等制度細節，並同時討論涉及併購其他稅法的交錯適用，以發掘真正實際困擾所在。研究發現由於我國稅務法規簡陋且錯誤層出不窮，加上行政機關為個案課稅持續發布多種「鋸箭式」的解釋函令，導致租稅制度上之嚴重矛盾，有待修法以重建稅法體系。 雖財政部97/10/17台財稅字第09704552910號函成為企併稅制的里程碑，某些疑慮將蓋棺論定，但離徹底釐清租稅疑慮仍有一大段距離，容易造成無辜企業誤觸（稅法）法網的困擾，反過來熟稔法條之併購公司卻可巧妙運用稅法漏洞，謀求本身最大租稅利益，故本論文以美商案、遠紡案、外銀案及億豐案等國內實例，分別探討重要租稅議題：外國公司在台新設分割能否適用租稅措施？本國公司以土地進行分割應否記存土增稅？外國金控購併本國銀行時如何善用不同交易架構使整體稅負極小化？兩階段購併的不同稅負可否逼迫小股東參與應賣？最後提出建言以期待我國能大步邁向租稅法治國的境界。

歐盟廣泛地與世界各國簽訂優惠貿易協定，透過優惠貿易待遇的給予來促進與各國間政治與經貿的緊密連繫。而對於生產者而言，要適用這些貿易優惠的前提就是透過遵循歐盟優惠性原產地規則而使產品取得原產產品身分，無論是以完全取得或是經過充分作業或加工而產生實質轉型的方式。 本論文主要的研究目的，在於分析個別歐盟優惠貿易協定下關於累積規定、微量條款、出口退稅禁止等關鍵條文，與附錄清單就產品「實質轉型」標準規定的法律義涵，以及其隱含的政經意義；並就該意義進一步推衍出對於台灣的生產者，在眾多的歐盟優惠性協定法律架構下，存在個別規則適用難易程度具有差別且該差別將對生產成本有所影響之事實。而本論文另一重點則是就法規與生產稟賦搭配後得推衍出原則性之評估方法來評比出個別優惠性原產地規則在適用上之優劣順序，以協助台灣廠商未來考慮使用此項貿易優惠來進軍歐盟市場時，在國際投資之佈局上可以納入考量或作為參考，以選擇出最有利的受惠國或區域作為生產資源配置之基礎。 為使法律層面與實務上之運作加以結合，本論文進一步以台灣的成鞋廠商做為研究觀察之對象，檢視其是否會因為適用歐盟優惠性原產地規則而改變投資模式，另亦將與鞋廠商實際訪談所得之結論與推演出原則性評估方法加以比較，進一步檢討該評估方法之適用能力與情形，並提出應隨不同情況而加以修正相關假設之注意。 關鍵詞：歐盟優惠性原產地規則；原產地規則；原產產品；實質轉型；累積規定；微量條款；出口退稅禁止；附錄清單；生產稟賦；國際投資；成鞋。 / Europe Union (EU) broadly sign the preferential trade agreements with the other countries in the globe, and through the conferring of the preferential trade treatments, EU attempts to build up the tight political and economic bonds worldwide. The premise for producers who want to enjoy these trade preferences is to make sure that their product are qualified and recognized as “original product” in those beneficiary countries either by following the regulation of standard of “wholly obtained” or “sufficiently working or processing” stipulated in each preferential Rule of Origin (ROO). The main subject of this thesis is to analyze the legal meaning and the underlined policy purpose of the critical provisions in each EU preferential ROO, such as “cumulation”, “general tolerance rule”, “no-drawback rule”, and the standard of “sufficiently working or processing” of a product (substantial transformation) stipulated in the List Rules (in the Annex part) attached in each preferential trade agreement. And from those meaning Author reasons out the fact that the level of difficulty concerning applying and using these preferential ROO are different and the difference has its influence on cost of producing. Author also infers the basic method to assess the level of difficulty of these ROO while combining analyzing the ROO provisions and endowment in the beneficiary countries. This method is to assist those Taiwanese producers who have willing to use the EU preferential ROO to make their product qualified as “original product” with the minimized producing cost when entering into EU market, that is, to help producers cherry pick the beneficial countries (or area) for making investments distribution and deploying concerned producing resources and still have their the products entitled as “original product”. To combine the legal dimension and the producer’s operation in practice, Author further chooses Taiwanese footwear producers as observed subject of using the ROO and see if they would change their mode of investment thereafter. Author compares the conclusion derived from interviewing footwear producers with the basic assessment method, and further examines the applicability of the method and the potential correction of hypothesis under certained situations. Key words: EU preferential Rule of Origin, Rule of Origin, original product, substantial transformation, cumulation, general tolerance rule, no-drawback rule, List Rules, endowment, international investment, footwear.