本研究以證券交易所得稅停徵（所得稅法第4 條之1）與實質課稅原則為中心，蒐集民國95 至97 年度最高行政法院判決書，區分為綜合所得稅與營利事業所得稅，針對判決書之爭點予以統整分析，將爭議型態類型化，並以案件數最多之爭議型態進行法官、財政部發布函釋與大法官會議解釋之統計分析。 研究結果顯示，綜合所得稅有關證券交易所得稅停徵與實質課稅原則之最高行政法院判決書，就公司處分固定資產溢價收入轉列資本公積，先增資、後減資並無償配發股票與自然人股東，應予課徵營利所得之爭議案件，佔本研究資料範圍之九成。營利事業所得稅部分，案件最多之爭議類型有四種：一、依實質課稅原則認定係屬「以買賣有價證券為專業」之營利事業，其應稅收入與免稅收入應如何攤計費用？二、認購售權證相關費用攤計如何認列？三、信託投資事業與相關利息收入如何列計？四、股票股利、短期投資、長期投資與長、短期投資轉列時，有關未分配盈餘加項或減項應如何列計等爭議。 次針對上述爭議類型，進行現行規定之探討，研究範圍內部分案件已列入司法院大法官人民聲請案件審查會待審案中，亦有相同爭議之案件業已提出大法官會議解釋，於日前經審查會作成不受理決議。 本研究以最高行政法院判決書為研究範圍，並以證券交易所得稅停徵暨實質課稅原則於實務之運用，縱向將爭議案件予以分類整理，橫向歸納各爭議類型現 行狀態，涉及人民行政救濟之最後訴訟階段為最高行政法院，例外得依司法院大法官審理案件法第5 條第1 項第2 款聲請大法官會議解釋，涉及納稅者權利保障事項，最重要者為行政法院訴訟階段，本研究針對主要爭議類型之案件，就承審法官予以統計，為保障納稅者之權利，本研究建議未來修法應成立「專業財稅法庭」以及設置「稅法實務問題研究委員會」。

「實質課稅」之概念最早係由1997年司法院大法官第420號解釋所提出之見解，此後實務上之法院判決以及其他大法官解釋文中多次予以援引參照之。直至2009年5月，稅捐稽徵法第12條之1才正式將此實務上運用廣泛之概念予以明文規範。2000年至2002年企業併購法制立法期間，在企業併購租稅制度之設計上，亦是以「實質課稅」作為主要概念，因就經濟實質之觀點，考量「企業併購」應與一般「交易」或「買賣」的行為有別，是故在併購的過程中應不構成一般交易行為中利益或所得之實現。 本研究藉由探討「實質課稅原則」為出發點，進一步分析檢討現行企業併購法制中潛在之租稅不對稱情形，並以最高行政法院及高等行政法院之判決書為研究樣本。研究結果認為，企業併購法於2002年立法之時似過於倉促，其租稅措施章節之條文恐未經足夠時間審慎評估，以致於有許多未盡完善之處，據此，本研究針對透過實務上之爭點以彙整可能之改善建議並提供未來法律修訂之參考，期使我國企業併購法制臻於完備。 / The concept of the thesis focuses on the Principle of Substantive Taxation which was derived from No. 420 Constitutional Ruling in 1997 and added in Article 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act promulgated on May 13, 2009. According to the principle of Substantive Taxation, M&A transactions should differ from other normal transactions in some circumstance. In some cases, it should be allowed that the tax imposition might be determined by the fact based on its economic substance. Considering the application of the principle, this study analyses M&A related tax of each M&A type and proposes some possible suggestions regarding the tax measures for improvements in the future.

實質課稅原則為租稅法之重要原則，本論文經由以下個案，探討稅捐稽徵機關以往對實質課稅原則之運用。 一、稅務稽徵機關以實質課稅為由否准四大金融業以債券前手息扣繳稅款抵繳其營利事業所得稅，何謂實質課稅原則?租稅法律主義與實質課稅原則應如何調和？ 二、從認購(售)權證成本之發生成因、課稅爭議之歷史沿革、並從徵納雙方對所得稅法之見解，探討實質課稅原則與租稅法律主義之競合。 三、複委託交易個案之探討－此處探討現行涉外所得課稅規定是否有不妥之處。 四、未來即將上市之海外來台第一上市股票、跨境ETF與新上市之指數型權證可能稅賦之探討－由相類似國內金融商品之課稅規定分析，探討稅負上是否具有一致性。 本研究建議： 一、稅捐稽徵機關應履行探究經濟實質之義務，方可主張實質課稅。 二、給付國外勞務報酬是否課稅應以實質認定，建議應定性為所得稅法第8條第9款之所得，並就在台固定營業場所或營業代理人之情形實質認定，以兼顧課稅要件明確與實質課稅精神。 三、應明文闡述支付國外券商複委託交易手續費屬營業稅課稅範圍之判定標準，以符合租稅法律主義之規範。 四、金融商品之課稅架構，應謹守租稅中立原則，保持一致性，避免對特定金融商品做特殊解釋。 / This research explored four cases in order to find out how the tax authority applies “substance versus form doctrine” in the some disputes. 1.The right to claim tax credit for withholding tax derived from bond interest had been long disputed. Can we say the tax authority’s view is "substance over form"? Did the amended Income Tax Act on 2007 solve the said dispute? 2.On the contrary, the tax authority isn’t in the view of "substance over form" for the tax deduction of hedge cost by warrant issuer. This study summary several Administrative Court adjudications to explore each party’s view. Can "substance over form" govern” “taxation by law“? 3.Securities firms conducting the business of accepting orders to trade foreign securities involve VAT and source income issues. This study addresses why the tax disputes arise and how to solve them. 4.This study also analyzes investors’ possible tax liability of coming List Securities by Foreign Issuers, Offshore ETF and newly Index Warrant. The suggestions in the above cases are as follows. 1.The tax authority should fulfill its duty to find out the economical substance then has a right disallow tax evasion. 2.The principles for determining Taiwan source income can adopt PE and business agent concept to mitigate the conflict between tax payers and tax authority. 3.The tax authority should interpret the criteria why offshore securities firms’ services should impose VAT. 4.The tax authority should be in the view of "substance over form" and maintain consistency while issuing tax ruling.

憲法第19條規定：「人民有依法納稅之義務」，明示租稅法律主義應以法律明訂，針對未規定之租稅項目，原則上不得比照、援引或類推適用其他法令之規定，租稅法律主義成為稅法之基本重要原則。隨著經濟水平的提升，個人與企業租稅負擔增加幅度急速上升，錯綜複雜之交易型態層出不窮，納稅義務人往往透過規避稅捐，使其獲得租稅優惠之條件或達到免除租稅負擔之目的。為確保租稅公平，民國98年5月13日修正公布稅捐稽徵法第12條之1，明訂課稅事實認定之原則，其認定之構成要件應以實質經濟事實關係及其所生實質經濟利益之歸屬與享有為依據，然其適用範圍亦未明確，對於納稅義務人之侵害自然無所規範。其中與人民息息相關之稅捐法體系當中尤以土地交易爭議之衝突甚為明顯。 本研究以租稅法律主義及實質課稅原則為主軸，輔以探討土地改革之歷史發展及土地交易所得本身性質，並以相關稅務行政救濟案例，針對不同判決見解進行分析及常見爭議，發現其爭議在於當前土地增值稅之規定與漲價歸公之理念無法並駕齊驅，尤其公告現值與真正出售之價值相去甚遠，導致「窮者欲窮、富者欲富」。探討其精神核心，無論是憲法、土地增值稅、實質課稅原則，無非達到租稅公平原則，依此核心思考，本研究試圖針對憲法與法律兩層面提出建議解決方案以貫徹租稅公平原則： 1. 憲法層次：將土地增值稅予以廢除，改徵土地交易所得稅。 2. 法律層次： （1） 將土地交易所得納入「最低稅負制」，修正所得稅額基本條例第12條。 （2） 改採實價課稅並增訂商業會計法第42-1條，將處分土地資產之溢價收入納入資本公積，恢復其資本公積增減資免稅之規定。 / Article 19 of the Constitution provides that the people shall have the duty of paying taxes in accordance with law. This means that when the State imposes a tax or provides a preferential tax deduction or exemption treatment for its people, this must be based on laws or regulations clearly authorized by law, prescribing the constituent conditions of the tax such as the subject, subject matter, tax base, tax rates, methods of payment and period of payment. The interpretation of relevant laws by the competent authority within its competence shall abide by the principles of the Constitution and the meaning and purpose of the relevant laws, and comply with the general rules of legal interpretation. Any interpretation that exceeds the bounds of legal interpretation of law and that creates tax duties not provided for under the law is not permitted by the Principle of Statutory Taxpaying under Article 19 of the Constitution. With the rapid economy, the taxpayers pursue the profit maximization by means of tax avoidance. To maintain the tax equity, the officials decided to amend the “Tax Levy Act” to provide clear definition for “Substance-Over-Form Principle ”, and then the newly-added Article 12-1 of Tax Levy Act was published on 13th May 2009.However, it has not embodied in “Substance-Over-Form Principle ”,so that the conflicts are still obvious in tax system ,especially in Land Capital Gain. The study focuses on conflict between the Principle of Statutory Taxpaying and Substance-Over-Form Principle, with the investigation of historical development and nature of taxation in Land Capital Gain. Besides, the administrative remedy should take into consideration in practice under the study. The regulation in Land Value Increment Tax currently is not put in range with land appreciation belong to the public, especially in Current Land Value. To understand the legislative purposes, we can find the “tax equality ” is the top priority between constitution and regulation. The following are suggestions we provide: 1. Constitution: Abolish the Land Value Increment Tax and promulgate Land Capital Gain Tax. 2. Regulation: (1) The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) includes the land capital gain, with amendment article 12 in AMT. (2) Additional Paid-In Capital contains the land capital gain and amend the article 42-1 of commercial account law ,with real-estate tax policy based on actual market price.Simuntanously, capital increase and decrease out of capital reverse exempted from income tax.

我國稅捐稽徵法第12條之1【實質課稅原則】規定自立法迄今仍爭議不斷，故為求於稅捐爭訟案件中妥當適用實質課稅原則，有必要對於實質課稅原則之適用前提、定位、解釋及適用界限等議題進行分析，特別係指明實質課稅原則應有之適用界限，避免稅捐稽徵機關過度擴張適用，俾保障納稅義務人之合法權益。特別是我國立法院於105年12月28日制定公布【納稅者權利保護法】，訂於106年12月28日生效施行，為我國納稅者權利保護邁出一大步，而此專法之通過，對於稅捐稽徵機關及行政法院適用實質課稅原則時，應有何種程度之影響亦值探討，俾能發揮納稅者權利保護之立法目的與意旨。本研究以法學方法論及【納稅者權利保護法】意旨為分析方法，提出實質課稅原則之適用前提及界限，並選擇納稅義務人進行租稅規劃時常用租稅工具（包括信託、保險、土地交易、所得性質）之相關行政法院判決，進行評析驗證，最後提出結論與建議供納稅義務人、稅捐主管機關及行政法院參考。

雖然1997年司法院大法官作成釋字第420號解釋，首次肯認「實質課稅原則」，但直至2009年5月13日立法院才終於增定稅捐稽徵法12條之一，將實質課稅原則納入法規，解決以往在租稅法律主義下缺乏法源根據的困境，使稽徵人員在民眾所採取的交易形式外觀上雖然不符合租稅構成要件，但實際上只要與常規交易下具有相同經濟實質時，能直接針對經濟實質予以課稅。 本研究利用我國五區國稅局十年統計資料，加入政策虛擬變數、時間趨勢變數以及其交互項進行迴歸分析，根據最小平方法(OLS)及固定最小平方虛擬變數模型(LSDV)，探討實質課稅原則入法後，因為稽徵執行力的提升，以平均罰鍰衡量納稅義務人租稅遵從度是否受到改變。 結果顯示實質課稅原則變數對於罰款變動有顯著正向效果，即增訂稅捐稽徵法12條之一更符合租稅法律主義，有助於稅捐單位稽徵效力的提升，所以可以顯著增加罰款收入；此外，本研究也發現實質課稅虛擬變數和時間趨勢交互項顯著為負，表示納稅義務人隨時間增加逐漸意識到稅捐稽徵法12條之一的重要性，故會減少規避行為使平均罰款額下降，顯示政府政策的執行會受到時間影響而產生不同效果。 / The concept of The Principle of Substantive Taxation got approval from No. 420 constitutional interpretation by the Grand Justices in 1997 for the first time, but not until May 13, 2009 did the legislature promulgated 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act in article. Take the Principle of Substantive Taxation into legislation, tax collector have more convincing reasons to solve the dilemma of “Principle of Taxation under the Law”. Most important, it emphasizes the beneficiaries of economic substance as taxpayers, instead of according to the surface of tax regulations to determine the taxpayers. This study use panel data from National Tax Administration of five regions to examine the effects of the legislature promulgated 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act in 2009. We adopt the methods of ordinary least squares (OLS) and Least Square Dummy Variable Model (LSDV), and adding the reform dummy variables, time trend variable and its interaction term into regression to examine whether the enhancement of tax enforcement could increase the average fines or not. The results show that the reform dummy variable has a positive and significant impact on tax evasion collections per fine, that is formulated 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act more in line with the Principle of Taxation under the Law. Besides, the interaction term of reform dummy variable and time trend variable has a negative effect on per fine, which means that taxpayers gradually realize the importance of the regulation over time after the reform. Therefore, taxpayers will reduce tax evasion behavior to decrease the fine collections.