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。

財政援助をコントロールする仕組みは、国によって様々であり、立法的な統制、行政的な統制又は司法的な統制等があるが、本稿では、特に、裁判所による財政支出の統制に焦点を当て、アメリカ合衆国、スペイン及びメキシコ合衆国について検討する。本稿においては、主として、アメリカ合衆国、スペイン及びメキシコ合衆国の裁判所が、私企業に対する財政支出をどのような場合において違憲又は違法とするのか、又はどのような場合において合憲又は適法とするのかということを検討し、これらの国々の裁判所がその結論に到達するために、どのような要件又は判断基準に基づいて、財政支出を統制するのかということについて考察する。 / The mechanisms for controlling fiscal assistance vary from one country to another. Legislative, executive and judicial controls can be mentioned as broad examples of these mechanisms. This research will focus on the judicial control of fiscal expenditure in the United States of America, Spain and Mexico. It primarily examines in which cases financial expenditure on the private sector is declared unconstitutional or illegal and in which situations it is declared constitutional or legal by the American, Spanish and Mexican judiciary. It will also focus on an investigation of the legal requirements for fiscal stimulus, as well as in the judging criteria developed and used by the court of those countries to reach to those conclusions. / 博士(法学) / Doctor of Laws / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University