未分配盈餘於94年修正前後之稅務案件爭議問題，先前並無相關之實證研究，有關法律修正前後之爭點（issue）變化，是否符合修法時之立法目的即有待觀察。本研究蒐集台北、台中及高雄高等行政法院之判決，統計分析主要之案件爭點，並分析爭點及案件數變化情形。 　　本研究實證結論如下： 　　（一）爭點變化及案件數情形 　　　　1. 涉及法律規定或法律見解變更部分 　　　　　　修法後，爭議已大幅減少，但須注意本稅課稅基礎未修正前，未 　　　　　　分配盈餘案件與本稅案件之連動關係。 　　　　2. 涉及是否善盡舉證責任部分 　　　　　　此部分與修法之爭議無關，故案件數並無明顯之增減變化，但應 　　　　　　注意舉證之問題。 　　　　3. 租稅優惠—研究發展支出 　　　　　　此部分涉及特定之租稅優惠政策，爭議重點在於審查之密度及租 　　　　　　稅優惠立法目的得否落實之問題，爭點及案件數與未分配盈餘修 　　　　　　法較無關連性。 　　（二）研究建議 　　　　1. 法院部分 　　　　　　可逐步累積整理爭點類型，並採取一致之判決見解，並可考量訴 　　　　　　訟外之紛爭解決方式（例如促成兩造和解），以降低徵納雙方之 　　　　　　爭議。 　　　　2. 被告部分 　　　　　　訂定函釋時，應考量納稅義務人及會計師之意見，並於進行行政 　　　　　　爭訟程序時，及時整理案件類型，並參酌判決見解，定期審查行 　　　　　　政機關之見解是否合宜。 　　　　3. 原告部分 　　　　　　首重及時預測未來之稅務風險，並依產業別分別採取對自己有利 　　　　　　之措施，另應積極保存有利之證據，以利訴訟上之舉證。 / There is no exploring about the revision of the undistributed profit tax in 2005; thus, it is worth studying whether the changes of the issue conform to the purpose of the tax law before and after 2005. This study collects the judgments made by Taipei, Taichung, and Kaohsiung Administrative Courts, and analyzes prime issues and the changes about the number of cases. 　　This study concludes as follows: 　　1. Changes of the issues and the number of cases 　　(1) Relating to changes in law regulations and opinions 　　After the revision, disputes have been greatly decreased, but the relationship between the undistributed profit cases and the income tax cases before the revision of the income tax base should be noticed. 　　(2) Relating to fulfilling the burden of proof The burden of proof has nothing to do with the revision, so there is no obvious change about the number of cases. But the problem of proof should be noticed. 　　(3) Tax privilege – research and development expense 　　It is relevant to the tax privilege policy, and the disputes focused on the density of investigation and the problem of realizing the purpose of the tax privilege. Issues, as well as cases have little relationship with the revision of the undistributed profit tax. 　　2. Recommendations 　　(1) As for Courts 　　They could cumulate the types of the issues gradually, and make unanimous judgments. Moreover, they could consider alternative dispute solution other than judicial action to reduce disputes, for example, impelling both parties to compromise. 　　(2) As for defendants 　　When formulating administrative directions, dependants should take taxpayers and accountants’ opinions into consideration. Further, when processing judicial procedures, arrange the types of the issues promptly, and referring to the judgments, examine if their directions is formulated appropriately. 　　(3) As for plaintiffs 　　It is important to predict future tax risk timely. Plaintiffs should adopt measures based on industry types which are benefit to themselves. Besides, they should preserve advantageous evidences for them to proof in the litigation.