認購(售)權證課稅之問題在券商與財政部間已進行將近八年的時間，卻一直達不到共識。本論文就此問題做一深入之探討，究竟目前認購(售)權證之課稅規定是否妥當？若否，應如何課稅才算合理，以促進認購(售)權證市場的發展？ 本研究分為兩個部分，第一部分係整理認購(售)權證課稅問題之各方論點，並對其提出評析；第二部分則主要利用事件研究法(event study)探討目前市場投資人對認購(售)權證課稅方式之反應。 在認購(售)權證課稅問題之制度面，本研究有以下結論：認購(售)權證之收入屬預估性所得，因認購(售)權證之收入在收現時係屬預收收入，需待履約時才能確定成本費用。預估性所得在整各交易流程的實現上充滿了不確定性，因此，對其成本費用之認定應較寬鬆；在履約日當日收入與成本費用即可確定，且須和其他部門分開列帳，認購(售)權證之收入與成本費用可單獨確定，且因果關係亦相當明確；認購(售)權證之風險可合理預估，並進行理性之避險行為，而避險對股票之買賣行為與一般投資思維有異，可以確定該買賣標的股票之動作係為減少履行認購(售)權證義務而可能產生之損失，故就本質而言，和認購(售)權證為同一交易。 本研究之實證共舉八個事件日進行討論，但是僅有券商敗訴之事件日結果較顯著，本研究推論可能的原因包括因為發行權證公司之業務有太多種類，因此受影響的因素較多，事件日發生之影響可能被其他和發行權證公司相關之議題抵消；此外，因課稅問題未解決，權證市場之環境尚未成形，投資人對此金融商品之興趣相對低落，因此對此議題之敏感度也較低；最後，因這八個事件日當中，對課稅權證相關之爭議結果其實都是紙上數字，對投資人來講，感受較不深刻，僅有在第一次取得敗訴時，真有費用產生之可能性，投資人才較有反應。 / The controversy of Tax Regulation of warrant between stockbroker and Ministry of Finance has been stalemate for almost 8 years. This study tries to discuss that whether the tax regulation of warrant are adequate? If not, how should it be to liven up the market? This study is divided into two parts. The first part is to collect viewpoints of every aspect, then analyze and bring up new ideas. The second part will use event study research to discuss how the market responds to the tax regulation of warrant. As to the system of the regulation, this study concluded as follows. Since the income is classified to unearned revenue when cash was received, and not until exercise day can the cost and expense be ascertained, the income of warrant belongs to predicted income. The process of completing the trade of predicted income is filled with uncertainties; therefore, the related cost and expense should be identified more flexibly. On the exercise day, the income, cost and expense of warrant are assured, and should be accounted separately from other segments; thus, the causal relationship is definite. The risk of warrant can be reasonably evaluated, and proceed rational hedge. Furthermore, the considerations of buying and selling target stocks are different from regular investment. Accordingly, it can be assured that the buying and selling are for minimizing the lost to meet the obligation of issuing warrant. Therefore, as to the essence, they are in the same trade process as issuing warrant. This study takes 8 event days to discuss how the market responds to the issue of tax regulation of warrant. Only the date that stockbroker lost the lawsuit that the result are significant. This study infers that the probable reasons include that: there are too many businesses for the warrant issuer. Too many related issues may influence the market price of the issuer, thus offset the effect of tax event. Besides, the tax problem remains unsolved. The macro environment is immature, and diminishing the interest of investors, then consequently insensitive to the related event. At last, as to these 8 events, the results are all figures on the paper. Only when the stockbroker lost the lawsuit for the first time and will be real cash outflow that investors realize that there are losses. Hence, the respond are more significant.

我國衍生性金融商品，由於政府對於金融業者承作業務的逐步開放，使得此類商品種類漸趨多樣化，發展也愈來愈成熟。但現行稅務法令對於衍生性商品的課稅方式，由於其契約內容多變，使得稅法無從對此類商品制定出一致性的架構，進而使業者及投資人無法預期可能的課稅方式，以為我國相關稅制似乎毫無章法，全憑財政部認定。藉由本文，希望能整理出我國稅法對於衍生性金融商品的課稅規定。因我國停徵證券交易所得稅，使得部分標準化之新金融商品幾乎不課徵所得稅，而以交易稅代替，故本文主要以所得稅及交易稅的討論為主。 首先，在研究衍生性金融商品課稅方式的過程當中，發現期貨的課稅方式，與其現貨息息相關，現貨即股票和債券等等金融商品。其次，發現有許多人，誤解證券交易所得稅的停徵範圍，以為短期票券有其適用。第三，因為債券利息所得稅之稽徵方式出現問題，使得投資人可藉由債券附條件交易而避稅，進一步引起利息所得和證券交易所得混淆之爭議，因此本文的討論擴及金融商品，而非侷限於衍生性金融商品。 本篇文章首先將對我國關於金融商品的稅法架構做一整理，包括所得稅，證券交易稅，期貨交易稅等等，主要以所得稅及交易稅為主。其次介紹幾個重要的金融商品的課稅方式，特別是有爭議的部分，並希望藉此將金融商品在稅務法令上的架構浮現出來。第三介紹美國對於金融商品的課稅方式，金融交易日新月異，許多交易無法被規範於原本的稅法架構之下，故有關當局必須有所因應。我們在此將發現，由於美國對於金融商品課徵所得稅，因此稅額的計算及課稅時點的考量遠比台灣細緻而複雜。 以全文的討論看來，有下列幾點結論：一、我國債券利息所得課稅方式，將影響債券類金融商品的發展。二、證券交易所得免稅的影響深遠，如今在免稅的架構下所延伸的金融商品課稅方式，將使未來恢復課徵證券交易所得稅的困難度提高，我國所得稅制可能將永遠存在此一缺口。三、所得稅之稽徵方式，遠比交易稅複雜。四、我國目前不需採市價結算法，對未實現損益課稅。五、金融商品課稅方式無法統一規範，只能零碎因應，不同金融商品之問題各異，故一商品、一稅制的問題恐怕無法避免。