A modern democratic nation is responsible to taking care its people¡¦s basic needs. This is not only the essential reason for the existence of a nation, but also its responsibility and obligation. The right to life is an important issue in international treaties and constitutions of variable nations. People are entitled to claim care from their countries to maintain a reasonable living standard. Countries are obliged to safeguard its people¡¦s right to life through legislation, to provide basic living needs which meet human nature dignity. A nation has many obligations include the maintaining of individual health, ensuring sound environment, social relief and social insurance. Financial operation is a key issue in managing a nation. Therefore, in fulfilling the obligations, a nation must consider its financial affordability seriously so as not to deteriorate its finance for overly taking care of its people. Due to rapid aging of population and low fertility, Japan implemented Long Term Care Insurance in 2000; however, many a relative legal issue was encountered while conducting such system. For instance, for the purposes of convenience and efficiency in collecting premiums, a special levy is applied to 90% of No. 1 insurees whose age were over 65, the premiums were pre-deducted from their perpetual pensions, which may cause the qualms about trenching on the capability of people to maintain a lowest living standards and the abuse of the power of administrative decision. Eyed on financial consideration, Japanese government carried out the Law for Long Term Care Insurance, refuses its service to those whose premiums were over due, and suppresses the accessibility for the poor. The group that was supposed to be taken care of by the government is totally neglected while the middle class taking advantages from the system and waste more public fund. This is completely opposite to the objectives of the long term care system legislation. This also caused the disputes that the right to life regulated in the article 25 of Japanese Constitution is violated by administrative power. Our nation is confronted with population aging and low fertility as well lately. The total fertility rate has declined to 0.895, which is the lowest in the world. In the aging society, the long term care need of the elders and the disabled, and related heavy financial burdens are already far beyond the capacities of individuals or families and become a ¡§Social Risk.¡¨ Such a risk will need a coercive risk managing technique enforced by the nation, to organize a social insurance structure so as to share the risk and reduce individuals¡¦ burdens. Our government is engaging in planning a long term care system. The flaws of Japan¡¦s Law for Long Term Care Insurance, both in legislation and enforcement, can be valuable lessons for us. This essay discussed the legalization of the long term care system of our nation, reviewed its jurisprudence and raised integrated long term care concept. Some suggestions concerned with operation subject, insurance objects and financial plans were provided in hope with a comprehensive guideline on policy making, legislation and enforcement and system construction can be established.

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.