Submitted by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2018-11-16T19:20:20Z No. of bitstreams: 1 CarolinaSimaoOdisioHissaDissertacaoParcial2017.pdf: 870756 bytes, checksum: d3591c0091847353b09d3a7117d67af6 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2018-11-16T19:20:34Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 CarolinaSimaoOdisioHissaDissertacaoParcial2017.pdf: 870756 bytes, checksum: d3591c0091847353b09d3a7117d67af6 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-11-16T19:20:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 CarolinaSimaoOdisioHissaDissertacaoParcial2017.pdf: 870756 bytes, checksum: d3591c0091847353b09d3a7117d67af6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-12-01 / The present paper undertakes an analysis of the principle of isonomy in relation to the tax treatment provided to the Federal Public Servants' Supplementary Pension Foundation - Funpresp and to the private pension funds. Preliminarily, it traces the historical evolution of Social Security in Brazil, as well as the influence of the consolidation of the Social Welfare State in the realization of fundamental social rights, including complementary pension. This, in turn, is understood as the most recent significant change in the civil service pension scheme, which culminated in the creation of a closed private pension entity of a public nature and private legal personality to administer and execute the pension plans of the federal public servants. The legal nature attributed to Funpresp generates a mismatch in relation to private pension funds, insofar as their public character may lead to the incidence of reciprocal immunity, when private foundations of supplementary pensions are not presumed to have a similar immune standard, identical regulatory activities. / O presente trabalho empreende uma análise do princípio da isonomia frente ao tratamento tributário dispensado à Fundação de Previdência Complementar dos Servidores Públicos Federais - Funpresp e aos fundos de pensão privados. Preliminarmente, traça-se a evolução histórica da Previdência Social no Brasil, bem como a influência da consolidação do Estado do Bem-estar Social na concretização dos direitos sociais fundamentais, incluindo a previdência complementar. Esta por sua vez, compreendida como a mais recente alteração significativa no regime de previdência do funcionalismo público, que culminou com a criação de uma entidade fechada de previdência complementar de natureza pública e personalidade jurídica de direito privado para administrar e executar os planos de benefícios dos servidores públicos federais. Calha que a natureza jurídica atribuída à Funpresp gera um descompasso em relação aos fundos de pensão privados, na medida em que seu caráter público pode ensejar na incidência da imunidade reciproca, quando as fundações privadas de previdência complementar não são prestigiadas com norma imunitória similar, malgrado exerçam atividades regulamentares idênticas.

老年所得保障的問題，是所有工業化國家所共有的社會問題。臺灣、德國與美國為了解決這個問題，基本上都是採用所謂的「三層保障的模式」。第一層保障為國家所建立的強制性社會保險制度，第二層保障為企業或雇主所設立的企業退休給付制度，第三層為個人的自我預護（包括儲蓄、保險、置產等）。本文主要是探討第二層的「企業退休給付制度」之法律問題。臺灣的「企業退休給付制度」（也稱之為「企業退休金制度」），是採強制性為主，自願性為輔的雙軌制度，自願性制度所佔比例無足輕重。在強制性制度中的實施型態是採「單數型態」，而且由「單一組織」承擔實施。美國的「企業退休給付制度」稱為「年金（退休金）計劃(pension plan)」，德國的「企業退休給付(betriebliche Altersversorgung)制度」也稱為「企業年金(Betriebsrenten)制度」。這兩個國家向來都是採用自願性制度，「實施型態」與「實施機構」也都是採「複數型態」。 關於企業退休給付的法律保障，臺灣於1984年在勞動基準法中納入「退休規定」，對勞工退休金制度的設立、實施型態、實施機構、財務準備與給付內容皆制定最低的法律標準，然而對於勞工的退休金期待利益如何保障與雇主陷於支付不能時退休金請求權如何保障等重要問題，皆欠缺規定。德國於1974年制定「改善企業退休給付法」，採有限度的立法，對已設立的企業退休給付制度制定最低法定基準，特別注重「退休給付期待利益之保障」與「退休給付支付不能時之保障」；同一年美國也制定「勞工退休所得保障法」，採取全面性的立法，不僅注重「勞工退休給付權利之保障（包括對退休給付期待利益之保障）」，也同樣針對「退休計劃之終止與支付不能的情形」設有特別的保障。 本文主要是以臺灣的「勞基法退休規定」，德國的「改善企業退休給付法」與美國的「勞工退休所得保障法」等法律規定為基礎。針對同一問題，分別探討臺灣、德國與美國的法律制度。第一節首先探討企業退休給付制度之歷史發展，企業退休給付制度究竟如何形成？如何逐步擴展？法律如何回應？在立法之後又面臨何種問題？第二節首先討論退休給付制度的核心法律概念，以及其如何與雇主的其他給付相區別。接著進一步探究勞工請求雇主給付退休金之法律基礎為何？然後再探討企業退休給付之法律性質。第三節分析企業退休給付制度，以何種型態實施，如何運作，在組織上產生何種法律關係。第四節探討企業退休給付的財務準備。第五節以給付為中心，探討企業退休給付的一般法律保障，包括：請求退休金的法律要件為何？請求範圍如何決定？如何與社會保險給付整合？如何支付？在面對通貨膨脹壓力時又如何因應？第六節探討企業退休給付期待利益如何保障之問題，詳細探討德國與美國為何要保障退休給付期待利益？在何種情形下，退休給付期待利益不可喪失？勞工退休時，退休給付期待利益如何實現為退休給付，如何計算其數額？勞工離職時，可否一次結清將來的退休給付權利？勞工轉換工作時，退休金債權是否可隨同移轉？最後一節探討退休給付發生支付不能之情形時，有何解決辦法？第五章比較三國退休給付法律制度有何異同？有何優缺點？並檢討行政院勞工委員會所提的「勞工老年附加年金保險險制度」草案，與「勞工退休金條例草案」之優缺點，並探討我國勞工退休金制度法律改革是否存在其他不同的途徑。？最後一章總結前面各章之研究所得作成結論。 / Old-age income security is a sharing social problem of all industrialized countries. 「Three tiers (pillars) of economic security」 has been used for solving this problem in Taiwan, Germany and U.S.A. The first tier is obligatory social insurance system established by the countries; the second tier is the composition of　“supplementary pension plans” created by companies or employers; the third tier is personal advance arrangements (include saving, purchase of insurance, investment, etc.). This dissertation concentrates on the legal protection of supplementary pension plans.　The supplementary pension plans in Taiwan is a double-track institution. While the voluntary part of it is rather insignificant, this institution is mainly in obligatory part. This obligatory supplementary pension plans is designed to be only one type － defined benefit plans, and there is only one designated funding agency － the Central Trust of China. In U.S.A. the supplementary pension plans used to be called “private pension plans”; in Germany the supplementary pension plans used to be called “company pensions (Betriebsrenten)”.　These two countries adopt voluntary institutions. The types and funding agencies of their supplementary pension plans are plural. In order to protect the rights of pension, the relevant laws were enacted in Taiwan, Germany， and U.S.A. Regulations about employee retirement benefits were included in the “Labor Standards Law” enacted in 1984 in Taiwan.　These regulations created minimum standards for the establishment, requirement of benefit, funding and funding agency, benefit formulas of retirement plans.　However these regulations　lacked protection of pension expectations and rights to pension against insolvency or bankruptcy of supporting employers.　In Germany the relevant regulations about supplementary pension plans are to be found in the “Act on Company Pensions” in force since December 1974.　This Act regulated very limitedly. It established minimum standards for company pensions, especially relating to protection of pension expectations, and pension benefit rights against insolvency of supporting employers. In the same year the “Employee Retirement Income Security Act” of 1974 (ERISA) was enacted in U.S.A..　This comprehensive employee benefit law not only stressed on protection of employee benefit rights (including protecting vesting right), but also created insurance for pension plan terminations. This dissertation mainly compares the legal institutions relating to　supplementary pension　plans in Taiwan, Germany and U.S.A. on the basis of the above statute laws relating to the supplementary pension plans of these three countries. Chapter 1 is the introduction of this research.　Chapter 2、3 and 4 discuss the legal institutions relating to supplementary pension　plans of these three countries. In each section of each chapter the same problems are discussed. Section 1 provides an overview of the historic background of supplementary pension plans and development of relevant laws, including how the supplementary pension plans have formed and expanded, how the law regulated, and problems that have been caused after enactment of the law relating to supplementary pension plans. Section 2 firstly discusses the core legal concept of supplementary pension in each country, and how it differentiates from other benefits of employers. Then this section probes into the legal bases of supplementary pension claims and the characteristics of supplementary pension.　Section 3 analyzes different types of supplementary pension plans, how they operate, and legal relations that have been produced. Section 4 explores pension funding.　Section 5 discusses the general legal protection of pension benefits, including participation, requirement of benefit, payment of benefit. The question of how supplementary pension integrates with social security benefit and counteracts the effect of inflation is also discussed.　Section 6 discusses how the relating laws of supplementary pension plans protect pension expectations, why the laws of Germany and U.S.A. protect pension expectations, when the pension benefit rights are nonforfeitable, how the nonforfeitable benefit is accrued, under which condition a nonforfeitable benefit can cash out, and whether the nonforfeitable benefit is portable when the employee changes the job?　The last section discusses the legal protection against insolvency of employers or termination of pension plans. After comparing the supplementary pension plans and its legal protections of Taiwan, Germany, and U.S.A.，chapter 5 examines advantages and disadvantages of the two recent drafts of supplementary pension plans reforms proposed by CLA (Council of Labor Affairs)in Taiwan. One is “Draft of the Old-age Supplementary Insurance of Employees” , and the other is “Draft of Employee Pension Act “ . The possibilities of having other ways for reforming supplementary pension plans institution of this country is also discussed in this chapter.　The last chapter puts research results of the preceding chapters into a conclusion.