「實質課稅」之概念最早係由1997年司法院大法官第420號解釋所提出之見解，此後實務上之法院判決以及其他大法官解釋文中多次予以援引參照之。直至2009年5月，稅捐稽徵法第12條之1才正式將此實務上運用廣泛之概念予以明文規範。2000年至2002年企業併購法制立法期間，在企業併購租稅制度之設計上，亦是以「實質課稅」作為主要概念，因就經濟實質之觀點，考量「企業併購」應與一般「交易」或「買賣」的行為有別，是故在併購的過程中應不構成一般交易行為中利益或所得之實現。 本研究藉由探討「實質課稅原則」為出發點，進一步分析檢討現行企業併購法制中潛在之租稅不對稱情形，並以最高行政法院及高等行政法院之判決書為研究樣本。研究結果認為，企業併購法於2002年立法之時似過於倉促，其租稅措施章節之條文恐未經足夠時間審慎評估，以致於有許多未盡完善之處，據此，本研究針對透過實務上之爭點以彙整可能之改善建議並提供未來法律修訂之參考，期使我國企業併購法制臻於完備。 / The concept of the thesis focuses on the Principle of Substantive Taxation which was derived from No. 420 Constitutional Ruling in 1997 and added in Article 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act promulgated on May 13, 2009. According to the principle of Substantive Taxation, M&A transactions should differ from other normal transactions in some circumstance. In some cases, it should be allowed that the tax imposition might be determined by the fact based on its economic substance. Considering the application of the principle, this study analyses M&A related tax of each M&A type and proposes some possible suggestions regarding the tax measures for improvements in the future.

「為利企業以併購進行組織調整，發揮企業經營效率」為企業併購法之立法目的，因此，第三章訂有許多租稅措施，以排除企業併購之租稅障礙。然而，實務上稅捐稽徵機關常以各種理由否准認列企業併購商譽攤銷費用，即便納稅義務人提起行政救濟，行政法院法官多認同稽徵機關主張，作出不利於納稅義務人之判決。雖最高行政法院已於100年12月份第1次庭長法官聯席會將相關爭議舉證責任的分配作出決議，此決議的合理性仍有探討空間。 本研究試圖以近三年企業併購商譽攤銷相關判決為研究範圍，首先，將實務爭議類型化，統計行政法院作出對納稅義務人不利判決之主要原因，並利用法令及財務會計準則相關規範，分析各類型判決；其次，探討前述最高行政法院100年決議內容是否合理；最後，以商譽的本質及企業併購經濟實質，提出個人建議，供後續研究及修法參考。 / “The Business Mergers and Acquisitions Law (the Law) is enacted to facilitate merger /consolidation and acquisition by a business for purposes of reorganization and optimal operation efficiency.” Therefore, there are some taxation measures which aim to get rid of obstacles in taxation during merger and acquisition in chapter 3 of Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act. However, in practice, the competent tax collection authorities usually use every argument to reject the recognition of the expense of goodwill amortization. Even that the tax-payers petition for administrative redresses, the result of judgments are often unfair to them. Although the Supreme Administrative Court rendered the resolution on the distribution of burden of proof in the first joint meeting of the President of the judges in December, 2011, the rationality of the resolution is open to question. This study takes judgments of goodwill on business mergers and acquisitions from the past three years as examples, and attempts to analyze and classify these controversies in practice into patterns. Besides, it discusses the rationality of the resolution in 2011. Last, to supply some references for the future researches and the amendments on the law, this study analyzes and provides perspectives on the goodwill generated by business mergers and acquisitions and the essence of goodwill itself.