English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23470762      Online Users : 190
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115436


    Title: 大法官沒有說的話
    Authors: 許崇源
    Contributors: 會計學系
    Keywords: 大法官釋字第650號解釋;大法官釋字第657號解釋;所得稅法;營利事業所得稅查核準則;租稅法律主義;公平課稅原則
    the J.Y Interpretation 650;the J.Y Interpretation 657;the Income Tax Act;the Guidelines for the Audit of Income Taxes;the principle of taxation by law;the right of equal protection.
    Date: 2015
    Issue Date: 2017-12-26 17:46:53 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文評析大法官釋字第650號解釋及大法官釋字第657號解釋。釋650處理「81年修正之營所稅查核準則第36條之1第2項是否違憲?」之爭議,而釋657則解釋「所得稅法細則第82條第3項、營利事業所得稅查核準則第108條之1是否合憲?」之爭議。本文認同釋650之解釋,「稽徵機關…得就公司資金貸與股東或他人而未收取利息等情形,逕予設算利息收入,課徵營利事業所得稅。上開規定欠缺所得稅法之明確授權,增加納稅義務人法律所無之租稅義務,與憲法第十九條規定之意旨不符,應自本解釋公布之日起失其效力。」但基於公平課稅原則,本文不認同釋657解釋「關於營利事業應將帳載逾二年仍未給付之應付費用轉列其他收入,增加營利事業當年度之所得及應納稅額,顯非執行法律之細節性或技術性事項,且逾越所得稅法之授權,違反憲法第十九條租稅法律主義,應自本解釋公布之日起至遲於一年內失其效力。」文中說明同意與不同意之理由,並提供相關之建議
    This paper discusses the J.Y Interpretation 650 and the J.Y Interpretation 657. The Interpretation 650 examines the issue “Are Article 82, Paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Rules of the Income Tax Act and Article 108-1 of the Guidelines for the Audit of Income Taxes on Profit-seeking-enterprises constitutional?” The Interpretation 657 examines the issue “Are Article 82, Paragraph 3 of the Enforcement Rules of the Income Tax Act and Article 108-1 of the Guidelines for the Audit of Income Taxes on Profit-seeking-enterprises constitutional?” This paper has the same opinion on The Interpretation 650 which holds that “The tax collection authority summarily levies taxes over interest income based on this rule on company loans to its shareholders or other persons. Since such regulation lacks clear and specific authorization from the Income Tax Act, increases the tax obligation which does not legally exist for tax payers, and contradicts the meaning and purpose of Article 19 of the Constitution, it shall be invalid as of the date this Interpretation is issued.” And this paper has the different opinion on The Interpretation 657 which holds that “ That profit-seeking enterprises shall convert and list unpaid expenses or losses having exceeded two years from account payables to the heading of other revenues under the above-stated regulations so that the income and taxable revenue of that enterprise is increased for the year is obviously not a detailed or technical enforcement issue, and has usurped the authorization of the Income Tax Act, thereby violating the principle of taxation by law under Article 19 of the Constitution. The provisions in question should be invalidated no more than one year since the issuance of this Interpretation.” based on the right of equal protection as stipulated in Article 7. This paper provides the why and the how on the two issues.
    Relation: 執行起迄:2015/08/01~2016/10/31
    104-2410-H-004-035
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[資訊科學系] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    104-2410-H-004-035.pdf1395KbAdobe PDF190View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback