論實質課稅原則與漏稅行政裁罰──最高行政法院102年度判字第121號判決評釋

The Study on the Principle of Substantive Taxation and Administrative Penalty for Tax Evasion: Comment on No. 102 Judgment (2013) of the Supreme Administrative Court

稅捐規避行為乃納稅義務人濫用一連串的法律形成手段，以形成不相當之經濟實質，藉此規避或減免相關的稅捐負擔。而漏稅行為則是納稅義務人因故意或過失違反稅法上誠實申報繳納稅款義務，或違背協力義務，稽徵機關因而不知有關課稅的重要事實，減少核定應納稅額，致發生短漏稅結果，兩者為不同行為。實質課稅原則是為防杜稅捐規避行為，賦予稅捐機關基於稅法規範及量能課稅原則之目的，對個案納稅義務人所作不利益的解釋與認定，惟仍應尊重納稅義務人私法上適法有效行為，且與漏稅罰之適用無關。通說認為稅捐規避行為適用實質課稅原則僅需調整補稅無庸裁罰，但實務上稽徵機關除依實質課稅原則否定納稅義務人規避課稅事實安排外，常採取連補帶罰，致實質課稅原則適用擴及稅捐處罰效果。所得稅法第66條之8、第110條第1項之規定，即是最常見的實質課稅原則適用於連補帶罰情形。本文以最高行政法院102年度判字第121號判決為例，試從稅捐規避行為與漏稅行為之行為意義、要件、目的及階段，並從實質課原則與漏稅罰規範目的、處罰法定原則、舉證責任等面向分析該判決，並檢討所得稅法第66條之8規定，希冀有助於辨明實質課稅原則與漏稅罰適用上之界限。最後並分析在上開判決後，民國105年12月28日所公布之納稅者權利保護法，對相關問題的規範內容，以及美國經濟實質原則對於稅捐規避行為之處罰規定。 Tax avoidance is a form of tax abuse and distinguishable from tax evasion. Tax avoidance generally exists when a taxpayer reduces its tax liability by arrangements with an appearance of compliance with statute text while against the purpose of statute. Tax evasion involves a deliberate breach of tax law through fraud, concealment, or other illegal measures so that a taxpayer can avoid paying its true tax liability. The principle of substantive taxation is to prevent tax avoidance and correct tax abuse in order to make sure that a tax can be levied on a taxpayer according to its ability to pay. Most scholars think that the principle of substantive taxation imposes no penalty but only aims to prevent tax avoidance and require taxpayers to pay taxes. In fact, under Taiwan's tax law, the principle of substantive taxation is not associated with any provisions of penalty. However, in practice, tax collection authorities often demand taxpayers to pay taxes and punish them in the name of the principle of substantive taxation. As the most prominent example of such practice, tax collection authorities often use Paragraph 1, Article 110 of the Income Tax Act to punish taxpayers who violate Article 66-8 of the same act. This essay takes No. 102 Judgment (2013) of the Supreme Administrative Court as an example to distinguish between tax avoidance and tax evasion and clarity their respective meanings, constituent elements, and purposes. This essay also comments on this judgment based on the principle of substantive taxation, the principle Nullapoena sine lege, and the burden of proof. The author hopes this essay helps to clarify the line of demarcation between the principle of substantive taxation and administrative penalty.