租稅國對教育權之保障──以教育費用扣除為中心

Protection of Education Rights in The Tax State—Centered on Deductions for Education Expense

系所名稱：法學院暨法律學系
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：111
指導教授：葛克昌；范文清
我國稅法對於教育費用的扣除，目前僅於所得稅法第17條第1項特別扣除額中規定父母對於子女之高等教育學費支出得享有每年每人25,000元之扣除額。然而，受教育之型態甚多，除了高等教育外，尚有國民義務教育、高級中等教育等學校教育，更廣義來看，更包含與職業相關進修，以及個人為了興趣或拓展自身文化、視野的學習。在我國憲法保障人民生存權、財產權、平等受教權，以及稅法量能課稅原則的落實下，國家對於符合人性尊嚴之基本生活所需之費用不得加以課稅。對於人民接受不同類型教育所支出的教育費用，其於稅法上是否應有相應的制度設計，實有研究之必要。本文將透過相關法學文獻分析與討論，分析各種不同教育費用在稅法上之定位，並回顧我國早年關於教育費用扣除額之規定，檢討現行我國稅法關於教育費用之規定，並嘗試建構完整制度規範。
本文結論略為：與職業相關之教育費用支出，現行法可採取所得稅法第14條薪資所得者必要費用減除或一併包含在第17條薪資所得特別扣除額中，若採前者進修訓練費扣除，有3%比例上限已屬不當立法限制而應予以放寬；後者薪資所得特別扣除額現行法採定額扣除，但不同行業有不同成本費用支出，採比例扣除應較定額扣除妥適。
義務教育屬於適應社會生活、學習生存技能而至接受完整系統化教育，受義務教育者因未成年而需仰賴父母或監護人支出教育費用，是履行民法上扶養義務的支出而屬不可支配之所得，應予以扣除始能正確衡量納稅義務人主觀給付能力。又此時教育費用亦有兼具家庭的保護與照顧功能，因此本文建議現行法應增加義務教育免稅額。高等教育學費於現行法中有特別扣除額之規定，在對象上應修正為有高等教育費用支出者即可適用、在金額上應區分公私立學校給予不同扣除數額，更能貼近納稅義務人真實支出。對於申請就學貸款就讀高等教育者，應增加就學貸款特別扣除額，讓學生於畢業後還款的年度再行扣除，減輕社會新鮮人負擔外，更真實反映納稅義務人的賦稅能力。失學長者、新住民參加國中小補校、進入高中職進修、或參加政府開辦之「成人基本教育班」，其目的是學習生活實用知識、接受品德教育及民主法治課程以協助其融入現代社會，與人性尊嚴息息相關，對此受教育而有特別支出，本文建議應增列成人教育學費特別扣除額。
另外為興趣而生之學習或教育支出，因不屬於納稅義務人及其受扶養親屬滿足基本生活而生，不能以主觀所得原則加以扣除，亦不宜以租稅優惠鼓勵人民。國家政策手段多元，採取其他稅法以外之手段亦能協助國家推展文化、藝文、體育等活動，無須透過成效不可預期的租稅優惠為之。

The current tax law in our country only provides a deduction for educational expenses under Article 17, Paragraph 1, of the Income Tax Act, which allows parents to deduct an annual amount of 25,000 yuan per person for higher education tuition expenses incurred for their children. However, education takes various forms, including compulsory education, secondary education, vocational training related to one’s occupation, as well as personal learning for interests or personal development. In our country, the Constitution guarantees the people’s right to life, property, equal access to education, and upholds the principle of ability-to-pay as an important foundation of our tax laws. Accordingly, the state is prohibited from imposing taxes on the expenses necessary for a basic standard of living that aligns with human dignity. Therefore, it is necessary to study whether there should be corresponding regulations in tax law regarding the educational expenses incurred by individuals for different types of education.
This paper will analyze and discuss relevant legal literature, explore the positioning of various types of educational expenses in the tax law, review the previous provisions on deductions for educational expenses in our country, examine the current provisions in our tax law regarding educational expenses, and attempt to construct a comprehensive regulatory framework.
In conclusion, with regard to education expenses related to one’s occupation, the current law can adopt the necessary expense deduction under Article 14 of the Income Tax Law for salary earners, or include it in the special deduction for salary income under Article 17. If the former approach of deducting training expenses is adopted, the current 3% proportion limit is considered an inappropriate legislative restriction and should be relaxed. The latter approach of a fixed amount deduction is currently used for the special deduction for salary income, but different industries have different cost expenses, so a proportionate deduction would be more appropriate.
Compulsory education is a complete and systematic education necessary for adapting to social life and learning survival skills. Individuals receiving compulsory education rely on their parents or guardians to bear the educational expenses. These expenses are considered as the expenditure to fulfill the obligation of support under civil law and should be deducted to accurately measure the subjective payment capacity of the taxpayer. Furthermore, educational expenses during this period also serve the purpose of family protection and care. Therefore, this paper suggests increasing the tax-free amount for compulsory education under the current law.
For higher education tuition fees, there are provisions for special deductions in the current law. The subject should be revised to include individuals who incur higher education expenses, and the deduction amount should be differentiated for public and private schools, in order to better reflect the actual expenses of the taxpayer. For students who apply for student loans to pursue higher education, the special deduction for student loans should be increased, allowing the deduction to be made in the years following graduation. This not only reduces the burden on young graduates but also truly reflects the taxpayer’s ability to pay taxes.
Elderly individuals returning to school, new immigrants attending remedial schools for junior high and elementary education, enrolling in advanced vocational schools, or participating in government-run "adult basic education classes" aim to learn practical knowledge of life to help them integrate into modern society. This is closely related to human dignity, and therefore, this paper suggests adding a special deduction for adult education tuition fees.
On the other hand, expenses incurred for learning or education for personal interests do not fall within the scope of the taxpayer or their dependent relatives’ basic living needs, and cannot be deducted based on the subjective net principle. It is also not appropriate to encourage such expenses through tax incentives. The government has multiple policy tools, and other means outside of the tax law can be used to support cultural, artistic, sports, and other activities, without relying on tax incentives with unpredictable effectiveness.