| 並列篇名 |
Disscussion on the Constitutionality of the Article 11 Paragraph 2 of the Income Tax Law - Focus on the Difference between Self-Cultivation, Fishing, Animal Husbandry, and Operating Agriculture and Animal Husbandry |
| 英文摘要 |
The purpose of this article is to investigate the concept of “Profit-Seeking Behaviors” stipulated in Article 11, Paragraph 2, and Article 14, Categories 1 and 6 of the Income Tax Act of the R.O.C (hereinafter referred to as the stipulations in point). The meaning of the concept was also explained in the explanation orders of Tai Cai Hsui Tzu No. 10100192940 (Nov/08/2012), and No. 37150 (Aug/26/1980), issued by the Ministry of Finance. It was also discussed in the explanation order of Non Mu Tzu No. 1020213774 issued by the Council of Agriculture of the Administrative Yuan. The above mentioned stipulations and explanation orders relate to the legislative definition of the concept of “Profit-Seeking Behaviors,” which covers almost all economic activities of people. If an activity is covered in the concept of “Profit-Seeking Behavior,” it will be taxed under the Business Tax Act.Whether the concept of “Profit-Seeking Behaviors” defined by the Income Tax Act is too vague is the issue at hand. A legal concept that is overbroadly defined is equal to one that is undefined. For instance, when a farmer sells eggs laid by hens he raised, shall his behavior be construed under the concept of a behavior which raises “Income from self-undertaking in farming, fishing, animal husbandry, forestry and mining” stipulated in Article 14, Category 6 of the Income Tax Act, or under the concept of “Profit-Seeking Enterprise” in Article 11 of the same Act? The borderline between the two concepts mentioned above was delineated by explanation orders issued by administrative agencies without mandate in laws. I maintain that the current practice is questionable in its constitu-tionality. I investigated the above-mentioned issues for this article. |
