課徵多屋稅（囤房稅）法理正當性的探討

Discussion on the Legal Justification for Levying Multi-House Tax

多屋稅似乎有違反量能課稅原則、重複課稅、租稅公平性等稅法原則，若以量能課稅原則檢討多屋稅的正當性基礎，多屋稅並沒有課徵的正當性基礎，應廢除，且課徵多屋稅有違反重複課稅，也應一併消除之，多屋稅性質上為財產稅，在有租金所得的情況下，不應同時課徵；然而房屋在交易時已經課徵許多稅目的稅捐，在交易時卻不能將房屋稅列入費用或成本中扣除，顯然也有重複課稅的問題。對於多屋出租予公益用或是予包租代管相同資格的房客時，無法一併適用優惠房屋稅率，似乎也有違租稅公平。建商囤房稅，除了不該課徵多屋稅的理由以外，還必須一併考量到建商與投資炒作者的性質不相逕庭，不可以一概而論，房屋起造人是屬於住宅供給者必須花費大量資源建造房屋，而縮短待售期為1年更加不合理，未合理考量景氣循環與市場供需的問題。房價本應交由市場決定，無須特別藉由法令加以規定迫使降價，應該讓市場機制來決定合適的價格，本文並非倡議廢除房屋稅，建議自住一戶也應免稅，以保障人民最低的居住需求，多屋稅並沒有真的存在的必要，況且內政部與財政部皆以數據表示並沒有囤房的問題，因此應廢除多屋稅，以保障人民的財產權。

The multi-house tax seems to violate the tax law principles such as Ability to pay principle, double taxation, and principle of equality. Ability to pay principle that used to review the legitimacy of the multi-house tax, the multi-house tax is not justified. The foundation should be abolished, and the multiple housing tax that violates the double taxation should also be eliminated. The multiple housing tax is a property tax and should not be levied at the same time when there is rental income; however, when housing is traded Many taxes have been levied, but the house tax cannot be included in the expenses or deductions in the transaction. Obviously, there is also the problem of double taxation. When multiple houses are rented out for public welfare or leased to tenants with the same qualifications, the preferential house tax rate cannot be applied together, which seems to violate the equality of rent tax. In addition to the reasons for not levying a multi-house tax, the builders’ housing tax must also be considered that the nature of the builders and investment speculators is different, cannot be generalized. The housing builders belong to the housing suppliers. It is necessary to spend a lot of resources to build building, and it is even more unreasonable to shorten the on-sale period to one year, without reasonable consideration of the business cycle and market supply and demand. Prices of house should be determined by the market, and there is no need to specifically require laws and ordinances to force price reductions. The market mechanism should be used to determine the appropriate price. This article does not advocate the abolition of the housing tax. It is recommended that the owner-occupier should also be tax-exempt to ensure the lowest housing for people Demand, there is no need for a multi-housing tax. Moreover, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Finance have indicated that there is no problem of hoarding houses. Therefore, the multi-housing tax should be abolished to protect people’s property rights.