汽車燃料使用費課徵法律性質之研究

A Research About The Legal Nature of The Automobile Fuel Use Fee Collecting

系所名稱：公共政策研究所 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：98年 指導教授：戴秀雄 國家為遂行各項政策任務，其各項支出需仰賴人民之給付，傳統上國家之財政工具包括稅捐、規費、受益費以及特別公課，大法官釋字第593號解釋僅指出汽車燃料使用費為國家基於一定之公益目的，對特定人民課予繳納租稅以外之金錢義務。大法官認為汽車燃料使用費是稅捐以外之公法上金錢給付義務，但並未明確界定其為何種類之財政工具，然而汽車燃料使用費與稅捐其性質上究竟差異為何？是否屬於其他財政工具-規費、受益費或特別公課？實際區別為何？此外，汽車燃料使用費課徵流程中，公路監理機關將開徵期前之公告內容作為核課之行政處分，而寄發之繳納通知書僅被當成方便民眾持單繳納，純粹服務性質之單純通知；依據行政程序法之規定，利用公告方式作成行政處分，乃針對就一般性特徵可得確定其範圍之不特定人所為之一般處分，而汽車燃料使用費之義務人卻是可確定之多數人，且行政處分之送達，應以使相對人知悉為首要，公路監理機關此類作法雖節省行政成本及增進行政效率，卻嚴重侵害汽車所有人獲知行政處分內容及影響提起行政救濟之權益，實務上屢造成爭議。本文嘗試就汽車燃料使用費課徵流程，逐一檢視並探究開徵公告內容及汽車燃料使用費繳納（催繳）通知書之法律性質。研究結果發現汽車燃料使用費於財政工具類型上，應為完善之公路政策任務，而以汽車所有人此一特定群體為課徵對象，專款專用於公路養護、修建及安全管理之特別公課；而開徵公告應僅歸屬具備意思通知內容性質及附帶行政指導意涵之事實行為類型，公路監理機關以之為行政處分之作法，有違比例原則及明確性原則之虞，而開徵期前平信寄發之汽車燃料使用費繳納通知書，其特徵符合行政程序法第92條第1項行政處分之定義，有具體化、一次性之規範內容，實為核課之行政處分。而汽車所有人如未於開徵期間繳納，公路監理機關另以雙掛號寄發之汽車燃料使用費催繳通知書限期繳納，縱使核課之內容與原處分相同，因已就新的牌照狀況等事實審查原處分之內容並於實體上重為決定，無論為維持或變更原處分，該催繳通知書亦應認為第二次裁決，汽車所有人接獲該催繳通知書，如有不服，應可以此提起行政救濟，以維護權益。

Traditionally, the country relies on her peoples’ payment for taxation, which is managed as financial tools such as taxes, regulation fees, benefiting fees, and special common levies, to implement the country’s policy tasks. According to J.Y. Interpretation No.593, the Automobile Fuel Use Fee is monetary obligation that the country requires specific people to pay other than normal taxes for purpose of public welfare. The Honorable Justices regarded the Automobile Fuel Use Fee as monetary obligation in public law other than taxes, but did not classify it as any specific financial tool. However, what is the difference between the Automobile Fuel Use Fee and tax? Does it actually belong to other financial tool--regulation fee, benefiting fee, or special common levies? How can it be distinguished from other tools?In addition, motor vehicle offices used to treat the content of the public announcement issued before the collecting period as an approved administrative act in the collection process of the Automobile Fuel Use Fee and send the payment notice to the people so that they could pay the fee by submitting the notice as a payment form for their conveniences. As a result, the payment notice became merely a notice with service nature. According to the Administrative Procedure Act, public announcement is a general act taken to unspecified people with general characteristics, of which scopes can be defined, but the fee-payers of the Automobile Fuel Use Fee are people who can be specifically ascertained. Serving of administrative act should be taken to the objectives’ notice as most important. This practice implemented by the motor vehicle offices have nevertheless infringed rights of automobile owners in knowing the content of the notice of administrative act and raising administrative remedies, although the procedure has contributed to save huge administrative costs and accelerate administrative efficiency. Practically, much contention has been caused by this.In this paper, I conducted a review and exploration, aiming at the collection procedure of the Automobile Fuel Use Fee, into the legal nature of the content of the Public Announcement of Collection and its payment notice. The finding showed that, among financial tools, the Automobile Fuel Use Fee should be a task of faultless public road policy, which should be regarded as an earmark budget and used for a specific purpose for maintenance, building, and safety management of roads, that is as special common levies which focus on the owners of automobiles. The Public Announcement of Collection should be categorized into faits juridiques with contents of indication and implications accompanying administrative guidance. In this case, the practice of the motor vehicle offices treating the Public Announcement of Collection as an administrative act has had the likelihood of violating the Principle of Proportional and the Principle of Clarity and Definiteness. Furthermore, the payment notice of the Automobile Fuel Use Fee, with identified characteristic with definition in Article 92, Clause 1 under the Administrative Procedure Act, sent by ordinary mail prior to the collecting period had a regulation content with embodiment and one-timed characters, that it was actually an approved administrative act.If owners of automobiles failed to pay the bill of payment notice by deadline of collecting period, motor vehicle offices would send reminder notices of the Automobile Fuel Use Fee by double-registered mails to the owners indicating new deadline. As the motor vehicles offices have reviewed the original content of the act according to the fact of the new license plates and renewed the decision on the entities, although the approved content was the same as the original, the reminder notices should be regarded as the second verdict, regardless of the original act being maintained or changed. Owners of automobiles could challenge the reminder notices by raising administrative remedy to protect their rights and interests.