稅捐行政執行之停止──德國法的觀察與比較

Termination of Tax Administrative Execution: Observation and Comparison from German Law

在納稅人違反稅法上的金錢給付義務，由稅捐機關移送行政執行分署強制執行，即進入稅捐行政執行的範疇。在執行過程中，如遇有執行目的已達成或確定無法達成時，執行機關如欲「終局地」終結該執行程序，究竟應依行政執行法第8條？抑或適用稅捐稽徵法第40條？
此一問題，不僅凸顯出，稅稽法第40條在停止執行定位上的問題，亦即得否依該規定，「暫時地」終結執行程序？同時也凸顯，現行行執法缺乏「衡平性」措施的「一般性」規定，可能讓納稅人面臨權利救濟的困境。
此外，稅稽法第26條的延期或分期繳納，與行執法施行細則第27條的分期繳納，兩者間是否具有一致性？又立法上應否引進稅捐債務停止徵收的相關規定？凡此，均值得吾人進一步探究。

It enters the scope of tax administrative execution when the taxpayer violates the monetary obligation and is therefore transferred by tax agency to Administrative Enforcement Agency for compulsory execution. In the execution process, if the purpose of execution is achieved or is confirmed that it cannot be achieved and the execution agency intends to finalize the termination of such execution procedures, should it be applied to article 8 of Administrative Execution Act? Or article 40 of Tax Collection Act?
This question not only point out the problem of article 40 of Tax Collection Act in positioning of termination of execution, i.e. “temporarily” terminate the execution procedures based on such regulations? It also highlights the dilemma of rights remedies that taxpayer probably may face because current Administrative Execution Act is a lack of “general” provisions for “equity” measures.
In addition, whether the deferral of the tax payment or for payment by installments set forth in article 26 of Tax Collection Act and payment by installments set forth in article 27 of Enforcement Rules of Administrative Execution Act is consistent? If the termination of collection related regulations should be introduced to legislation? They are all worthy of our further discussion.