所得稅法列舉扣除額下醫藥費，排除商業健康保險給付扣抵之合理性

The Study on the Legitimacy of the Medical Expenses under the Tax Itemized Deduction Exclude the Commercial Health Insurance Benefits

我國財政部在解釋適用法律時，往往採文義解釋方式，同時以疑則有利國庫方式方向加以解釋適用，無視於稅法之基本結構性原則量能課稅原則，導致解釋之結果產生違反憲法保障人權之基本價值而不自知。本文試以財政部訴願決定書案號：第10100456號為例，說明所得稅法第17條醫藥及生育費扣除額但書規定，採文義解釋所產生的疑慮，並提出其他合憲解釋方式，以化解系爭條文之爭議。望能拋磚引玉，促使行政機關於解釋適用稅法時，能時時以憲法之人權保障價值為念，方能將稅捐正義實現，進而實現社會法治國之理想境界。

Literal interpretation tends to be the method conducted by the Ministry of Finance in Taiwan when it comes to defining applicable law as being in favor of the national treasury, overlooking the fundamental taxation of Ability-to-Pay principle in tax law, consequently, the final interpretation often negligently contradicts the basic human right protection under the constitution. The study applies the case number: No. 10100456 of the Ministry of Finance’s petition decision as an example in order to illustrate Article 17 of the Income Tax Act with relevance to the provisions in the proviso for the deduction of medical and childbirth expenses, explaining the hesitations emerged from the literal interpretation as well as proposing alternative constitutional interpretations as to settle the contend for the disputed provisions. In hopes of intriguing an attention to the value of the constitutional human rights protection whenever the applicable law of taxation is being interpreted by the administrative agency, so as the justice of taxation can be realized thus the ideal Social Rule of law State in the society can be fulfilled.