标题: | 论税捐撤销诉讼之争点主义与总额主义的争议 On the Theoretical Dispute of Subject of Taxation Revocation Litigation |
作者: | 柯格钟 Ke-Chung Ko |
关键字: | 撤销诉讼;诉讼标的;程序标的;争点主义;个别化理论;总额主义;结算理论;Taxation Revocation Litigation;Subject of Litigation;Pro-cedural Subject;Dispute Doctrine;Individualization Theo-ry;Gross Doctrine;Settlement Theory |
公开日期: | 三月-2022 |
出版社: | 阳明交通大学科技法律学院(原名称:交通大学科技法律研究所) NYCU School of Law |
摘要: | 我国课税处分撤销诉讼标的理论之争议,表现在“诉讼标的”与“程序标的”等两个层次产生学说与实务观点的歧异。有关“诉讼标的”争议,为争点主义(个别化理论)与总额主义(结算理论)的争执;有关“程序标的”争议,涉及作为诉讼程序救济标的之行政处分,究竟是指原课税处分,或经复查程序而作成的复查决定。争点主义缘起行政法院判例,以将纳税义务人在复查程序所提出之事实争执(争点),替代行政处分本身,作为课税处分撤销诉讼之程序标的,因此而使关于课税事件之纷争,无法在行政救济程序中一次加以解决。立法者因此藉由制定纳税者权利保护法规定,舍弃争点主义而改采用总额主义,纳税义务人可以课税处分上所载之税额(结算税额)为诉讼标的范围,作争点的扩张(追加)或变更,藉此达成纷争一次解决目的。惟参考德国法制,总额主义在适用上有其界限,仅对具结算能力之课税处分才有适用。由于我国实务,对于单一税捐债权债务关系,现实上经常做出两个各别独立课税处分,即无法适用总额主义而为纷争一次性解决。从而,应该在纳税者权利保护法修订后,同时在税捐稽征法与行政诉讼法中作相关配套规范之研拟制定,才能达除目的。本文因此在结论上提供修法建议,以为参酌。 The theoretical disputes about the subject of taxation revocation procedure in Taiwan are manifested in two subjects, which the first one is“subject of litigation”and the other one“procedural subject”. The dispute around“subject of litigation”is theoretical debate between dispute doctrine (also known as individualization theo-ry) and gross doctrine (also known as settlement theory); disputes about“procedur-al subject”involve the administrative assessments between the original tax assess-ment and the review decision made through the review procedure by tax admin-istration. The dispute doctrine originated from one administrative court’s precedent, which indicate only the taxpayer’s factual disputes raised in the review process, instead of the administrative assessment itself, as the subject of the taxation revoca-tion litigation. Just the view of precedent has led to disputes over taxation, which cannot be resolved in one tome in litigation. To resolve the problem, Taiwan’s leg-islators adopted the provisions of Article 21of the Taxpayer’s Rights Protection Act, TRPA, to abandon the dispute doctrine and adopt the gross doctrine, and hope through this specification, that disputes can be resolved at one time. However, gross doctrine has its limits in its application. In terms of this country’s normative situation, if there are two separate tax assessments for a single tax in the same year, it will be impossible to apply settlement theory and resolve disputes in litigation at one time. TRPA is therefore to be revised, which need the relevant supporting regu-lations in the Tax Collection Act and the Administrative Litigation Act. This article provides suggestions revisions in the conclusion for consideration. |
URI: | https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/%e8%ab%96%e7%a8%85%e6%8d%90%e6%92%a4%e9%8a%b7%e8%a8%b4%e8%a8%9f%e4%b9%8b%e7%88%ad%e9%bb%9e%e4%b8%bb%e7%be%a9%e8%88%87%e7%b8%bd%e9%a1%8d%e4%b8%bb%e7%be%a9%e7%9a%84%e7%88%ad%e8%ad%b0/ http://hdl.handle.net/11536/160634 |
ISSN: | 2523-0298 |
期刊: | 交大法学评论(原名称:科技法学评论) NCTU Law Review |
Issue: | 10 |
起始页: | 1 |
结束页: | 47 |
显示于类别: | Technology Law Review |
文件中的档案:
If it is a zip file, please download the file and unzip it, then open index.html in a browser to view the full text content.