論稅捐撤銷訴訟之爭點主義與總額主義的爭議

Abstract

我國課稅處分撤銷訴訟標的理論之爭議，表現在「訴訟標的」與「程序標的」等兩個層次產生學說與實務觀點的歧異。有關「訴訟標的」爭議，為爭點主義（個別化理論）與總額主義（結算理論）的爭執；有關「程序標的」爭議，涉及作為訴訟程序救濟標的之行政處分，究竟是指原課稅處分，或經復查程序而作成的復查決定。爭點主義緣起行政法院判例，以將納稅義務人在復查程序所提出之事實爭執（爭點），替代行政處分本身，作為課稅處分撤銷訴訟之程序標的，因此而使關於課稅事件之紛爭，無法在行政救濟程序中一次加以解決。立法者因此藉由制定納稅者權利保護法規定，捨棄爭點主義而改採用總額主義，納稅義務人可以課稅處分上所載之稅額（結算稅額）為訴訟標的範圍，作爭點的擴張（追加）或變更，藉此達成紛爭一次解決目的。惟參考德國法制，總額主義在適用上有其界限，僅對具結算能力之課稅處分才有適用。由於我國實務，對於單一稅捐債權債務關係，現實上經常做出兩個各別獨立課稅處分，即無法適用總額主義而為紛爭一次性解決。從而，應該在納稅者權利保護法修訂後，同時在稅捐稽徵法與行政訴訟法中作相關配套規範之研擬制定，才能達除目的。本文因此在結論上提供修法建議，以為參酌。

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.