重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(53)】土地稅法施行細則第十五條違憲？
2014.4.22 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位： 司法院
解釋字號： 釋字第 619 號
解釋日期： 民國 95 年 11 月 10 日
解釋爭點：
土地稅法施行細則第十五條違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1313 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 49 卷 1 期 88-102 頁
司法院大法官解釋續編（十九）第 451-469 頁
總統府公報 第 6721 號 13-40 頁
考選周刊 第 1097 期 2 版
法令月刊 第 57 卷 12 期 121-122 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地稅法 第 6、16、18、41、54、58 條 ( 94.01.30 )
土地稅法施行細則 第 15 條 ( 94.12.16 )
土地稅減免規則 第 24、29 條 ( 94.02.24 )
解 釋 文：
對於人民違反行政法上義務之行為處以裁罰性之行政處分，涉及人民權利之限制，其處罰之構成要件及法律效果，應由法律定之，以命令為之者，應有法律明確授權，始符合憲法第二十三條法律保留原則之意旨（本院釋字第三九四號、第四０二號解釋參照）。土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款所稱「減免地價稅」之意義，因涉及裁罰性法律構成要件，依其文義及土地稅法第六條、第十八條第一項與第三項等相關規定之體系解釋，自應限於依土地稅法第六條授權行政院訂定之土地稅減免規則所定標準及程序所為之地價稅減免而言。土地稅法施行細則第十五條規定：「適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅時，土地所有權人應於三十日內向主管稽徵機關申報，未於期限內申報者，依本法第五十四條第一項第一款之規定辦理」，將非依土地稅法第六條及土地稅減免規則規定之標準及程序所為之地價稅減免情形，於未依三十日期限內申報適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅者，亦得依土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款之規定，處以短匿稅額三倍之罰鍰，顯以法規命令增加裁罰性法律所未規定之處罰對象，復無法律明確之授權，核與首開法律保留原則之意旨不符，牴觸憲法第二十三條規定，應於本解釋公布之日起至遲於屆滿一年時失其效力。
理 由 書：
對於人民違反行政法上義務之行為處以裁罰性之行政處分，涉及人民權利之限制，其處罰之構成要件及法律效果，應由法律定之，以命令為之者，應有法律明確授權，始符合憲法第二十三條法律保留原則之意旨（本院釋字第三九四號、第四０二號解釋參照）。
土地稅法第六條前段規定，為發展經濟，促進土地利用，增進社會福利，對於國防、政府機關、公共設施、騎樓走廊、研究機構、教育、交通、水利、給水、鹽業、宗教、醫療、衛生、公私墓、慈善或公益事業及合理之自用住宅等所使用之土地，及重劃、墾荒、改良土地者，得予適當之土地稅減免；同條後段並授權行政院訂定土地稅減免規則，明定減免之標準與程序。合於土地稅減免規則所定地價稅減免標準之土地，依同規則第二十四條第一項規定，須於每年（期）開徵四十日前提出申請，始能獲得減免，減免原因消滅者，自次年（期）恢復徵收。同規則第二十九條並規定，減免之原因、事實消滅時，土地權利人或管理人並負有於三十日內向主管稽徵機關申報恢復徵稅之義務。未於減免之原因、事實消滅三十日內向主管稽徵機關申報，又有逃漏稅之情事者，依土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款規定，除補繳短匿稅額之外，應處以短匿稅額三倍之罰鍰。
土地稅法第十八條第一項為促進國家經濟發展，鼓勵增設大眾娛樂設施，獎勵興辦公用事業及保護名勝古蹟，就工業用地、礦業用地、 私立公園、動物園、體育場所用地、寺廟、教堂用地、政府指定之名勝古蹟用地、 經主管機關核准設置之加油站及依都市計畫法規定設置之供公眾使用之停車場用地、其他經行政院核定之土地等等大規模用地，明定其特別稅率，不適用同法第十六條之累進稅率。有同法第十八條規定得適用特別稅率用地之情形者，依同法第四十一條第一項規定，須於每年（期）地價稅開徵四十日前提出申請，始得適用特別稅率。適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅時，則應向主管稽徵機關申報，同條第二項並定有明文。又同法第十八條第三項復明定，符合同條第一項要件適用千分之十特別稅率而不適用累進稅率土地之地價稅，若有符合同法第六條規定得減免之情形，尚可再依同法第六條減免之。
依土地稅法第六條減免地價稅與依同法第十八條第一項適用特別稅率之地價稅，雖均有減輕稅負之效果，但二者之目的未盡相同，減輕稅負之標準與程序亦顯然有異，況適用特別稅率之用地，於法律有特別規定時，亦可再視其是否有減免事由，而獲得進一步之租稅減免，故二者尚難等同視之。是土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款規定：「納稅義務人藉變更、隱匿地目等則或於減免地價稅或田賦之原因、事實消滅時，未向主管稽徵機關申報者，依左列規定辦理：一 逃稅或減輕稅賦者，除追補應納部分外，處短匿稅額或賦額三倍之罰鍰」，其中所稱「減免地價稅」之意義，因涉及裁罰性法律構成要件，依其文義及上開土地稅法第六條、第十八條第一項與第三項等相關規定之體系解釋，自應限於依第六條授權行政院訂定之土地稅減免規則所定標準及程序所為地價稅之減免而言。
土地稅法第五十八條雖授權行政院訂定該法之施行細則，但就適用特別稅率之用地，於適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅時，未依土地稅法第四十一條第二項規定申報之情形，是否應予以處罰或如何處罰，則未作明確之授權。土地稅法施行細則第十五條規定：「適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅時，土地所有權人應於三十日內向主管稽徵機關申報，未於期限內申報者，依本法第五十四條第一項第一款之規定辦理」，將非依土地稅法第六條及土地稅減免規則規定之標準及程序所為之地價稅減免情形，於未依三十日期限內申報適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅者，亦得依土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款之規定，處以短匿稅額三倍之罰鍰，顯以法規命令增加裁罰性法律所未規定之處罰對象，復無法律明確之授權，核與首開法律保留原則之意旨不符，牴觸憲法第二十三條規定，應於本解釋公布之日起至遲於屆滿一年時失其效力。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 619
Date 2006.11.10
Issue
Are the provisions of Article 15 of the Enforcement Rules of the Land Tax Act unconstitutional?
Holding
A punitive administrative action taken against a person for an act in breach of his or her duty under administrative law involves a restraint on his or her right, and the constituent elements required for and the legal consequence of such punishment must be prescribed by law. Where the law authorizes the establishment of supplementary rules in the form of administrative ordinances with respect to such constituent elements, such authorization must be made in a clear and specific manner insofar as the substance and scope of such authorization is concerned, before an administrative ordinance may be issued on the basis of such authorization, so as to be in line with the principle of legal reservation under Article 23 of the Constitution (See J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 394 and 402). The phrase “reduction or exemption of land value tax” referred to in Article 54-I (i) of the Land Tax Act shall be so interpreted as to be limited to the reduction or exemption of land value tax that follows the criteria and procedure set forth in the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax as prescribed by the Executive Yuan under the authorization of Article 6 of the Land Tax Act in that it involves the constituent elements of a punitive law and the literal meaning of said provision and the systemic construction of Articles 6 and 18-I and -III of the Land Tax Act require such interpretation. Article 15 of the Enforcement Rules of the Land Tax Act provides, “Where the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of a special tax rate cease to exist, the land owner shall report such to the competent tax authority within thirty (30) days; failure to so report within the specified time limit shall invoke Article 54-I (i) of the Act.” The said provisions, by subjecting the land owner who fails to report the cessation of the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of a special tax rate within thirty (30) days to a fine of triple the underdeclared or undeclared taxable amount where it involves the kind of reduction or exemption of land value tax that fails to follow the criteria and procedure set forth in Article 6 of the Land Tax Act and the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax, have clearly extended the imposition of penalties by means of regulations to those who are not specified by a punitive law. Furthermore, short of clear and definite authorization by law, the provisions are not consistent with the aforesaid principle of legal reservation and thus are in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution. Therefore, the foregoing provisions shall become void no later than one year from the date of this interpretation.
Reasoning
A punitive administrative action taken against a person for an act in breach of his or her duty under administrative law involves a restraint on his or her right, and the constituent elements required for and the legal consequence of such punishment must be prescribed by law. Where the law authorizes the establishment of supplementary rules in the form of administrative ordinances with respect to such constituent elements, such authorization must be made in a clear and specific manner insofar as the substance and scope of such authorization is concerned, before an administrative ordinance may be issued on the basis of such authorization, so as to be in line with the principle of legal reservation under Article 23 of the Constitution (See J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 394 and 402).
The 1st half of Article 6 of the Land Tax Act provides that, in order to develop the economy, promote land utilization and improve social welfare, proper land tax reduction or exemption may be provided in respect of the land used for national defense; governmental infrastructures; public facilities, passageways and corridors; research, educational, and religious institutions; roadways; water utility; waterworks; saltworks; medical, health, and sanitation facilities; public and private cemeteries; charitable organizations or public interest enterprises; and reasonable self-use residences, as well as for land rezoning, wasteland reclamation and land improvement [Facilities, institutions, etc., have been grouped together, though of course they do not have to be grouped in this way.—Ed.]. The 2nd half of said article further authorizes the Executive Yuan to prescribe the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax whereby the criteria and procedure for the said reductions and exemptions are clearly formulated. In respect of the land that satisfies the criteria for the reduction or exemption of land value tax as set forth in the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax, Article 24-I of said Regulation requires that the application for such reduction or exemption be submitted at least forty days before the collection starting date each year (period), and that, if and when the reason for such reduction or exemption ceases to exist, taxation be resumed starting from the following year (period). Article 29 thereof further provides that, when the reason for such reduction or exemption ceases to exist, the land title owner or administrator shall, within thirty days, file with the competent tax authority for the resumption of taxation. If the land title owner or administrator fails to file with the competent tax authority within thirty days and is found to have evaded tax, he or she shall be subject to a fine of triple the underdeclared or undeclared taxable amount as provided in Article 54-I of the Land Tax Act in addition to having to pay back the underdeclared or undeclared tax.
Instead of the progressive tax rates as specified in Article 16 of the Land Tax Act, Article 18-I of the Land Tax Act provides for a special tax rate for industrial land, mining land, private parks, zoos, land for sporting facilities, temples, land for churches or temples, government-designated land for historical sites, land for gas stations approved by the competent authorities and for public parking lots established pursuant to the Urban Planning Act, or other large areas of land approved for use by the Executive Yuan so as to advance the development of the national economy, encourage the establishment of public amusement facilities, award the establishment of new public utilities and protect historical sites. In respect of the land to which the special tax rate specified in said Article 18 is applicable, Article 41-I of said Act requires that the application for such special tax rate be submitted at least forty days before the collection starting date each year (period). And, according to Paragraph II of said article, if and when the reason and facts for such special tax rate cease to exist, a report shall be filed with the competent authority. Furthermore, Paragraph III of said article provides that any land value tax that satisfies the criteria for the special tax rate, i.e., 0.1%, specified in Paragraph I thereof but is not subject to the progressive rates may be further reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 6 of said Act if the criteria for the reduction or exemption as set forth therein are met.
Despite the tax relief effects shared by both Article 6 of the Land Tax Act, which provides for the reduction or exemption of land value tax, and Article 18-I thereof, which specifies a special tax rate for land value tax, they do not necessarily share the same purposes, nor do they follow the same criteria and procedure in reducing the tax burdens. Besides, in respect of the land to which the special tax rate is applicable, additional tax reduction or exemption may also be granted where the law specifically provides for any reason for such reduction or exemption. As such, the provisions of said articles are not on a par with each other. Article 54-I (i) of the Land Tax Act provides, “Where a taxpayer fails to report to the competent tax authority by virtue of changing or concealing the category or class of land or when the reason for and facts concerning the reduction or exemption of land value tax or agricultural land levy cease to exist, the following provisions shall apply: (i) If the taxpayer is found to have evaded tax or reduced tax burdens, he or she shall be subject to a fine of triple the underdeclared or undeclared amount of tax or levy in addition to having to pay the amount of tax or levy payable...” The phrase “reduction or exemption of land value tax” referred to in said article shall be so interpreted as to be limited to the reduction or exemption of land value tax that follows the criteria and procedure set forth in the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax as prescribed by the Executive Yuan under the authorization of Article 6 of the Land Tax Act in that it involves the constituent elements of a punitive law and the literal meaning of said provision and the systemic construction of Articles 6 and 18-I and -III of the Land Tax Act require such interpretation.
Although Article 58 of the Land Tax Act enables the Executive Yuan to prescribe the enforcement rules of said Act, no clear and definite authorization is given in respect of the punishability or punishment where there is any failure to file a report as provided for in Article 41-II of said Act when the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of the special tax rate cease to exist. Article 15 of the Enforcement Rules of the Land Tax Act provides, “Where the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of a special tax rate cease to exist, the land owner shall report such to the competent tax authority within thirty (30) days; failure to so report within the specified time limit shall invoke Article 54-I (i) of the Act.” The said provisions, by subjecting the land owner who fails to report the cessation of the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of a special tax rate within thirty (30) days to a fine of triple the underdeclared or undeclared taxable amount where it involves the kind of reduction or exemption of land value tax that fails to follow the criteria and procedure set forth in Article 6 of the Land Tax Act and the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax, have clearly extended the imposition of penalties by means of regulations to those who are not specified by a punitive law. Furthermore, short of clear and definite authorization by law, the provisions are not consistent with the aforesaid principle of legal reservation and thus are in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution. Therefore, the foregoing provisions shall become void no later than one year from the date of this interpretation.
'Translated by Vincent C. Kuan.
解釋字號： 釋字第 619 號
解釋日期： 民國 95 年 11 月 10 日
解釋爭點：
土地稅法施行細則第十五條違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1313 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 49 卷 1 期 88-102 頁
司法院大法官解釋續編（十九）第 451-469 頁
總統府公報 第 6721 號 13-40 頁
考選周刊 第 1097 期 2 版
法令月刊 第 57 卷 12 期 121-122 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地稅法 第 6、16、18、41、54、58 條 ( 94.01.30 )
土地稅法施行細則 第 15 條 ( 94.12.16 )
土地稅減免規則 第 24、29 條 ( 94.02.24 )
解 釋 文：
對於人民違反行政法上義務之行為處以裁罰性之行政處分，涉及人民權利之限制，其處罰之構成要件及法律效果，應由法律定之，以命令為之者，應有法律明確授權，始符合憲法第二十三條法律保留原則之意旨（本院釋字第三九四號、第四０二號解釋參照）。土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款所稱「減免地價稅」之意義，因涉及裁罰性法律構成要件，依其文義及土地稅法第六條、第十八條第一項與第三項等相關規定之體系解釋，自應限於依土地稅法第六條授權行政院訂定之土地稅減免規則所定標準及程序所為之地價稅減免而言。土地稅法施行細則第十五條規定：「適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅時，土地所有權人應於三十日內向主管稽徵機關申報，未於期限內申報者，依本法第五十四條第一項第一款之規定辦理」，將非依土地稅法第六條及土地稅減免規則規定之標準及程序所為之地價稅減免情形，於未依三十日期限內申報適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅者，亦得依土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款之規定，處以短匿稅額三倍之罰鍰，顯以法規命令增加裁罰性法律所未規定之處罰對象，復無法律明確之授權，核與首開法律保留原則之意旨不符，牴觸憲法第二十三條規定，應於本解釋公布之日起至遲於屆滿一年時失其效力。
理 由 書：
對於人民違反行政法上義務之行為處以裁罰性之行政處分，涉及人民權利之限制，其處罰之構成要件及法律效果，應由法律定之，以命令為之者，應有法律明確授權，始符合憲法第二十三條法律保留原則之意旨（本院釋字第三九四號、第四０二號解釋參照）。
土地稅法第六條前段規定，為發展經濟，促進土地利用，增進社會福利，對於國防、政府機關、公共設施、騎樓走廊、研究機構、教育、交通、水利、給水、鹽業、宗教、醫療、衛生、公私墓、慈善或公益事業及合理之自用住宅等所使用之土地，及重劃、墾荒、改良土地者，得予適當之土地稅減免；同條後段並授權行政院訂定土地稅減免規則，明定減免之標準與程序。合於土地稅減免規則所定地價稅減免標準之土地，依同規則第二十四條第一項規定，須於每年（期）開徵四十日前提出申請，始能獲得減免，減免原因消滅者，自次年（期）恢復徵收。同規則第二十九條並規定，減免之原因、事實消滅時，土地權利人或管理人並負有於三十日內向主管稽徵機關申報恢復徵稅之義務。未於減免之原因、事實消滅三十日內向主管稽徵機關申報，又有逃漏稅之情事者，依土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款規定，除補繳短匿稅額之外，應處以短匿稅額三倍之罰鍰。
土地稅法第十八條第一項為促進國家經濟發展，鼓勵增設大眾娛樂設施，獎勵興辦公用事業及保護名勝古蹟，就工業用地、礦業用地、 私立公園、動物園、體育場所用地、寺廟、教堂用地、政府指定之名勝古蹟用地、 經主管機關核准設置之加油站及依都市計畫法規定設置之供公眾使用之停車場用地、其他經行政院核定之土地等等大規模用地，明定其特別稅率，不適用同法第十六條之累進稅率。有同法第十八條規定得適用特別稅率用地之情形者，依同法第四十一條第一項規定，須於每年（期）地價稅開徵四十日前提出申請，始得適用特別稅率。適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅時，則應向主管稽徵機關申報，同條第二項並定有明文。又同法第十八條第三項復明定，符合同條第一項要件適用千分之十特別稅率而不適用累進稅率土地之地價稅，若有符合同法第六條規定得減免之情形，尚可再依同法第六條減免之。
依土地稅法第六條減免地價稅與依同法第十八條第一項適用特別稅率之地價稅，雖均有減輕稅負之效果，但二者之目的未盡相同，減輕稅負之標準與程序亦顯然有異，況適用特別稅率之用地，於法律有特別規定時，亦可再視其是否有減免事由，而獲得進一步之租稅減免，故二者尚難等同視之。是土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款規定：「納稅義務人藉變更、隱匿地目等則或於減免地價稅或田賦之原因、事實消滅時，未向主管稽徵機關申報者，依左列規定辦理：一 逃稅或減輕稅賦者，除追補應納部分外，處短匿稅額或賦額三倍之罰鍰」，其中所稱「減免地價稅」之意義，因涉及裁罰性法律構成要件，依其文義及上開土地稅法第六條、第十八條第一項與第三項等相關規定之體系解釋，自應限於依第六條授權行政院訂定之土地稅減免規則所定標準及程序所為地價稅之減免而言。
土地稅法第五十八條雖授權行政院訂定該法之施行細則，但就適用特別稅率之用地，於適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅時，未依土地稅法第四十一條第二項規定申報之情形，是否應予以處罰或如何處罰，則未作明確之授權。土地稅法施行細則第十五條規定：「適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅時，土地所有權人應於三十日內向主管稽徵機關申報，未於期限內申報者，依本法第五十四條第一項第一款之規定辦理」，將非依土地稅法第六條及土地稅減免規則規定之標準及程序所為之地價稅減免情形，於未依三十日期限內申報適用特別稅率之原因、事實消滅者，亦得依土地稅法第五十四條第一項第一款之規定，處以短匿稅額三倍之罰鍰，顯以法規命令增加裁罰性法律所未規定之處罰對象，復無法律明確之授權，核與首開法律保留原則之意旨不符，牴觸憲法第二十三條規定，應於本解釋公布之日起至遲於屆滿一年時失其效力。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 619
Date 2006.11.10
Issue
Are the provisions of Article 15 of the Enforcement Rules of the Land Tax Act unconstitutional?
Holding
A punitive administrative action taken against a person for an act in breach of his or her duty under administrative law involves a restraint on his or her right, and the constituent elements required for and the legal consequence of such punishment must be prescribed by law. Where the law authorizes the establishment of supplementary rules in the form of administrative ordinances with respect to such constituent elements, such authorization must be made in a clear and specific manner insofar as the substance and scope of such authorization is concerned, before an administrative ordinance may be issued on the basis of such authorization, so as to be in line with the principle of legal reservation under Article 23 of the Constitution (See J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 394 and 402). The phrase “reduction or exemption of land value tax” referred to in Article 54-I (i) of the Land Tax Act shall be so interpreted as to be limited to the reduction or exemption of land value tax that follows the criteria and procedure set forth in the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax as prescribed by the Executive Yuan under the authorization of Article 6 of the Land Tax Act in that it involves the constituent elements of a punitive law and the literal meaning of said provision and the systemic construction of Articles 6 and 18-I and -III of the Land Tax Act require such interpretation. Article 15 of the Enforcement Rules of the Land Tax Act provides, “Where the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of a special tax rate cease to exist, the land owner shall report such to the competent tax authority within thirty (30) days; failure to so report within the specified time limit shall invoke Article 54-I (i) of the Act.” The said provisions, by subjecting the land owner who fails to report the cessation of the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of a special tax rate within thirty (30) days to a fine of triple the underdeclared or undeclared taxable amount where it involves the kind of reduction or exemption of land value tax that fails to follow the criteria and procedure set forth in Article 6 of the Land Tax Act and the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax, have clearly extended the imposition of penalties by means of regulations to those who are not specified by a punitive law. Furthermore, short of clear and definite authorization by law, the provisions are not consistent with the aforesaid principle of legal reservation and thus are in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution. Therefore, the foregoing provisions shall become void no later than one year from the date of this interpretation.
Reasoning
A punitive administrative action taken against a person for an act in breach of his or her duty under administrative law involves a restraint on his or her right, and the constituent elements required for and the legal consequence of such punishment must be prescribed by law. Where the law authorizes the establishment of supplementary rules in the form of administrative ordinances with respect to such constituent elements, such authorization must be made in a clear and specific manner insofar as the substance and scope of such authorization is concerned, before an administrative ordinance may be issued on the basis of such authorization, so as to be in line with the principle of legal reservation under Article 23 of the Constitution (See J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 394 and 402).
The 1st half of Article 6 of the Land Tax Act provides that, in order to develop the economy, promote land utilization and improve social welfare, proper land tax reduction or exemption may be provided in respect of the land used for national defense; governmental infrastructures; public facilities, passageways and corridors; research, educational, and religious institutions; roadways; water utility; waterworks; saltworks; medical, health, and sanitation facilities; public and private cemeteries; charitable organizations or public interest enterprises; and reasonable self-use residences, as well as for land rezoning, wasteland reclamation and land improvement [Facilities, institutions, etc., have been grouped together, though of course they do not have to be grouped in this way.—Ed.]. The 2nd half of said article further authorizes the Executive Yuan to prescribe the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax whereby the criteria and procedure for the said reductions and exemptions are clearly formulated. In respect of the land that satisfies the criteria for the reduction or exemption of land value tax as set forth in the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax, Article 24-I of said Regulation requires that the application for such reduction or exemption be submitted at least forty days before the collection starting date each year (period), and that, if and when the reason for such reduction or exemption ceases to exist, taxation be resumed starting from the following year (period). Article 29 thereof further provides that, when the reason for such reduction or exemption ceases to exist, the land title owner or administrator shall, within thirty days, file with the competent tax authority for the resumption of taxation. If the land title owner or administrator fails to file with the competent tax authority within thirty days and is found to have evaded tax, he or she shall be subject to a fine of triple the underdeclared or undeclared taxable amount as provided in Article 54-I of the Land Tax Act in addition to having to pay back the underdeclared or undeclared tax.
Instead of the progressive tax rates as specified in Article 16 of the Land Tax Act, Article 18-I of the Land Tax Act provides for a special tax rate for industrial land, mining land, private parks, zoos, land for sporting facilities, temples, land for churches or temples, government-designated land for historical sites, land for gas stations approved by the competent authorities and for public parking lots established pursuant to the Urban Planning Act, or other large areas of land approved for use by the Executive Yuan so as to advance the development of the national economy, encourage the establishment of public amusement facilities, award the establishment of new public utilities and protect historical sites. In respect of the land to which the special tax rate specified in said Article 18 is applicable, Article 41-I of said Act requires that the application for such special tax rate be submitted at least forty days before the collection starting date each year (period). And, according to Paragraph II of said article, if and when the reason and facts for such special tax rate cease to exist, a report shall be filed with the competent authority. Furthermore, Paragraph III of said article provides that any land value tax that satisfies the criteria for the special tax rate, i.e., 0.1%, specified in Paragraph I thereof but is not subject to the progressive rates may be further reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 6 of said Act if the criteria for the reduction or exemption as set forth therein are met.
Despite the tax relief effects shared by both Article 6 of the Land Tax Act, which provides for the reduction or exemption of land value tax, and Article 18-I thereof, which specifies a special tax rate for land value tax, they do not necessarily share the same purposes, nor do they follow the same criteria and procedure in reducing the tax burdens. Besides, in respect of the land to which the special tax rate is applicable, additional tax reduction or exemption may also be granted where the law specifically provides for any reason for such reduction or exemption. As such, the provisions of said articles are not on a par with each other. Article 54-I (i) of the Land Tax Act provides, “Where a taxpayer fails to report to the competent tax authority by virtue of changing or concealing the category or class of land or when the reason for and facts concerning the reduction or exemption of land value tax or agricultural land levy cease to exist, the following provisions shall apply: (i) If the taxpayer is found to have evaded tax or reduced tax burdens, he or she shall be subject to a fine of triple the underdeclared or undeclared amount of tax or levy in addition to having to pay the amount of tax or levy payable...” The phrase “reduction or exemption of land value tax” referred to in said article shall be so interpreted as to be limited to the reduction or exemption of land value tax that follows the criteria and procedure set forth in the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax as prescribed by the Executive Yuan under the authorization of Article 6 of the Land Tax Act in that it involves the constituent elements of a punitive law and the literal meaning of said provision and the systemic construction of Articles 6 and 18-I and -III of the Land Tax Act require such interpretation.
Although Article 58 of the Land Tax Act enables the Executive Yuan to prescribe the enforcement rules of said Act, no clear and definite authorization is given in respect of the punishability or punishment where there is any failure to file a report as provided for in Article 41-II of said Act when the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of the special tax rate cease to exist. Article 15 of the Enforcement Rules of the Land Tax Act provides, “Where the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of a special tax rate cease to exist, the land owner shall report such to the competent tax authority within thirty (30) days; failure to so report within the specified time limit shall invoke Article 54-I (i) of the Act.” The said provisions, by subjecting the land owner who fails to report the cessation of the reason for and facts concerning the applicability of a special tax rate within thirty (30) days to a fine of triple the underdeclared or undeclared taxable amount where it involves the kind of reduction or exemption of land value tax that fails to follow the criteria and procedure set forth in Article 6 of the Land Tax Act and the Regulation Governing the Reduction or Exemption of Land Tax, have clearly extended the imposition of penalties by means of regulations to those who are not specified by a punitive law. Furthermore, short of clear and definite authorization by law, the provisions are not consistent with the aforesaid principle of legal reservation and thus are in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution. Therefore, the foregoing provisions shall become void no later than one year from the date of this interpretation.
'Translated by Vincent C. Kuan.
今日瀏覽人數：4006 總瀏覽人數：9519620
|
帝謙高雄法律事務所 | 關於高雄律師 | 高雄法律顧問 | 高雄律師服務項目 | 不動產律師 | 高雄律師專欄 | 高雄律師法律諮詢 | 高雄律師最新消息 | 聯絡高雄律師 |
|
電話：(07)558-9090 傳真：(07)558-9010 地址：813 高雄市左營區明華一路350號11樓之2  Copyright © 2013-2015 Deep-Change Law Firm, All Rights Reserved 網頁設計:uuTaiwan |
友情連結 |
帝謙法律事務所是國內專業的律師事務所，我們提供專業的法律諮詢、民事訴訟、刑事訴訟、行政訴訟訴願、保險理賠、撰寫存證信函、律師信函、不動產法律、遺產繼承規劃、常年法律顧問、契約撰擬…及其他法律專案，高雄律師團隊經驗豐富、辦案認真，積極處理並以同理心處理每個客戶所委託的案件。