重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(55)】非自行耕作者以農民名義購農業用地應補徵土地增值稅之財政部函釋合憲。
2014.4.24 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位：司法院
解釋字號：釋字第635號
解釋日期：民國96年11月30日
解釋爭點：非自行耕作者以農民名義購農業用地應補徵土地增值稅之財政部函釋違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1367 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 50 卷 2 期 2-16 頁
總統府公報 第 6781 號 21 頁
司法院大法官解釋續編（二十）第 443-463 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 143、15、19、7 條 ( 36.01.01 )
行政訴訟法 第 255、98 條 ( 87.10.28 )
土地稅法 第 18、28、39-2、49 條 ( 89.01.26 )
土地稅法 第 28-3 條 ( 90.06.13 )
信託法 第 1 條 ( 85.01.26 )
農業發展條例 第 27 條 ( 72.08.01 )
解釋文：
中華民國七十八年十月三十日修正公布之土地稅法第三十九條 之二第一項規定所為租稅之差別對待，符合憲法平等原則之要求。又財政部八十二年十月七日臺財稅第八二一四九八七九一號函，係主管機關依其法定職權就上開規 定所為之闡釋，符合立法意旨及國家農業與租稅政策，並未逾越對人民正當合理之稅課範圍，與法律明確性原則及憲法第七條、第十九條之規定，均無牴觸，亦未侵 害人民受憲法第十五條保障之財產權。
理由書：
憲法第十九條規定，人民有依法律納稅之義務，係指國家課人民以繳納稅捐之義務或給予人民減免稅捐之優惠時，應就租稅主體、租稅客體、稅基、稅率等租稅構成要件，以法律定之，惟法律之規定不能鉅細靡遺，有關課稅之技術性及細節性事項，尚非不得以行政命令為必要之釋示。故主管機關於職權範圍內適用之法律條文發生 疑義者，本於法定職權就相關規定予以闡釋，如係秉持相關憲法原則，無違於一般法律解釋方法，且符合各該法律之立法目的、租稅之經濟意義，即與租稅法律主 義、租稅公平原則無違（本院釋字第四二○號、第四六○號、第四九六號、第五一九號、第五九七號、第六○七號、第六二二號、第六二五號解釋參照）。又納稅義務人固應按其實質稅負能力，負擔應負之稅捐，惟為增進公共利益，以法律或其明確授權之命令，設例外或特別規定，給予特定範圍納稅義務人減輕或免除租稅之優 惠措施，而為有正當理由之差別待遇者，尚非憲法第七條規定所不許（本院釋字第五六五號解釋參照）。
憲法第一百四十三條第三項規定：「土地價值非因施以勞力資本而增加者，應由國家徵收土地增值稅，歸人民共享之。」故土地稅法第二十八條前段規定：「已規定地 價之土地，於土地所有權移轉時，應按其土地漲價總數額徵收土地增值稅。」惟國家對於土地之分配與整理，應以扶植自耕農及自行使用土地人為原則，憲法第一百 四十三條第四項定有明文，是七十二年八月一日修正公布之農業發展條例第二十七條規定：「農業用地在依法作農業使用期間，移轉與自行耕作之農民繼續耕作者， 免徵土地增值稅。」為資配合，七十八年十月三十日修正公布之土地稅法第三十九條之二第一項爰明定：「農業用地在依法作農業使用時，移轉與自行耕作之農民繼 續耕作者，免徵土地增值稅。」可知此係就自行耕作之農民取得農業用地者，予以免徵土地增值稅之獎勵。此乃立法者為確保農業之永續發展，促進農地合理利用與 調整農業產業結構所為之租稅優惠措施，其租稅優惠之目的甚為明確，亦有助於實現憲法第一百四十三條第四項規定之意旨。立法者就自行耕作之農民取得農業用 地，與非自行耕作者取得農業用地間，為租稅之差別對待，具有正當理由，與目的之達成並有合理關聯，符合憲法平等原則之要求。
農業用地在依法作農業使用時，移轉於非自行耕作之人，而以自行耕作之農民名義為所有權移轉登記者，不符土地稅法第三十九條之二第一項之上開立法意旨，自應依憲法第一百四十三條第三項及土地稅法第二十八條前段規定，於土地所有權移轉時，按其土地漲價總數額徵收土地增值稅。財政部八十二年十月七日臺財稅第八二一四九八七九一號函略謂：「取得免徵土地增值稅之農業用地，如經查明係第三者利用農民名義購買，應按該宗土地原免徵之土地增值稅額補稅。」乃主管機關本於法定職權，就土地稅法第三十九條之二第一項規定所為具體明確之解釋性行政規則，該函釋認依上開規定得免徵土地增值稅者，係以農業用地所有權移轉於自行耕作之農民為限，符合前述農業發展條例第二十七條、土地稅法第三十九條之二第一項之立法意旨及國家之農業與租稅政策，並未逾越對人民正當合理之稅課範圍，與法律 明確性原則及憲法第七條、第十九條之規定，均無牴觸，亦未侵害人民受憲法第十五條保障之財產權。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 635
Date：2007.11.30
Issue：Is the Ministry of Finance directive unconstitutional in construing that the farmland purchased in the name of a farmer by a person not engaging in self-tilling is taxable retroactively for increase in the land value?
Holding：
The differential tax treatment provided in the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1, as amended on October 30, 1989 is consistent with the principle of equality under the Constitution. The Ministry of Finance Directive No. Tai-Tsai- 821498791 of October 7, 1993, being intended to construe such statute by virtue of its statutory authority as the competent agency, is consistent with the legislative purpose of such statute as well as the agricultural and tax policies of the State without having gone beyond the scope of proper and reasonable taxation to be imposed on the people, and is not contrary to the principle of clarity of law and the provisions of Article 7 and Article 19 of the Constitution, nor does it jeopardize the people’s property right protected under Article 15 of the Constitution.
Reasoning：
The provision of Article 19 of the Constitution that the people shall have the duty to pay tax in accordance with law means that, in imposing on the people the duty to pay tax and allowing the people tax benefits in the form of exemption and reduction, the State must prescribe by law such constituent elements of taxation as the taxpaying bodies, taxable objects, tax bases, and tax rates. However, it is not feasible for the law to go into all the details, and necessary interpretations by way of administrative orders in relation to detail and technical matters of taxation are not disallowed. Where the competent agency has any doubt about the application of a statute within the scope of its power and issues a directive to interpret the law by virtue of its statutory authority, it is not against the principle of taxation by law and the principle of equal taxation insofar as such interpretation is made in adherence to the relevant principles embodied in the Constitution and in consistence with the general methods of interpretation of law, the legislative purpose of such law and the economic meaning of taxation. (See our holdings in J. Y. Interpretations Nos. 420, 460, 496, 519, 597, 607, 622 and 625). Furthermore, while taxpayers should pay taxes for which they are responsible based on their actual taxpaying ability, it is not disallowed by Article 7 of the Constitution to specify, with reasonable cause, differential treatment by way of exceptions or special provisions within the scope of discretion authorized by law to grant taxpayers of a particular class tax benefits in the form of tax reduction or exemption in order to promote the public interest (See J. Y. Interpretation No. 565).
It is provided in the Constitution, Article 143, Paragraph 3, that “If the value of a piece of land has increased, not through the exertion of labor or the employment of capital, the State shall levy thereon on increment tax, the proceeds of which shall be enjoyed by the people in common.” Thus, the Land Tax Act provides in Article 28, the first sentence, that “in the case of transfer of the ownership to a piece of land of which the price has been assessed, land value increment tax shall be levied on the basis of the total increased price of the land.” However, it is explicitly prescribed by the Constitution in Article 143, Paragraph 4, that in the distribution and readjustment of land the State shall in principle assist self-tilling landowners and persons who make use of the land by themselves. Hence, the Agricultural Development Act, Article 27, as amended on August 1, 1983, provides: “Farmland transferred during the time of its legal use for agricultural purposes to a self-tilling farmer for continued tilling is exempt from payment of the land value increment tax.” In alignment with the statute, the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1, as amended on October 30, 1983, provides: “Farmland transferred during the time of its legal use for agricultural purpose to a self-tilling farmer for continued tilling is exempt from payment of the land value increment tax.” It is an incentive in the form of exemption of the land value increment tax accorded to self-tilling farmers in the case of acquisition of farmland and is a measure of tax privilege adopted by the legislators to ensure permanent agricultural development, promote the rational utilization of farmland and adjust the structure of the agricultural industry. Its purpose of tax benefit is very clear and is helpful in achieving the aim intended by Article 143, Paragraph 4, of the Constitution. The differential tax treatment designed by the legislature between the acquisition of farmland by self-tilling farmers and by non-self-tilling persons is justifiable and is reasonably related with the achievement of the legislative purpose, and it is consistent with the principle of equality required by the Constitution.
Where a piece of farmland is transferred during the time of its legal use for agricultural purpose to a person not engaging in self-tilling, but the ownership thereto is registered in the name of a self-tilling farmer, such transfer is not consistent with the legislative purpose of the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1, cited above, and is of course taxable for the total amount of value increase of the land at the time of transfer under the Constitution in Article 143, Paragraph 3, and the Land Tax Act, Article 28, the first sentence. The Ministry of Finance Directive No. Tai-Tsai- 821498791 of October 7, 1993, requiring in brief that “if the acquisition of a farmland which is exempt from the land value increment tax is identified to have been made by a third person in the name of a farmer, it is taxable retroactively for the land value increment tax originally exempted for such land” is a specific and explicit administrative regulation of an interpretative nature established by the competent agency by virtue of its power and functions in relation to the provision of the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1. The directive, in maintaining that the land which is exempted from the land value increment tax is limited to farmland whose ownership is transferred to a self-tilling farmer, is consistent with the legislative purpose of the above-cited Agricultural Development Act, Article 27, and the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1, as well as the agricultural and taxation policies of the State, and has not gone beyond the scope of proper and reasonable taxation to be imposed on the people, nor does it conflict with the principle of clarity of law and the provisions of Article 7 and Article 19 of the Constitution or jeopardize the people’s property right protected under Article 15 of the Constitution.
Translation by Raymond T. Chu.
解釋字號：釋字第635號
解釋日期：民國96年11月30日
解釋爭點：非自行耕作者以農民名義購農業用地應補徵土地增值稅之財政部函釋違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1367 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 50 卷 2 期 2-16 頁
總統府公報 第 6781 號 21 頁
司法院大法官解釋續編（二十）第 443-463 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 143、15、19、7 條 ( 36.01.01 )
行政訴訟法 第 255、98 條 ( 87.10.28 )
土地稅法 第 18、28、39-2、49 條 ( 89.01.26 )
土地稅法 第 28-3 條 ( 90.06.13 )
信託法 第 1 條 ( 85.01.26 )
農業發展條例 第 27 條 ( 72.08.01 )
解釋文：
中華民國七十八年十月三十日修正公布之土地稅法第三十九條 之二第一項規定所為租稅之差別對待，符合憲法平等原則之要求。又財政部八十二年十月七日臺財稅第八二一四九八七九一號函，係主管機關依其法定職權就上開規 定所為之闡釋，符合立法意旨及國家農業與租稅政策，並未逾越對人民正當合理之稅課範圍，與法律明確性原則及憲法第七條、第十九條之規定，均無牴觸，亦未侵 害人民受憲法第十五條保障之財產權。
理由書：
憲法第十九條規定，人民有依法律納稅之義務，係指國家課人民以繳納稅捐之義務或給予人民減免稅捐之優惠時，應就租稅主體、租稅客體、稅基、稅率等租稅構成要件，以法律定之，惟法律之規定不能鉅細靡遺，有關課稅之技術性及細節性事項，尚非不得以行政命令為必要之釋示。故主管機關於職權範圍內適用之法律條文發生 疑義者，本於法定職權就相關規定予以闡釋，如係秉持相關憲法原則，無違於一般法律解釋方法，且符合各該法律之立法目的、租稅之經濟意義，即與租稅法律主 義、租稅公平原則無違（本院釋字第四二○號、第四六○號、第四九六號、第五一九號、第五九七號、第六○七號、第六二二號、第六二五號解釋參照）。又納稅義務人固應按其實質稅負能力，負擔應負之稅捐，惟為增進公共利益，以法律或其明確授權之命令，設例外或特別規定，給予特定範圍納稅義務人減輕或免除租稅之優 惠措施，而為有正當理由之差別待遇者，尚非憲法第七條規定所不許（本院釋字第五六五號解釋參照）。
憲法第一百四十三條第三項規定：「土地價值非因施以勞力資本而增加者，應由國家徵收土地增值稅，歸人民共享之。」故土地稅法第二十八條前段規定：「已規定地 價之土地，於土地所有權移轉時，應按其土地漲價總數額徵收土地增值稅。」惟國家對於土地之分配與整理，應以扶植自耕農及自行使用土地人為原則，憲法第一百 四十三條第四項定有明文，是七十二年八月一日修正公布之農業發展條例第二十七條規定：「農業用地在依法作農業使用期間，移轉與自行耕作之農民繼續耕作者， 免徵土地增值稅。」為資配合，七十八年十月三十日修正公布之土地稅法第三十九條之二第一項爰明定：「農業用地在依法作農業使用時，移轉與自行耕作之農民繼 續耕作者，免徵土地增值稅。」可知此係就自行耕作之農民取得農業用地者，予以免徵土地增值稅之獎勵。此乃立法者為確保農業之永續發展，促進農地合理利用與 調整農業產業結構所為之租稅優惠措施，其租稅優惠之目的甚為明確，亦有助於實現憲法第一百四十三條第四項規定之意旨。立法者就自行耕作之農民取得農業用 地，與非自行耕作者取得農業用地間，為租稅之差別對待，具有正當理由，與目的之達成並有合理關聯，符合憲法平等原則之要求。
農業用地在依法作農業使用時，移轉於非自行耕作之人，而以自行耕作之農民名義為所有權移轉登記者，不符土地稅法第三十九條之二第一項之上開立法意旨，自應依憲法第一百四十三條第三項及土地稅法第二十八條前段規定，於土地所有權移轉時，按其土地漲價總數額徵收土地增值稅。財政部八十二年十月七日臺財稅第八二一四九八七九一號函略謂：「取得免徵土地增值稅之農業用地，如經查明係第三者利用農民名義購買，應按該宗土地原免徵之土地增值稅額補稅。」乃主管機關本於法定職權，就土地稅法第三十九條之二第一項規定所為具體明確之解釋性行政規則，該函釋認依上開規定得免徵土地增值稅者，係以農業用地所有權移轉於自行耕作之農民為限，符合前述農業發展條例第二十七條、土地稅法第三十九條之二第一項之立法意旨及國家之農業與租稅政策，並未逾越對人民正當合理之稅課範圍，與法律 明確性原則及憲法第七條、第十九條之規定，均無牴觸，亦未侵害人民受憲法第十五條保障之財產權。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 635
Date：2007.11.30
Issue：Is the Ministry of Finance directive unconstitutional in construing that the farmland purchased in the name of a farmer by a person not engaging in self-tilling is taxable retroactively for increase in the land value?
Holding：
The differential tax treatment provided in the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1, as amended on October 30, 1989 is consistent with the principle of equality under the Constitution. The Ministry of Finance Directive No. Tai-Tsai- 821498791 of October 7, 1993, being intended to construe such statute by virtue of its statutory authority as the competent agency, is consistent with the legislative purpose of such statute as well as the agricultural and tax policies of the State without having gone beyond the scope of proper and reasonable taxation to be imposed on the people, and is not contrary to the principle of clarity of law and the provisions of Article 7 and Article 19 of the Constitution, nor does it jeopardize the people’s property right protected under Article 15 of the Constitution.
Reasoning：
The provision of Article 19 of the Constitution that the people shall have the duty to pay tax in accordance with law means that, in imposing on the people the duty to pay tax and allowing the people tax benefits in the form of exemption and reduction, the State must prescribe by law such constituent elements of taxation as the taxpaying bodies, taxable objects, tax bases, and tax rates. However, it is not feasible for the law to go into all the details, and necessary interpretations by way of administrative orders in relation to detail and technical matters of taxation are not disallowed. Where the competent agency has any doubt about the application of a statute within the scope of its power and issues a directive to interpret the law by virtue of its statutory authority, it is not against the principle of taxation by law and the principle of equal taxation insofar as such interpretation is made in adherence to the relevant principles embodied in the Constitution and in consistence with the general methods of interpretation of law, the legislative purpose of such law and the economic meaning of taxation. (See our holdings in J. Y. Interpretations Nos. 420, 460, 496, 519, 597, 607, 622 and 625). Furthermore, while taxpayers should pay taxes for which they are responsible based on their actual taxpaying ability, it is not disallowed by Article 7 of the Constitution to specify, with reasonable cause, differential treatment by way of exceptions or special provisions within the scope of discretion authorized by law to grant taxpayers of a particular class tax benefits in the form of tax reduction or exemption in order to promote the public interest (See J. Y. Interpretation No. 565).
It is provided in the Constitution, Article 143, Paragraph 3, that “If the value of a piece of land has increased, not through the exertion of labor or the employment of capital, the State shall levy thereon on increment tax, the proceeds of which shall be enjoyed by the people in common.” Thus, the Land Tax Act provides in Article 28, the first sentence, that “in the case of transfer of the ownership to a piece of land of which the price has been assessed, land value increment tax shall be levied on the basis of the total increased price of the land.” However, it is explicitly prescribed by the Constitution in Article 143, Paragraph 4, that in the distribution and readjustment of land the State shall in principle assist self-tilling landowners and persons who make use of the land by themselves. Hence, the Agricultural Development Act, Article 27, as amended on August 1, 1983, provides: “Farmland transferred during the time of its legal use for agricultural purposes to a self-tilling farmer for continued tilling is exempt from payment of the land value increment tax.” In alignment with the statute, the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1, as amended on October 30, 1983, provides: “Farmland transferred during the time of its legal use for agricultural purpose to a self-tilling farmer for continued tilling is exempt from payment of the land value increment tax.” It is an incentive in the form of exemption of the land value increment tax accorded to self-tilling farmers in the case of acquisition of farmland and is a measure of tax privilege adopted by the legislators to ensure permanent agricultural development, promote the rational utilization of farmland and adjust the structure of the agricultural industry. Its purpose of tax benefit is very clear and is helpful in achieving the aim intended by Article 143, Paragraph 4, of the Constitution. The differential tax treatment designed by the legislature between the acquisition of farmland by self-tilling farmers and by non-self-tilling persons is justifiable and is reasonably related with the achievement of the legislative purpose, and it is consistent with the principle of equality required by the Constitution.
Where a piece of farmland is transferred during the time of its legal use for agricultural purpose to a person not engaging in self-tilling, but the ownership thereto is registered in the name of a self-tilling farmer, such transfer is not consistent with the legislative purpose of the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1, cited above, and is of course taxable for the total amount of value increase of the land at the time of transfer under the Constitution in Article 143, Paragraph 3, and the Land Tax Act, Article 28, the first sentence. The Ministry of Finance Directive No. Tai-Tsai- 821498791 of October 7, 1993, requiring in brief that “if the acquisition of a farmland which is exempt from the land value increment tax is identified to have been made by a third person in the name of a farmer, it is taxable retroactively for the land value increment tax originally exempted for such land” is a specific and explicit administrative regulation of an interpretative nature established by the competent agency by virtue of its power and functions in relation to the provision of the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1. The directive, in maintaining that the land which is exempted from the land value increment tax is limited to farmland whose ownership is transferred to a self-tilling farmer, is consistent with the legislative purpose of the above-cited Agricultural Development Act, Article 27, and the Land Tax Act, Article 39-2, Paragraph 1, as well as the agricultural and taxation policies of the State, and has not gone beyond the scope of proper and reasonable taxation to be imposed on the people, nor does it conflict with the principle of clarity of law and the provisions of Article 7 and Article 19 of the Constitution or jeopardize the people’s property right protected under Article 15 of the Constitution.
Translation by Raymond T. Chu.
今日瀏覽人數：5193 總瀏覽人數：9520807
|
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。