國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

所得稅法上扣繳義務人權利保障之研究 = A Study on the R...

國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班

所得稅法上扣繳義務人權利保障之研究 = A Study on the Right Safeguard of Tax Withholder in Income Tax Act

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : 單行本
並列題名:	A Study on the Right Safeguard of Tax Withholder in Income Tax Act
作者:	黃燕玉,
其他團體作者:	國立高雄大學
出版地:	[高雄市]
出版者:	撰者;
出版年:	民100
面頁冊數:	156面表格 : 30公分;
標題:	所得稅稽徵
標題:	imposition of income tax
電子資源:	http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/60763082810891284328
附註:	參考書目：面141-146
摘要註:	租稅是國家基於課稅高權依據法律向人民強制徵收之金錢給付義務，以維持政府組織整體運作及提供各項公共財之需，因課稅是國家對人民財產權最主要之公權力干預之一，故租稅課徵應受基本權拘束。個人綜合所得稅課稅資料來源多樣而繁雜，部分課稅資料之釐清及相關課稅事實之實質掌握，均有賴扣繳義務人之參與及協力。就稅捐稽徵經濟原則考量，稅法已建構一套課予扣繳義務人應作為之相關規定，以達成就源課徵之目的。現行所得稅法規定以扣繳單位之負責人、單位主管、事業負責人、破產管理人等自然人為扣繳義務人，當其違反扣繳義務時，稽徵機關乃依所得稅法第94條、第114條規定命其負賠繳責任，及按應扣未扣稅額處以倍數的罰鍰，超過納稅義務人應繳的稅款。依比例原則，在有數方法可達相同行政目的時，行政機關應選擇對扣繳義務人成本最低之方法為之，否則，即有違憲之虞。其次，以扣繳單位之履行輔助人作為扣繳債務主體，明顯違反責任原則，責任原則為自主原則的派生原則，具有憲法位階。因此，所得稅法上扣繳義務人法律地位應如何界定、違反扣繳義務應如何處罰、對應扣未扣稅款連帶債務之求償順序，以及國家對扣繳義務衍生之債權執行有無侵害到扣繳義務人基本權是本論文研究之重點。亦即，當憲法第19條租稅法律主義及第23條人民基本權之限制，與憲法保障人民之基本權相衝突時，立法者應予權衡立法，以保障扣繳義務人的基本權。 Tax is based on the assessment of high-power in taxation, which is compulsorily collected from the imposition of people’s monetary paying obligations according to the law. The purpose of taxation is to maintain the overall operation in governmental organizations and to provide the necessities of public properties. Because taxation is one of the most public authorities in intervening people's properties, it should be restrained under the people’s fundamental right. Besides, since the individual comprehensive income tax originates from diverse and complex tax sources, the clarification and investigation in taxation data necessarily depend on the participation and assistance of tax paying persons. In fact, in considering the tax collection under the economical principle, tax law has constructed regulations to request and confine the “withholding agent” as to accomplish the purpose of taxation. Also, the current income tax law has regulated that the person in charge of that unit, the head person of that unit or the person in charge of that specific business, insolvency administrator etc. (legal natural person) are legally defined as “withholding agent”. Furthermore, when the legal natural person is against his obligation, according to income tax law act 94, 114 fact, tax authority not only has the right to order him to pay the original tax compensation, but also must enforce him to pay multiple fines of his original tax, which will be certainly over his tax bill. However, under the principle of proportionality, the administrative authority should choose the lowest cost for “withholding agent” while there exist several options for his penalty, otherwise it could be against the Constitution. Moreover, this would apparently be against the principle of liability by treating relative persons (in charge/head) of his “withholding unit” as the main objective of his withholding obligations, as well as against the principle of autonomy, which the principle of liability is derived from, and it stands the same position(level?) as the Constitution. In conclusion, the main purpose of this study is to focus on: how to define the legitimate position of “withholding agent” with his obligation in income tax? What is the penalty while he does not carry on his obligation? What should be the proper sequence when dealing with the claims of joint debt to the without deduction? of tax which should be withheld? Along with, whether it violates the basic human right of “withholding agent” when authority executes derivative claims to his obligation in withhold? That is; lawmakers should protect the basic right of “withholding agent” while balancing on the conflict between the Constitution Act 19 (tax principle) and Constitution Act 23 (Civil basic right).

所得稅法上扣繳義務人權利保障之研究 = A Study on the Right Safeguard of Tax Withholder in Income Tax Act
黃, 燕玉

所得稅法上扣繳義務人權利保障之研究 = A Study on the Right Safeguard of Tax Withholder in Income Tax Act / 黃燕玉撰 - [高雄市] : 撰者, 民100. - 156面 ; 表格 ; 30公分.
參考書目：面141-146.
所得稅稽徵imposition of income tax

所得稅法上扣繳義務人權利保障之研究 = A Study on the Right Safeguard of Tax Withholder in Income Tax Act
LDR:05656nam0a2200277 450 001 300325
005 20170214093918.0
009 300325
010 0 $b 精裝
010 0 $b 平裝
100 $a 20170214d2011 k y0chiy50 e
101 1 $a chi $d chi $d eng
102 $a tw
105 $a k am 000yy
200 1 $a 所得稅法上扣繳義務人權利保障之研究 $d A Study on the Right Safeguard of Tax Withholder in Income Tax Act $z eng $f 黃燕玉撰
210 $a [高雄市] $c 撰者 $d 民100
215 0 $a 156面 $c 表格 $d 30公分
300 $a 參考書目：面141-146
314 $a 指導教授：張永明博士
328 $a 碩士論文--國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班
330 $a 租稅是國家基於課稅高權依據法律向人民強制徵收之金錢給付義務，以維持政府組織整體運作及提供各項公共財之需，因課稅是國家對人民財產權最主要之公權力干預之一，故租稅課徵應受基本權拘束。個人綜合所得稅課稅資料來源多樣而繁雜，部分課稅資料之釐清及相關課稅事實之實質掌握，均有賴扣繳義務人之參與及協力。就稅捐稽徵經濟原則考量，稅法已建構一套課予扣繳義務人應作為之相關規定，以達成就源課徵之目的。現行所得稅法規定以扣繳單位之負責人、單位主管、事業負責人、破產管理人等自然人為扣繳義務人，當其違反扣繳義務時，稽徵機關乃依所得稅法第94條、第114條規定命其負賠繳責任，及按應扣未扣稅額處以倍數的罰鍰，超過納稅義務人應繳的稅款。依比例原則，在有數方法可達相同行政目的時，行政機關應選擇對扣繳義務人成本最低之方法為之，否則，即有違憲之虞。其次，以扣繳單位之履行輔助人作為扣繳債務主體，明顯違反責任原則，責任原則為自主原則的派生原則，具有憲法位階。因此，所得稅法上扣繳義務人法律地位應如何界定、違反扣繳義務應如何處罰、對應扣未扣稅款連帶債務之求償順序，以及國家對扣繳義務衍生之債權執行有無侵害到扣繳義務人基本權是本論文研究之重點。亦即，當憲法第19條租稅法律主義及第23條人民基本權之限制，與憲法保障人民之基本權相衝突時，立法者應予權衡立法，以保障扣繳義務人的基本權。 Tax is based on the assessment of high-power in taxation, which is compulsorily collected from the imposition of people’s monetary paying obligations according to the law. The purpose of taxation is to maintain the overall operation in governmental organizations and to provide the necessities of public properties. Because taxation is one of the most public authorities in intervening people's properties, it should be restrained under the people’s fundamental right. Besides, since the individual comprehensive income tax originates from diverse and complex tax sources, the clarification and investigation in taxation data necessarily depend on the participation and assistance of tax paying persons. In fact, in considering the tax collection under the economical principle, tax law has constructed regulations to request and confine the “withholding agent” as to accomplish the purpose of taxation. Also, the current income tax law has regulated that the person in charge of that unit, the head person of that unit or the person in charge of that specific business, insolvency administrator etc. (legal natural person) are legally defined as “withholding agent”. Furthermore, when the legal natural person is against his obligation, according to income tax law act 94, 114 fact, tax authority not only has the right to order him to pay the original tax compensation, but also must enforce him to pay multiple fines of his original tax, which will be certainly over his tax bill. However, under the principle of proportionality, the administrative authority should choose the lowest cost for “withholding agent” while there exist several options for his penalty, otherwise it could be against the Constitution. Moreover, this would apparently be against the principle of liability by treating relative persons (in charge/head) of his “withholding unit” as the main objective of his withholding obligations, as well as against the principle of autonomy, which the principle of liability is derived from, and it stands the same position(level?) as the Constitution. In conclusion, the main purpose of this study is to focus on: how to define the legitimate position of “withholding agent” with his obligation in income tax? What is the penalty while he does not carry on his obligation? What should be the proper sequence when dealing with the claims of joint debt to the without deduction? of tax which should be withheld? Along with, whether it violates the basic human right of “withholding agent” when authority executes derivative claims to his obligation in withhold? That is; lawmakers should protect the basic right of “withholding agent” while balancing on the conflict between the Constitution Act 19 (tax principle) and Constitution Act 23 (Civil basic right).
510 1 $a A Study on the Right Safeguard of Tax Withholder in Income Tax Act $z eng
610 0 $a 所得稅稽徵 $a 扣繳義務 $a 協力義務 $a 稅捐債務 $a 基本權保障
610 1 $a imposition of income tax $a withhold obligation $a cooperate obligation $a tax debt $a protection of basic civil right
681 $a 008M/0019 $b 380101 4441 $v 2007年版
700 1 $a 黃 $b 燕玉 $4 撰 $3 518732
712 0 2 $a 國立高雄大學 $b 法律學系碩士班 $3 166036
801 0 $a tw $b NUK $c 20111028 $g CCR
856 7 $z 電子資源 $2 http $u http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/60763082810891284328