我國券商發行權證之課稅爭議—從釋字第 693 號解釋談起

Abstract

我國自民國 86 財政部證券暨期貨管理委員會核准國內券商發行「認購權 證」以及「認售權證」,因而財政部於同年分別發佈台財稅第 861909311 號函 及台財稅第 861922464 號函,分別針對券商於「權證發行時」所收取之「權利 金」及其後所生之避險成本費用、「權證發行後」持有人於市場上轉售,以及「權證到期時」持有人依履約價格向券商買進或賣出標的證券,以上等階段,如何 計算相關稅金,發佈解釋。由於在解釋函令的適用下,將券商在發行時收取之 權利金認定為應稅所得,但其後相關的避險成本費用卻另依證券交易所得免稅 之規定而不得自權利金收入中減除,造成券商「入不敷出」之絞殺性租稅,遂 引發實務上券商與國稅局之諸多爭訟,並出現大法官釋字第 693 號解釋。 雖然民國 96 增訂所得稅法第 24 條之 2,券商發行權證後,為履約及避險 所為之相關證券交易,產生之成本費用均得減除,然卻未溯及適用,使高達百 億之所得稅金額,依舊於實務上繼續引發爭議。 本文除欲藉由釋字第 693 號解釋討論我國券商發行權證之課稅爭議外,並 試圖從所得稅法第 24 條之 2 未增訂前,針對券商發行權證課稅之合法性,以 及所得稅法以第 24 條之 2 增訂後,尚在行政救濟程序中之案件應如何處理, 此等權證課稅相關問題進行研究,並試提出可供實務參考之看法。

Due to the Ministry of Finance’s approval of domestic brokerage firms’ warrant offering to the public in 1997, it sought to clarify tax issue surrounding warrant offerings by the publication of two interpretive decrees: No. 861909311 and 861922464. Regarding the various stages involved in the life cycle of a warrant—initial sales, post-sale risk management, circulation on secondary markets, and buyers’ exercise of the warrant, the publications recognized the premium from initial sales as taxable income, but refused to recognize the corresponding risk management costs as deductible. This taxation scheme made earning a profit nearly unobtainable for the brokerage firms’ warrant offerings, and sparked law suits against the government to recover undue taxes collected by the government. Ultimately, this led to Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 693, which found the publications as constitutional. Despite the addition of Article 24-2 to the Income Tax Act in 2007 after Judicial Yuan’s interpretation, which made the same risk management cost deductible under the new rule, the Act prevented its application retroactively. This means that the dispute involving billions of collected taxes remain active in the judicial processes. Besides an analysis based on Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 693 to gain insight into the taxation dispute surrounding brokerage firms’ warrant offerings, this thesis explores the legality of the pre-Article 24-2’s taxation scheme on this topic, and the corresponding judiciary argument for post-Article 24-2’s recognition of risk management cost in favor of the brokerage firms. Ultimately, it is hoped that this thesis will aid the legal practitioners in the resolution of the aforementioned dispute.