公司合併下營利事業所得稅虧損扣除制度爭議 — 附論日本法比較

Abstract

所得稅法第39條規定企業於符合一定形式要件下，得將經該管稽徵機關核定之前10年內各期虧損，自本年度純益額中扣除再行核課。惟所得稅法並未規定當企業合併時，未扣除之虧損得否由合併後存續或新設公司繼承，繼續扣除之。大法官解釋第427號認定虧損扣除係租稅優惠的一種，故准否扣除屬於立法裁量範圍；然未扣除虧損，無法正確評估納稅義務人的所得多寡，不准扣除虧損等於是對不具有租稅負擔力的虧損部分課徵稅賦，且有重複課徵之嫌(往年盈餘部分先課一次、其後不准扣除虧損又再課徵一次)，故虧損扣除實為租稅法上「客觀營業淨所得原則」的表現，而非租稅優惠。 既肯認虧損扣除係客觀營業淨所得原則之表現，實為量能原則之體現，反映到稅法與私法的承接上，合併法制將兩個法人結合為一，承接於私法的租稅負擔原則上亦應予以整合；於正常交易情況下，合併前後法人的租稅負擔應該一致。企業併購法對於財產移轉不課以交易稅，對於企業合併的前後的所得稅負擔部分也應該一致，不應加重。被合併法人於合併時點未扣除完畢之虧損，是國家對保留盈餘，課徵超出其租稅負擔能力的稅捐；而該虧損扣除權對於被合併法人來說，是就將來所得能向國家主張扣除以往虧損部分的權利。被合併公司的法人格雖因合併而消滅，但企業合併的主旨既是使兩間公司為實質組織、業務以及資產上的相加，僅是選擇其中之一公司名義作為對外承擔權利義務的代表；那麼，因消滅公司合併而移轉給存續公司的資產之上，自然附著著國家超收的租稅負擔，既不得退稅予原公司，自應准予合併後消滅或新設公司自以後年度純益額中扣除。 現行企業併購法第38條雖准許合併後企業扣除以往虧損，然有二大問題：一、僅准許依原各該公司股東持有合併後存續或新設公司的股份比例扣除虧損，若企業以現金或其他非股份之財產作為合併對價，便失去虧損扣除的權利；但不論合併對價種類為何，對於存續或消滅公司已存在之虧損並無影響，不應有不一致的對待。第二、以換股比例作為扣除範圍的標準，則參與合併企業無論如何均無法百分之百扣除其原有虧損，蓋原各該公司股東並無法完全持有存續公司的所有股份，假設消滅公司股東持有20%、存續公司持有80%，則各該公司僅得扣除原20%、80%的虧損，此一制度形成對合併的租稅懲罰，較未合併更不利。 而就專為取得取稅利益而欠缺商業目的之合併，是否給予相同租稅待遇與法律上如何劃分標準，於第五章中亦提出修法建議，希望作為本文的小小貢獻。

Article 39 of the Income Tax Act prescribes that “losses incurred in the operation of business in previous shall not be included in the computation for the current year provided.” However, with some formal requirements, “taxation may be made on its net income after deduction of losses incurred in the preceding ten years as verified and determined by the local collection authority-in-charge.” There is no rule regarding how to deal with losses deduction under corporation mergers. Interpretation by the Grand Justice Meeting of the Judiciary, No. 427 indentified losses deduction as a kind of tax benefits, and therefore whether it should be permitted in the case of corporate mergers falls within the plenary powers of the legislature. However, the government cannot properly assess the amount of the taxpayer’s income without first taking losses deduction into calculation. Inhibiting losses deduction is accordingly equivalent to imposing the tax burden on the part without income. Therefore, losses deduction should essentially be classified as one of the factors in measuring taxpayer’s ability of taxation rather than a kind of tax benefits. In the Business Mergers And Acquisitions Act, the term “consolidation and merger” refers to an act wherein any and all companies involved pursuant to this Law or any other applicable law are dissolved, and a new company is incorporated to generally assume all rights and obligations of the dissolved companies; or by any company surviving the merger from all the companies involved (merger), with shares of the surviving or newly incorporated company or any other company, cash or other assets as the consideration. Given that this act involves no transaction generating profit or income, the income tax burden levied before and after the merger of corporations must be consistent. The losses that the dissolved company has not fully deducted are a taxation imposed by the Country on the taxpayer which is beyond his capacity. The dissolved company therefore has a right to reclaim it to the Country. The substance of mergers is integrating the organizations, businesses and assets of two companies, while selecting one of the two as the representative to the original rights and obligations. In light of this, the right of losses deduction attaching to the assets of the dissolved company transfers to the surviving company through the act of merger; hence the surviving company should be allowed to claim the right after the merger. Although Article 38 of the Business Mergers And Acquisitions Act permits surviving companies to deduct the losses incurred before the merger, two issues still remain unresolved as the provision mandates the amount of losses deduction to be calculated in pro rata of the equities of the surviving company or the newly incorporated company held by each corporate shareholder due to the merger. First, companies using cash or other non-stock assets as the consideration of mergers will not allow claiming the right for loss deduction. Second, companies participating in a merger will not be able to fully deduct all the losses incurred before the merger, and thus are caught in a more disadvantageous status after the accomplishment of a merger. Merge made in respect of tax benefit but lack of commercial purpose, whether to grant the same tax treatment and how to dive the line from the law or regulation, some proposal amending the law all written in Chapter 5.