從憲法保障人民基本權論商業年金保險與稅捐規避之界線

Abstract

近些年來各國面對全球經濟不景氣，除了加深了世代類別之不公平，並引起了職業類別的對立。而台灣社會也正面臨勞工平均薪資偏低、壽命大幅延長等問題。從憲法層次來觀察，國家理應保障人民之基本權，特別是本論文主要特探老年經濟安全部分，這也是社會法治國極力所追求之目標。 本篇論文從透過個人投保商業年金保險來規劃未來生存給付照顧自己或遺族，搭配稅法上給與其稅捐優惠，來分析這或許是一個可以考慮的政策方向。所得稅法第4條第1項第7款、遺產及贈與稅法第16條第9款、保險法第112條(人壽保險)、第135條(傷害保險)、第135條之3(年金保險)所規定的保險給付即為一事例。 然而，在所得基本稅額條例施行後，依目前現行該條例第12條第1項第2款，其設立死亡給付每一個申報戶全年新台幣3000萬以下免計入之門檻。如果從過往稅捐機關保守思維推測，毋寧是對於保險法上各項租稅優惠採取防堵的觀念，另外稽徵實務上常依賴之實質課稅原則，也會使人質疑人身保險給付是否還有免稅之功能。 其實國家怠於對保單定課稅或免稅要件來做合理規範，就疑似稅捐規避行為一律調整，無意迴避構成要件明確之責任。因此，保險給付在稅法上真正的問題點為各項保險給付是否合於稅法上給予租稅優惠之目的，否則日後利用保單逃避稅捐之情形仍不斷發生。稽徵實務上就稅捐規避之認定多半以被繼承人投保時年紀已高，顯係利用生前病危時投繳鉅額保費，且按其投保動機、時程及金額判斷，有蓄意規劃投保人身壽險藉以規避遺產稅及達到移轉財產之目的，故與保險法第112條意旨未符，否定保險契約之功能，實則這正是迭生爭議之由來。 就結論上，本文就影響被保險人或死亡受益人的所得稅與遺產稅兩種去檢討人身保險給付在稅法上之關係，分析現行保險給付稅捐優惠額度過寬之問題，並提供建議檢驗稅捐規避之可能性，將超過最低生活保障之保費扣除額及保險給付免稅，定義成為一社會目的之稅捐優惠，並加以檢驗及提出鼓勵發展商業年金保險契約之功能這項想法，並就可能產生過度稅捐優惠疑慮，採取保險之死亡給付應依不同受益人來差別免稅、就保險之生存給付延後領取年齡兩項建議。

In recent years, the other nations have faced global economic downturn, in addition to deepening unfair generation category, and also caused occupational categories opposition. Taiwan society is facing a low average salary workers, significantly prolong life and other issues. From level of the Constitution, the state should guarantee the basic right of the people, especially the elderly about special economic security section, which is the country's social objectives pursued by the law vigorously. This thesis, analyzing from insurance business to plan for the future survival through personal care for themselves or survivor benefit, with tax concessions to its tax law, may be a policy direction that can be considered. Income Tax Law Article 4, paragraph 1, paragraph 7, Estate and Gift Tax Law Article 16, paragraph 9, the Insurance Law Section 112 (life insurance), section 135 (accident insurance), Section 135 of the three (pension insurance) are examples. However, the Income Basic Tax Regulations would be in accordance with currently existing under section 12, paragraph 1, section 2, which set up a declaration of death benefit per household annual NT $ 30 million or less free threshold credited. If the tax authorities speculate on tax avoidance with the substance of the principles of taxation, people would question whether there is life insurance payments tax-free function. In fact, real problems for the insurance benefits on tax law are insurance purposes. On the collection practices to identify the doubted tax avoidance, the insureds’ high age, the wholesale premium and their insurance motives, duration and insurance coverage , are factors concerned. Once fitting decided judgments, the authorities may deny the functions of the insurance contracts. On the conclusion of this article on the impact of the income tax, estate tax, or death of the insured and beneficiaries, we analyze that the existing tax preferences in insurance are too wide, and provide recommendations to inspect tax avoidance. Besides, we think the minimum living guarantee of premium deductions and tax-free insurance benefits belong to social purpose. To encourage the development of commercial annuity insurance and exclude doubts about tax avoidance, insurance death benefit shall be different between various beneficiaries.