營利事業所得於財務會計與稅務會計之爭議－兼論司法院釋字第650號解釋及第657號解釋

Abstract

所得，是稅捐客體，也是課稅之標的，所得在財務會計及稅務會計上之概念有所不同。於財務會計上，所得係指會計所得，也稱之為財務所得，係根據營利事業於特定期間所發生之經濟交易事項產生之收入總額減去各項成本、費用、損失後之餘額；而稅務會計上所稱之所得，係依照財務會計一般公認會計原則所計算出之會計所得，並調整必要之永久性差異及暫時性差異後之結果，稱之為課稅所得，從而彼此間始終一直存在著差異。 而所得於衡量上可分為核實計算、核定所得與推估所得，其中以核實計算為主要衡量方法，也是目前被多數營利事業所採用；而核定所得與推估所得都是一種所得額計算之權宜方式。所得之構成要件有收入、成本、費用與損失，亦稱之為稅基，每一種稅基在財務會計與稅務會計上都有不同認列與處理方法。以收入而言，可分為營業收入與非營業收入，而就非營業收入中，利息收入和其他收入更是實務中常見的稅務爭訟項目。利息收入和其他收入於財務會計上之認列，以權責發生制為依據，然而在稅務會計上，利息收入可能有無需計入課稅所得者，如免稅利息收入、分離課稅利息收入，也有需額外計算增加課稅所得之利息收入，如設算利息收入；其他收入如本文所討論之應付費用轉列其他收入。因稅基是所得的構成要件，但凡涉及租稅構要件者，都必須有法律明文加以規定，限縮稅捐稽徵機關之解釋權，不得使之任意擴張解釋，更不得任意以實質課稅原則加以課處，租稅法律主義含括了法之安定性、預測可能性及可計算性等特性，俾保護納稅義務人之財產權。 由於設算利息收入及應付費用轉其他收入等情事，皆有營利事業不服稅捐稽徵機關之處分而提起行政救濟，最終因救濟未果而提起司法院大法官釋憲，因此分別做成司法院釋字第650號解釋及第657號解釋，宣告上開情事之規定因違反租稅法律主義而違憲失去效力，以致立法機關最後將上開情事分別增訂於所得稅法第24條之3及第24條第2項，將其位階自行政命令提升至法律保留，以符合上開司法院釋字之解釋意旨；惟美中不足的是，雖然取得了法律保留之地位，符合形式合法化，然而卻也產生實質正當性不足的問題。僅有形式合法化但實質正當性不足，倘若國家高權仍係僵化的依法行政、依法審判時，勢必產生一定程度之弊害。是以，本文認為除符合形式合法化之外，同時亦須符合實質正當性，就所得稅法第24條之3及第24條第2項重新加以審查、修訂，使其概念得以更加具體明確，俾利充分保護納稅義務人。

Income is not only the taxpaying object but also the subject of taxation. The concept of income is different in financial accounting and tax accounting. In financial accounting, income refers to accounting income, also known as financial income, which is the balance of the total income generated by economic transactions that occurred during a specific period of a profitable enterprise minus various costs, expenses, and losses. The income referred to in tax accounting is the accounting income calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles of financial accounting, and the result of adjusting the relevant permanent differences and temporary differences is called taxable income, there are always differences between each other. In terms of measurement, income can be divided into actual calculation, assessed income and estimated income. Actual calculation is the major method used by most profitable enterprises, both the assessed income and the estimated income are expedient way of calculating income . The components of income include income, costs, expenses, and losses, which are also called tax bases, each tax base has different recognitional methods in financial accounting and tax accounting. In terms of income, it can be divided into operating income and non-operating income. As for non-operating income, interest income and other income are common tax dispute items in practice. The recognition of interest income and other income in financial accounting is based on the accrual basis. However, in tax accounting, interest income may be rule out from taxable income, such as non-taxable interest income, taxed separately interest income, and additional interest income that needs to be calculated in taxable income, such as imputed interest income. Other income such as the expired payables. Since the tax base is a constituent element of income, all the constituent elements of taxation must be reserved by law to avoid Revenue Service Office expanding and arbitrarily imposing charges based on substance rule. Tax legalism provides legal stability, predictability, and calculability to taxpayers in order to protect their property rights. Due to the imputed interest income and the expired payables, all for-profit enterprise filed administrative remedies against Revenue Service Office even a petition for constitutional interpretation. Therefore, it was made the J.Y. Interpretation No.650 and No.657 to announce them are unconstitutional, and the Legislature Yuan finally added the Article 24-3 and Article 24 Item 2 in Income Tax Law respectively. But a fly in the ointment is that although it was reserved by law but its substantive legitimacy is insufficient. If the state is still rigid in administration and trial-by-legislature, it will inevitably infringe the institution. We found in addition to fit the formal legalization, it also must accord with substantive legitimacy to protect taxpayers fully.