論所得稅法之最低生存保障

Abstract

所得稅不得侵及最低生存所需，否則即屬侵害生存權。憲法第15條之生存權係指經濟基本權，不包含生命權。為確保權利實效性並考量國家資源有限性，理想上，生存權之保護範圍應趨近於最低生存保障，亦即最低限度合於人性尊嚴之基本生活，同時擴大承認其他社會權之憲法地位，以確保人性尊嚴不至於因最小化生存權之保障範圍而受到危殆。實務及學說對於生存權之探討往往聚焦於其社會權特性，亦即最低生存保障請求權，卻忽略其經濟基本權之內涵尚存在消極防禦面向，主要展現於所得稅法免稅額及扣除額之減除與強制執行程序維生必須財產之禁止執行。儘管最低生存保障隨政經環境變遷而異其內涵，然並非不得自基本國策加以探求，立法者對於生存權之具體實踐亦得反映當下之權利內涵。循此，將最低生存保障之防禦面向與給付面向同時置於憲法第15條之生存權，實益在於強化兩者之緊密關係，進而有助於開展較為完整之生存權釋義學。 司法院大法官釋字第415號解釋將所得稅法扶養親屬免稅額定性為租稅優惠，嗣於釋字第694號解釋承續此一見解，指明其為國家實現生存權之扶助措施，而釋字第701號解釋更擴及至醫藥費用扣除額。然由於釋字第694號及第701號解釋對於生存權之理解著重於課予國家義務之社會權特性，以致未能清楚認知免稅額及扣除額係為貫徹量能課稅原則；唯有認知生存權作為經濟基本權而具備防禦面向，為量能課稅原則之主觀淨所得原則之核心，方能正確認識所得稅法免稅額及扣除額制度之意旨為具體落實最低生存保障，乃國家課稅權不得侵及之稅課禁區，而非社會福利措施。 稅法作為乘載諸多價值之法體系，本身應與整體憲政秩序具備一貫之價值決定，在憲法統合下承接私法，並與社會法相互協調以完成社會法治國之任務。因此，國家於課徵個人所得稅時，首先務必確保個人之最低生活費不被課徵，並將納稅人之家庭存續納入稅課禁區。其次，最低生存保障之範圍雖有賴立法者依隨政經社會條件予以調整，惟基於憲法之人性觀及法秩序一體性，倘立法者業已於社會法做成基本生活所需之價值判斷，於稅法即不應為不同之判斷。 唯有貫徹最低生存保障在量能課稅原則上之實現，始能履踐婚姻及家庭制度性保障、確保稅法對私法之承接，以及最重要的：所有人民，毫無例外地，皆能在民主社會中，藉由最低生存條件之維持，享有自由權利得以實現之最基本地位，於社會生活及公共參與中，自我負責地做出自我決定、追求自我實現。

If necessities or expenses for basic living are imposed of income tax obligation, right of existence is infringed. Right of existence under Article 15 of the Constitution indicates economic fundamental right, rather than right to live. Due to the limited resources, the protection sphere (“Schutzbereich”) of right of existence is close to Existenzminimum, namely the basic living in accordance with human dignity, maintaining the effectivity of the right. Meanwhile, social rights should be regarded as constitutional rights. Current theories on right of existence focus on its function of claiming necessities for basic living, ignoring the function of procecting basic living from being interfered. Exemptions and deductions of individual income tax as well as prohibition of compulsory execution on basic living show the procecting function of right of existence. Despite that basic living standards change as the time goes, they could be understood from Fundamental National Policies of the Constitution and legislators’ current judgement. Theories on right of existence would be more complete if it contains both function of protection and that of claim. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 415 regards the exemption for an individual towards whom the taxpayer has legal support obligation as a privilege. Interpretaion No. 694 follows the opinion and points out the exemption as one of welfare measures to ensure people’s livelihood. Interpretaion No. 701 indicates deductions of medical expenses as another measure. However, the opinion that right of existence as State’s obligation rather than individual’s right under Interpretaion Nos. 694 and 701 fails to comprehend that the constitutional meaning of exemptions and deductions of individual income tax is to realize principle of ability-to-pay and ensure basic living, which is the protecting function of right of existence, prohibitting livelihood from being taxed. Exemptions and deductions of individual income tax are not social welfares. Tax laws are multi-values legal systems in accordance with constitutional values. Under the Constitution, tax laws accept private law and undertake social State’s obligations. Hense, the expense that taxpayers pay for maintaining their basic living in accordance with human dignity for themselves and their dependents shall not be taxed. Legislators are obliged to adjust basic living standards and are bound to make the same judgements made in social laws, on the basis of Menschenbild (picture of human beings) and consistency of legal systems. On the condition that Existenzminimum is ensured under the principle of ability-to-pay, institutional guarantee of marriages and families could be ensured, private law could be accepted by tax laws, and most importantly, all human beings could effectively have freedom and right, make decisions and realize themselves with their basic livings guaranteed.