結構型商品課稅爭議之研究—以個人投資收益為中心

Abstract

關於個人投資於結構型商品投資收益課稅之問題，實務上迭生爭議者為：證券商所發行之結構型商品、銀行業者所發行之結構型存款、保險業者所發行之投資型保險、投信業者所發行之保本型基金以及國外金融機構所發行之海外連動債等金融商品間，其同為結構型商品，然僅因發行主體之不同，其個人投資收益稅捐負擔即因而有所不同，此對於市場上就同類型商品之競爭，顯有因稅捐待遇之因素而造成市場競爭上之不利，有違稅捐中立性之原則。 就此，本文之研究目的在於，釐清是否有前述：僅因發行主體之不同，即導致同類型商品投資收益稅捐負擔不一致而有不合理之情形？就研究方法上，本文則先就結構型商品為定義；其次，再分別就相關爭議商品投資收益課稅之實然面及應然面為分析比較，以判斷其金融商品性質是否同一、投資收益之性質是否相同。若投資收益性質相同，則應討論者為，其稅捐負擔不一致是否有理由？

就結論上而言，本文認為上開爭議金融商品雖非均屬於金融法上「結合固定收益商品與非固定收益商品」之「狹義之結構型商品」；然就所得稅法之角度觀之，則其均為本文所謂「結合利息收入與財產交易所得」之「廣義之結構型商品」，從而原則上應負擔相同之所得稅負。 惟關於其稅捐負擔不一致是否有理由部分，本文認為仍應視具體情形而為判斷，尤其係在肯認稅捐優惠規範存在之前提下，稅捐負擔不一致是否合理，更應取向於稅捐優惠之立法意旨為標準。從而，因發行主體之不同而致稅捐負擔有所不同並非必然均為不合理之現象，故本文即試圖就此部分為說明，以希冀能夠對此稅捐負擔衡平性之爭議產生一定之釐清效果，並對於不合理部分提出改善之建議。

Referring to the individual income tax liability on personal investment revenue from the investment of structured instruments, there have been numerous debates repeatedly arisen in financial market practice from the following issue: structured notes issued by integrated securities firms, structured deposits issued by banks, investment-oriented insurance products issued by insurance corporations, principal-guaranteed funds issued by securities investment trust companies, and structured notes issued by foreign financial institutes are all deemed “structured instruments,” but the individual income tax liability on personal investment revenue from these financial products are different simply due to the difference of the issuers. Different tax treatments to the same taxation facts are obviously harmful to the equality of market competition, and that is against the principle of tax neutrality. Thus, the goal of this thesis is to figure out that if the inequitable situation mentioned above is acctually existent? The study steps of this thesis are shown below: firstly, in this thesis I try to conclude a definition of “structured instrument” in the standpoint of financial law; secondly, I would like to analyze and compare the being with the ought-to-be of the taxation of personal investment revenue frome these financial products respectively to see if the natures of these financial products and the natures of the investment revenue from these financial products are equal or not; finally, if the natures of the investment revenue from these financial products are similar, then the following question is: is there any legitimate reason for the difference of tax burden? As a conclusion, this study shows that these financial products which have been discussed above, in the standpoint of financial law, are not all “the narrow sense of structured instrument” which is“ composed of a fixed income financial instrument and non-fixed income financial instrument( derivatives);” in the standpoint of income tax law, however, these are all “the broad sense of structured instrument,” so-called in this thesis, which is“ composed of income from interest and income from property transactions.” Consequently, the personal investment revenue from these financial products shall in principle be levied the same individual income tax burden. Nevertheless, as regards the legitimate reasonableness of the difference in tax burden, it is considered in this thesis that it shall take account of every specific situation. Especially when tax incentives have been acknowledged as in accordance with the order of Constitution, the issue that is the difference reasonable then should depend on the legislation intend of tax incentive statutes. In other words, different tax burdens result from different issuers of financial instruments are not definitely unreasonable. Thus, in this thesis I try to analyze this quiestion, and hope the discussion of this study could have an effect on figuring out the debate on the principle of equality in tax. In the meantime, I also hope to provide some suggestions through this study for improving the unreasonable part of this issue.