| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立雲林科技大學 === 會計系 === 103 === The newly amended provisions of the Tax Collection Law 12-1 published on May 13, 2009, declared that the taxation should follow Principle of Substantive Taxation. But the rules adopted by the tax authorities leaded to a lot of disputes. Therefore, this research is about to study the theory and the applicability of Principle of Substantive
Taxation. This study analyzed the recent dispute from the domestic scholars on the
applicability that taxation authorities use the Principle of Substantive Taxation through
the case study. Moreover, this research proved it by the three cases of actual estate
transactions. This three cases research were focus on the analysis of Principle of
Statutory Taxpaying and the Principle of Substantive Taxation and found some
weakness when Revenue Service Office audit the tax event.:
1、Revenue Service Office usually use the Principle of Substantive Taxation to replace the tax rules, and they do selective applicable because of different cases, if this case decisions were favorable to them, they will use the Principle of Substantive Taxation, or they will use the Principle of Statutory Taxpaying. This will cause the inconsistent of the adoption of the Principle of Substantive Taxation.
2、Although the Revenue Service Office don’t have the effective evidences , they also use the reson of the Principle of Substantive Taxation to tax or to punish. And this
behavior cause widespread discontent.
Therefore this study raise three suggestions in the final:
1、The application of “Principle of Substantive Taxation” should obey the Principle of Statutory Taxpaying.
2、Revenue Service Office should follow the Presumptive Taxation Policy and be responsible for the burden of proof, if not any evidence, we should not require any extra punishment instance of overdue tax payment.
3、The application of the logic on the “Principle of Substantive Taxation” should be consistent.
|
|---|
