A Study on the Burden of Proof for Business Entity obtaining fraudulent purchase invoice in the Value-added Business Tax Act

• Main Authors: Ku Chih Wen, 古智文
• Other Authors: 李桂秋
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2016
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/85405393013073651289

碩士 === 逢甲大學 === 合作經濟學系 === 104 === In accordance with Principle of Statutory Taxpaying, Article 19 of Constitution, tax collection shall be processed in accordance with laws, that is, all taxation can only be imposed to the taxpayer by tax collection agency with taxation fact, which is the element of tax. Therefore, the principle of recognition of taxation fact is very important. In case that taxation fact is still unknown after tax collection agency stops at nothing to conduct an investigation in accordance with principle of ex officio inquiries, the fact of who is responsible for the damaged right or benefits (i.e.burden of production) should be clarified and understood. The discussion core of this case is the burden of proofof related parties under the fact that thevalue added business operator takes a false inputevidence for thededuction of output tax,and it is further analyzed that the application of the distribution of the burden of proof when the taxationfacts to be provenare unclear. The distribution of the burden of proof in relevant judgments is sometimes treated differently due to characteristics of tax cases, such as large quantities of tax cases, considerations of tax economy, and the fact that most of the relevant materialsare stored within the scope the duty of the taxpayer; and in case that the actual judgmentwhich lacks fordetailed explanation of the distribution of the burden of proof and the discretion process of the court can hardly be accepted, a distribution rule of clear and easy to be followed should be made for reference of the related parties. In order to clarify the tax case of added value business operator taking false input evidencefor the output tax deduction and define the burden of proof of relatedparties, the legal background of fraudulentinput taxand the basic theories of burden of proof will be explained first in this article, followed by its application on tax law, with further investigation on the types of cases in whichbusiness operatorstake false evidence ofnon-real transaction object for the deduction of output tax, and distribution of burden of proof, with analysis of judgment of the tax administrative litigation cases in our country, combining with theoretical basis of the aforementioned chapters, to sum up the relationship between authority investigation, cooperated obligation, proof degree, burden of production, for the reference of practice of tax litigations, the improvement of professional knowledge of tax staffs, and the clarification of the burden of proof of both parties and related legal effect.With full communication with the taxpayer, the litigation can be alleviated effectively