輔仁法學第67期
| 論著名稱 | 編著譯者 |
|---|---|
| 公司減資法制之研究 | 戴銘昇 |
減資在近年來已成為上市櫃公司常用之手段，而且規模不斷擴大，甚至將股東之股份減至未滿一股，作為驅逐股東及經營權爭奪之手段。已對股東及公司債權人造成極大的影響。而我國之減資法制，部分規定自民國55年至今未曾更動，更顯見有參考其他國家法制修正之必要。在美國法，實收資本及減資制度存廢成為各州公司法立法上少見的重大分歧，許多州已參考模範商業公司法將減資制度廢止，但是我國法最常參考的德拉瓦州及紐約州法均仍保留此制。日本會社法之制度也是比較偏向該二州法，除了將減資制度予以保留外，共同之處是均僅承認所謂的形式減資。反觀我國，近年來實務上不斷衍生的爭議，例如巨幅現金減資、強制銷除股份、畸零股等問題，正是承認實質減資所致，本文建議參考外國法盡速通盤修正減資法制。
關鍵詞：實收資本、法定資本、公積、票面金額、庫藏股
Capital reduction has become a familiar tool to the listed companies, and the magnitude is growing bigger and bigger, even caused one shareholder’s shareholding became below one share, turning into a scheme of competition for corporate management rights. It has caused shareholders and creditors great influence. There are some articles remain unchanged since 1966 within the capital reduction regime of Taiwan, this shows the urgent need to modify Company Act referring to other nation’s statutes. Before 1980, Model Business Corporation Act not only adopted stated capital, earned surplus, capital surplus, but also permitted capital reduction. The capital structures became more complex, because capital raised through the issuing new shares became to be routinely classified as capital surplus rather than stated capital, it caused the economic capital of company is far more than the so-called stated capital. The legal capital structure is no longer able to protect creditors. Therefore, in 1980, Model Business Corporation Act abolished legal capital structure and its related regimes, such as capital reduction, the difference between the categories of every kind of surplus, par value, treasury share. After 1980, the differences between state’s Corporation Law legislation regarding stated capital and capital reduction are huge, this situation is quite rare even in America, although many states’ Corporation Laws have abolished capital reduction regime following Model Business Corporation Act, but the most important state laws to Taiwan - Delaware General Corporation Law and New York Business Corporation Law - both reserve capital reduction regime. Japanese Company Law also favor the legislation of Delaware General Corporation Law and New York Business Corporation Law, the all preserve the capital reduction regime, and only admit the so-called formal capital reduction. On the contrary, the constant issues arising in Taiwan, such as huge cash capital reduction, compulsory cancellation of shares, fractional shares, these issues are deriving from substantial capital reduction; this article suggests we refer to U.S. and Japanese laws to modify capital reduction regimes thoroughly and as soon as possible.
Keywords: Stated Capital, Legal Capital, Surplus, Par Value, Treasury Share
關鍵詞：實收資本、法定資本、公積、票面金額、庫藏股
Capital reduction has become a familiar tool to the listed companies, and the magnitude is growing bigger and bigger, even caused one shareholder’s shareholding became below one share, turning into a scheme of competition for corporate management rights. It has caused shareholders and creditors great influence. There are some articles remain unchanged since 1966 within the capital reduction regime of Taiwan, this shows the urgent need to modify Company Act referring to other nation’s statutes. Before 1980, Model Business Corporation Act not only adopted stated capital, earned surplus, capital surplus, but also permitted capital reduction. The capital structures became more complex, because capital raised through the issuing new shares became to be routinely classified as capital surplus rather than stated capital, it caused the economic capital of company is far more than the so-called stated capital. The legal capital structure is no longer able to protect creditors. Therefore, in 1980, Model Business Corporation Act abolished legal capital structure and its related regimes, such as capital reduction, the difference between the categories of every kind of surplus, par value, treasury share. After 1980, the differences between state’s Corporation Law legislation regarding stated capital and capital reduction are huge, this situation is quite rare even in America, although many states’ Corporation Laws have abolished capital reduction regime following Model Business Corporation Act, but the most important state laws to Taiwan - Delaware General Corporation Law and New York Business Corporation Law - both reserve capital reduction regime. Japanese Company Law also favor the legislation of Delaware General Corporation Law and New York Business Corporation Law, the all preserve the capital reduction regime, and only admit the so-called formal capital reduction. On the contrary, the constant issues arising in Taiwan, such as huge cash capital reduction, compulsory cancellation of shares, fractional shares, these issues are deriving from substantial capital reduction; this article suggests we refer to U.S. and Japanese laws to modify capital reduction regimes thoroughly and as soon as possible.
Keywords: Stated Capital, Legal Capital, Surplus, Par Value, Treasury Share
壹、前言
貳、美國減資法制
一、模範商業公司法
二、德拉瓦州公司法
三、紐約州公司法
四、其餘州法
參、日本減資法制
一、準備金與剩餘金之概念
二、減少實收資本
三、減少準備金
四、減少剩餘金
五、債權人保護程序
六、減資無效訴訟
肆、我國減資法制及法制比較
一、減資方式
二、減資程序
三、減資法制比較
伍、問題研究（附論）
一、現金減資與強制銷除股份制度衍生的問題
二、減資與增資同時進行是否應變更章程？
三、彈性面額制的問題
陸、結論
貳、美國減資法制
一、模範商業公司法
二、德拉瓦州公司法
三、紐約州公司法
四、其餘州法
參、日本減資法制
一、準備金與剩餘金之概念
二、減少實收資本
三、減少準備金
四、減少剩餘金
五、債權人保護程序
六、減資無效訴訟
肆、我國減資法制及法制比較
一、減資方式
二、減資程序
三、減資法制比較
伍、問題研究（附論）
一、現金減資與強制銷除股份制度衍生的問題
二、減資與增資同時進行是否應變更章程？
三、彈性面額制的問題
陸、結論
| 論著名稱 | 編著譯者 |
|---|---|
| 以計畫與徵收之關係談先行區段徵收制度之合憲性問題─以新設都市地區實施開發建設為中心 | 李明芝 |
本文聚焦以「新設都市地區實施開發建設」為由之「先行區段徵收制度」，並以區段徵收與都市計畫之關係為中心，討論：（1）此類型區段徵收制度的徵收公益為何？是否來自都市計畫？（2）應如何在徵收個案審查中看待計畫與徵收之間之關係？先行區段徵收制度是否違反憲法對徵收應合於最嚴謹程序之要求？本文先探究先行區段徵收制度之起源與變遷，並檢視先行區段徵收制度中都市計畫與區段徵收之關係；又日本法就計畫公益與徵收公益差異之研究成果，可提供我國另一視角，因此本文接續討論日本法中計畫與徵收之關係；最後試圖從計畫與徵收論檢視我國先行區段徵收之合憲性問題。
基於上開討論，本文認為計畫公益與徵收公益不同，並指出：（1）以「新設都市地區實施開發建設」為區段徵收之發動原因，無論是新設都市地區或都市計畫皆難以成為徵收公益而為剝奪人民財產權之理由，而先行區段徵收竟進一步在都市計畫尚未完全確定時就先進行徵收，更不具正當性；（2）計畫公益雖不等同於徵收公益，但與計畫合致性之要求應作為徵收程序之合法性要件之一，先行區段徵收僅因行政便利性為理由而排除都市計畫法第52條之適用，可能違反憲法對徵收應合於最嚴謹程序之要求。
關鍵詞：先行區段徵收、都市計畫、計畫公益、徵收公益、日本土地收用法、日本都市計畫法、日本都市計畫事業
In Taiwan’s past, there have been many cases of “zone expropriation in advance”, ostensibly for the needs of newly established urban areas. The legislation permitting these seizures of property can be found in Article 4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Land Expropriation Act in Taiwan. The term “zone expropriation in advance” refers to government seizures of property prior to the formal announcement and implementation of urban planning.
This article focuses on the “zone expropriation in advance” based on “newly established urban area undergoing development and construction” with a central emphasis on the relationship between zone expropriation and urban planning. The discussion includes the following points: (1) What is the public interests in this type of zone expropriation system, and does it originate from urban planning? (2) How should the relationship between planning and expropriation be considered in the examination of expropriation cases? Does the “zone expropriation in advance” violate the constitutional requirement that expropriation should adhere to the most rigorous procedures? This paper first explores the origin and changes of the “zone expropriation in advance”, and examines the relationship between urban planning and zone expropriation in the system of “zone expropriation in advance”; then discusses Japan's urban planning and expropriation theory which can provide another perspective for discussing the difference of public interests between urban planning and expropriation; finally, this paper tries to examine the problems of “zone expropriation in advance”.
Based on the above discussion, this paper considers that the public interests of urban planning is different from the public interests of expropriation, and puts forward the following problems about “zone expropriation in advance”: (1) Using “newly established urban area undergoing development and construction” as the rationale for initiating zone expropriation is difficult to justify the deprivation of people’s property rights as a legitimate reason for expropriation, whether in newly established urban areas or urban planning. Moreover, “zone expropriation in advance” implemented before the full determination of urban planning, lacks legitimacy; (2) While the public interests of urban planning cannot serve as the public interests of expropriation, the consistency with the urban planning can be one of the elements for the legality of expropriation. Therefore, “zone expropriation in advance” may violate the constitutional requirement that expropriation should follow the strictest procedures.
Keywords: Zone Expropriation in Advance, Urban Planning, the Public Interests of Urban Planning, The Public Interests of Expropriation, Japan’s Expropriation of Land Act, Japan’s City Planning Law, Japan’s Urban Redevelopment Projects
基於上開討論，本文認為計畫公益與徵收公益不同，並指出：（1）以「新設都市地區實施開發建設」為區段徵收之發動原因，無論是新設都市地區或都市計畫皆難以成為徵收公益而為剝奪人民財產權之理由，而先行區段徵收竟進一步在都市計畫尚未完全確定時就先進行徵收，更不具正當性；（2）計畫公益雖不等同於徵收公益，但與計畫合致性之要求應作為徵收程序之合法性要件之一，先行區段徵收僅因行政便利性為理由而排除都市計畫法第52條之適用，可能違反憲法對徵收應合於最嚴謹程序之要求。
關鍵詞：先行區段徵收、都市計畫、計畫公益、徵收公益、日本土地收用法、日本都市計畫法、日本都市計畫事業
In Taiwan’s past, there have been many cases of “zone expropriation in advance”, ostensibly for the needs of newly established urban areas. The legislation permitting these seizures of property can be found in Article 4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Land Expropriation Act in Taiwan. The term “zone expropriation in advance” refers to government seizures of property prior to the formal announcement and implementation of urban planning.
This article focuses on the “zone expropriation in advance” based on “newly established urban area undergoing development and construction” with a central emphasis on the relationship between zone expropriation and urban planning. The discussion includes the following points: (1) What is the public interests in this type of zone expropriation system, and does it originate from urban planning? (2) How should the relationship between planning and expropriation be considered in the examination of expropriation cases? Does the “zone expropriation in advance” violate the constitutional requirement that expropriation should adhere to the most rigorous procedures? This paper first explores the origin and changes of the “zone expropriation in advance”, and examines the relationship between urban planning and zone expropriation in the system of “zone expropriation in advance”; then discusses Japan's urban planning and expropriation theory which can provide another perspective for discussing the difference of public interests between urban planning and expropriation; finally, this paper tries to examine the problems of “zone expropriation in advance”.
Based on the above discussion, this paper considers that the public interests of urban planning is different from the public interests of expropriation, and puts forward the following problems about “zone expropriation in advance”: (1) Using “newly established urban area undergoing development and construction” as the rationale for initiating zone expropriation is difficult to justify the deprivation of people’s property rights as a legitimate reason for expropriation, whether in newly established urban areas or urban planning. Moreover, “zone expropriation in advance” implemented before the full determination of urban planning, lacks legitimacy; (2) While the public interests of urban planning cannot serve as the public interests of expropriation, the consistency with the urban planning can be one of the elements for the legality of expropriation. Therefore, “zone expropriation in advance” may violate the constitutional requirement that expropriation should follow the strictest procedures.
Keywords: Zone Expropriation in Advance, Urban Planning, the Public Interests of Urban Planning, The Public Interests of Expropriation, Japan’s Expropriation of Land Act, Japan’s City Planning Law, Japan’s Urban Redevelopment Projects
壹、前言
貳、先行區段徵收之制度變遷及現行規定
一、先行區段徵收相關法制度之起源與變遷
二、從實務變遷看先行區段徵收之出現
三、現行先行區段徵收關於計畫與徵收關係之規定
參、日本之都市計畫與徵收論
一、日本都市計畫制度及都市計畫事業之徵收制度
二、「計畫公共性論」的出現及其批評
三、都市計畫事業徵收之個案判斷
四、小結：日本都市計畫與徵收論及我國制度之比較與啟示
肆、從計畫與徵收論檢視我國先行區段徵收之問題
一、層次一：以新設都市地區實施開發建設為由的先行區段徵收制度的徵收公益為何？
二、層次二：具體徵收個案中計畫與徵收之關係為何？先行區段徵收是否違反「與計畫之合致性」之要求？
伍、結論
貳、先行區段徵收之制度變遷及現行規定
一、先行區段徵收相關法制度之起源與變遷
二、從實務變遷看先行區段徵收之出現
三、現行先行區段徵收關於計畫與徵收關係之規定
參、日本之都市計畫與徵收論
一、日本都市計畫制度及都市計畫事業之徵收制度
二、「計畫公共性論」的出現及其批評
三、都市計畫事業徵收之個案判斷
四、小結：日本都市計畫與徵收論及我國制度之比較與啟示
肆、從計畫與徵收論檢視我國先行區段徵收之問題
一、層次一：以新設都市地區實施開發建設為由的先行區段徵收制度的徵收公益為何？
二、層次二：具體徵收個案中計畫與徵收之關係為何？先行區段徵收是否違反「與計畫之合致性」之要求？
伍、結論
| 論著名稱 | 編著譯者 |
|---|---|
| 論民事訴訟和解之效力 | 張文郁 |
依民事訴訟法之規定，訴訟和解係原告與被告於訴訟繫屬中，在受訴法院、審判長、受命法官或受託法官之前，就訴訟標的之全部或一部以終結訴訟並解決實體權利爭執之意思，互相讓步而締結之（實體以及）訴訟契約。訴訟和解主要具有兩項作用，其一為終結訴訟關係，其二則為合意解決當事人間之實體權利爭議。由於前者涉及訴訟關係，具有訴訟法之性質，而後者則針對實體權利、義務，是以具有實體法之性質，因此，訴訟和解同時具有實體法及訴訟法兩元性質。然而，訴訟和解屬於當事人針對訴訟標的所締結之契約，和法院就訴訟標的所為之判決係屬於國家高權之司法行為不同，存在本質上差異。民事訴訟法第三八零條第一項規定，訴訟和解與確定判決具有同一之效力，此規定理論上不無商榷之處，蓋不應將契約性質之訴訟和解之效力規定為具有與確定判決相同之效力，以致在訴訟法理論及實務操作上出現適用之疑義，例如在分割共有物訴訟之訴訟和解，是否亦應具確定判決之效力，即有問題。此種規定令實務操作產生難以解決之爭議，應有修正之必要。
關鍵詞：訴訟和解之性質、和解標的、訴訟標的、和解之效力、與確定判決相同之效力
A settlement of litigation is according the civilproccedural Code concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant in the litigation system, before the court sued, the presiding judge, the appointed judge or the entrusted judge, with respect to each other's concessions (substantive and) with the intention of ending the litigation and resolving the dispute over substantive rights (substantive and) before the court sued, the presiding judge, the appointed judge or the entrusted judge deed of Litigation. Litigation settlement has two main functions, one is to terminate the litigation relationship, and the other is to resolve the substantive rights dispute between the parties by consensus. Since the former involves litigation relationships and has the nature of procedural law, while the latter has the nature of substantive law for substantive rights and obligations, litigation settlement has the dual nature of substantive law and procedural law. However, litigation settlement is a contract concluded by the parties against the subject matter of the litigation, and there is a fundamental difference between the judgment made by the court on the subject matter of the litigation and the judicial act of the high power of the state. Paragraph 1 of Article 380 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that litigation settlement and determination judgment have the same effect, and this provision is not without debatable in theory, and it should not stipulate that the effect of litigation settlement of a contractual nature has the same effect as that of determining a judgment, so that doubts arise in the theory and practice of procedural law, such as whether litigation settlement in a litigation for the division of common property should also have the effect of determining the judgment, that is, there is a question. Such provisions make it difficult to resolve disputes in practice, and amendments should be necessary.
Keywords: the Nature of the Settlement of the Litigation, Matter of the Settlement, Matter of the Suit, Effect of the Settlement, the Same Effect as Determining the Judgment
關鍵詞：訴訟和解之性質、和解標的、訴訟標的、和解之效力、與確定判決相同之效力
A settlement of litigation is according the civilproccedural Code concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant in the litigation system, before the court sued, the presiding judge, the appointed judge or the entrusted judge, with respect to each other's concessions (substantive and) with the intention of ending the litigation and resolving the dispute over substantive rights (substantive and) before the court sued, the presiding judge, the appointed judge or the entrusted judge deed of Litigation. Litigation settlement has two main functions, one is to terminate the litigation relationship, and the other is to resolve the substantive rights dispute between the parties by consensus. Since the former involves litigation relationships and has the nature of procedural law, while the latter has the nature of substantive law for substantive rights and obligations, litigation settlement has the dual nature of substantive law and procedural law. However, litigation settlement is a contract concluded by the parties against the subject matter of the litigation, and there is a fundamental difference between the judgment made by the court on the subject matter of the litigation and the judicial act of the high power of the state. Paragraph 1 of Article 380 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that litigation settlement and determination judgment have the same effect, and this provision is not without debatable in theory, and it should not stipulate that the effect of litigation settlement of a contractual nature has the same effect as that of determining a judgment, so that doubts arise in the theory and practice of procedural law, such as whether litigation settlement in a litigation for the division of common property should also have the effect of determining the judgment, that is, there is a question. Such provisions make it difficult to resolve disputes in practice, and amendments should be necessary.
Keywords: the Nature of the Settlement of the Litigation, Matter of the Settlement, Matter of the Suit, Effect of the Settlement, the Same Effect as Determining the Judgment
壹、訴訟和解之概念、性質和目的
一、訴訟和解之概念
二、訴訟和解之性質和目的
貳、訴訟和解之要件
一、訴訟法之要件
二、實體法之要件
參、訴訟和解之標的
一、訴訟和解之標的
二、訴訟標的之理論
三、不同訴訟標的理論對訴訟和解之影響
肆、關於訴訟和解效力之探討
一、關於訴訟程序之效力
二、現行法規定訴訟和解具有與確定判決相同效力之爭議
伍、結語
一、訴訟和解之概念
二、訴訟和解之性質和目的
貳、訴訟和解之要件
一、訴訟法之要件
二、實體法之要件
參、訴訟和解之標的
一、訴訟和解之標的
二、訴訟標的之理論
三、不同訴訟標的理論對訴訟和解之影響
肆、關於訴訟和解效力之探討
一、關於訴訟程序之效力
二、現行法規定訴訟和解具有與確定判決相同效力之爭議
伍、結語
| 論著名稱 | 編著譯者 |
|---|---|
| 所得稅法上之信託課稅─以綜合所得稅為中心 | 陳清秀 |
信託財產受益權之課稅，依實質課稅原則，原則上應採取信託導管理論進行課稅。至於受益人所得實現之時點，原則上可採取「所得發生時課稅原則」。例外情形，在公益信託或特定集團信託等情形，考量於所得發生時，實際上受益人無法真正享受該項受益所得，故應以實際分配受益時課稅。
信託財產之移轉及其所發生之收益之課稅，財政部函釋參考美國立法例，採取委託人是否繼續「控制支配信託財產（信託利益）」，作為信託利益實質移轉之判斷標準，採取實質課稅原則觀點，而非單純以信託契約成立生效時，作為判斷基準。在此考量受益人在信託契約成立生效後雖然享有信託利益，但因委託人對於信託利益仍保有控制權，可能隨時撤銷變更其信託受益人，導致在經濟上仍無法終局的、確定的享有信託利益，故不單純以法律形式為準，應可贊同。
又在受益人不特定或不存在之情形，可考慮採取信託實體理論進行課稅，但因信託財產或利益「分離課稅」結果，可降低稅負，但容易造成租稅規避，因此嗣後是否應有調整機制，值得探討。
在信託利益之移轉，是否構成無償給與或屬於有償交易，仍應依其原因基礎關係實質認定，現行所得稅法規定文義範圍過於廣泛，應予以目的性限縮，以符合實質課稅原則。
關鍵詞：信託財產、信託課稅、所得稅、信託導管理論、信託實體理論
The taxation of trust property beneficiary rights shall be based on the principle of substantive taxation, and in principle, the trust conduit theory should be adopted for taxation. As for the point of time at which the beneficiary’s income is realized, In normal circumstances, the “taxation when the income occurs” principle can be adopted. Exceptionally, in the case of charitable trusts or specific group trusts, considering that when the income occurs, the beneficiary cannot actually enjoy the benefit income, so taxation should be based on the actual distribution of the benefits.
Regarding the transfer of trust property and the taxation of the income generated therefrom, the Ministry of Finance’s letter refers to U.S. legislation and adopts whether the trustor continues to “control the trust property (trust interests)” as the criterion for judging the substantial transfer of trust interests. It adopt the point of view of substantive taxation principles instead of simply relying on the time when the trust deed is established and becomes effective as the basis for judgment. It is considered here that although the beneficiary enjoys the trust benefits after the trust contract is established and takes effect, the settlor still retains control over the trust benefits and may revoke and change the trust beneficiary at any time, resulting in an economically unfinished and uncertain enjoyment of the trust interests, so it is not simply based on the legal form. This view should be agreed upon.
In addition, when the beneficiary is not specified or does not exist, the trust entity theory can be considered for taxation. However, due to the “separate taxation” of trust property or interests, the tax burden can be reduced, but it can easily lead to tax avoidance, so whether there should be an adjustment mechanism in the future is worth exploring.
Whether the transfer of trust interests constitutes a free gift or a paid transaction should still be determined based on the underlying relationship. The scope of the current income tax law is too broad and should be purposefully limited to comply with the principle of substantive taxation.
Keywords: Trust Property, Trust Taxation, Income Tax, Trust Conduit Theory, Trust Entity Theory
信託財產之移轉及其所發生之收益之課稅，財政部函釋參考美國立法例，採取委託人是否繼續「控制支配信託財產（信託利益）」，作為信託利益實質移轉之判斷標準，採取實質課稅原則觀點，而非單純以信託契約成立生效時，作為判斷基準。在此考量受益人在信託契約成立生效後雖然享有信託利益，但因委託人對於信託利益仍保有控制權，可能隨時撤銷變更其信託受益人，導致在經濟上仍無法終局的、確定的享有信託利益，故不單純以法律形式為準，應可贊同。
又在受益人不特定或不存在之情形，可考慮採取信託實體理論進行課稅，但因信託財產或利益「分離課稅」結果，可降低稅負，但容易造成租稅規避，因此嗣後是否應有調整機制，值得探討。
在信託利益之移轉，是否構成無償給與或屬於有償交易，仍應依其原因基礎關係實質認定，現行所得稅法規定文義範圍過於廣泛，應予以目的性限縮，以符合實質課稅原則。
關鍵詞：信託財產、信託課稅、所得稅、信託導管理論、信託實體理論
The taxation of trust property beneficiary rights shall be based on the principle of substantive taxation, and in principle, the trust conduit theory should be adopted for taxation. As for the point of time at which the beneficiary’s income is realized, In normal circumstances, the “taxation when the income occurs” principle can be adopted. Exceptionally, in the case of charitable trusts or specific group trusts, considering that when the income occurs, the beneficiary cannot actually enjoy the benefit income, so taxation should be based on the actual distribution of the benefits.
Regarding the transfer of trust property and the taxation of the income generated therefrom, the Ministry of Finance’s letter refers to U.S. legislation and adopts whether the trustor continues to “control the trust property (trust interests)” as the criterion for judging the substantial transfer of trust interests. It adopt the point of view of substantive taxation principles instead of simply relying on the time when the trust deed is established and becomes effective as the basis for judgment. It is considered here that although the beneficiary enjoys the trust benefits after the trust contract is established and takes effect, the settlor still retains control over the trust benefits and may revoke and change the trust beneficiary at any time, resulting in an economically unfinished and uncertain enjoyment of the trust interests, so it is not simply based on the legal form. This view should be agreed upon.
In addition, when the beneficiary is not specified or does not exist, the trust entity theory can be considered for taxation. However, due to the “separate taxation” of trust property or interests, the tax burden can be reduced, but it can easily lead to tax avoidance, so whether there should be an adjustment mechanism in the future is worth exploring.
Whether the transfer of trust interests constitutes a free gift or a paid transaction should still be determined based on the underlying relationship. The scope of the current income tax law is too broad and should be purposefully limited to comply with the principle of substantive taxation.
Keywords: Trust Property, Trust Taxation, Income Tax, Trust Conduit Theory, Trust Entity Theory
壹、爭議問題
貳、信託之意義及種類
一、信託之意義
（一）信託之定義及權利義務關係
（二）信託關係之成立
二、信託關係之種類
（一）自益信託
（二）他益信託
參、信託課稅之指導原則
一、信託課稅理論
（一）信託導管理論
（二）信託實體理論
二、信託課稅之指導原則：形式移轉不課稅原則
（一）在委託人與受託人間，信託財產的形式上移轉
（二）在受託人與受益人間，信託財產的形式上移轉
三、實質所得者歸屬原則及其例外
（一）實質所得者歸屬原則（信託導管理論）
（二）例外情形：在信託階段，以受託人作為納稅義務之主體（信託實體理論）
四、所得實現原則
（一）概說
（二）「所得發生時」課稅原則
（三）「實際受領時」課稅方式
五、日本有關信託課稅之立法例
（一）設定信託時
（二）信託期間中
（三）在信託終了時
（四）比較
肆、成立信託時，信託財產或信託利益移轉給受益人之課稅
一、自益信託
二、他益信託
（一）個人贈與信託財產或信託利益
（二）營利事業給與信託利益
伍、在信託期間內，信託財產所發生收益之課稅
一、自益信託
（一）實質所得歸屬委託人課稅之原則
（二）委託人是否繼續「控制支配信託財產（信託利益）」，作為信託利益實質轉移與否之判斷標準
二、他益信託
（一）受益人課稅原則
（二）受益人不特定或尚未存在時，則以「受託人」為納稅義務人
三、所得之計算
陸、信託所得課稅之調整
柒、信託財產收益之所得來源地判斷標準
一、信託導管理論
（一）受益人取得信託財產之所得來源地
（二）受益人取得信託關係存續中財產收益之所得來源地
二、信託實體理論
三、檢討
捌、無效信託契約關係在稅法上之處理
一、無效法律行為之實質經濟事實滿足課稅要件，仍成立稅捐債務
二、無效信託契約關係如有實際履行，仍應按照信託課稅法則處理
（一）所得歸屬
（二）受託人應否依規定辦理信託所得申報並報繳營業稅問題
玖、消極信託在稅法上之處理
拾、股權信託稅制與稅捐規避：孳息他益之信託契約
拾壹、信託課稅之稽徵程序
一、信託稅籍登記
二、信託財產及所得申報
三、扣繳稅款
四、舉證責任
拾貳、結語
貳、信託之意義及種類
一、信託之意義
（一）信託之定義及權利義務關係
（二）信託關係之成立
二、信託關係之種類
（一）自益信託
（二）他益信託
參、信託課稅之指導原則
一、信託課稅理論
（一）信託導管理論
（二）信託實體理論
二、信託課稅之指導原則：形式移轉不課稅原則
（一）在委託人與受託人間，信託財產的形式上移轉
（二）在受託人與受益人間，信託財產的形式上移轉
三、實質所得者歸屬原則及其例外
（一）實質所得者歸屬原則（信託導管理論）
（二）例外情形：在信託階段，以受託人作為納稅義務之主體（信託實體理論）
四、所得實現原則
（一）概說
（二）「所得發生時」課稅原則
（三）「實際受領時」課稅方式
五、日本有關信託課稅之立法例
（一）設定信託時
（二）信託期間中
（三）在信託終了時
（四）比較
肆、成立信託時，信託財產或信託利益移轉給受益人之課稅
一、自益信託
二、他益信託
（一）個人贈與信託財產或信託利益
（二）營利事業給與信託利益
伍、在信託期間內，信託財產所發生收益之課稅
一、自益信託
（一）實質所得歸屬委託人課稅之原則
（二）委託人是否繼續「控制支配信託財產（信託利益）」，作為信託利益實質轉移與否之判斷標準
二、他益信託
（一）受益人課稅原則
（二）受益人不特定或尚未存在時，則以「受託人」為納稅義務人
三、所得之計算
陸、信託所得課稅之調整
柒、信託財產收益之所得來源地判斷標準
一、信託導管理論
（一）受益人取得信託財產之所得來源地
（二）受益人取得信託關係存續中財產收益之所得來源地
二、信託實體理論
三、檢討
捌、無效信託契約關係在稅法上之處理
一、無效法律行為之實質經濟事實滿足課稅要件，仍成立稅捐債務
二、無效信託契約關係如有實際履行，仍應按照信託課稅法則處理
（一）所得歸屬
（二）受託人應否依規定辦理信託所得申報並報繳營業稅問題
玖、消極信託在稅法上之處理
拾、股權信託稅制與稅捐規避：孳息他益之信託契約
拾壹、信託課稅之稽徵程序
一、信託稅籍登記
二、信託財產及所得申報
三、扣繳稅款
四、舉證責任
拾貳、結語