論我國農地之租稅優惠

Tunghai University Institutional Repository > 管理學院 > 會計學系所 > 碩士論文 > Item 310901/23731

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://140.128.103.80:8080/handle/310901/23731

Title:	論我國農地之租稅優惠
Other Titles:	The Study of Tax Benefits for Agricultural Land in Taiwan
Authors:	陳玉英 Chen,Yu-Ying
Contributors:	許恩得 Hsu, En-Te 會計學系
Keywords:	租稅優惠;租稅法律主義;平等原則;比例原則;外部性;農業用地 Tax benefit;tax legality;Principle of equality;Principle of proportionality;Externality;Agricultural land
Date:	2013
Issue Date:	2014-02-17T03:58:57Z (UTC)
Abstract:	租稅優惠之提供，是以違反量能課稅原則作為代價，應受憲法平等原則、比例原則及租稅法律主義之檢驗。民國91年我國加入世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization，簡稱WTO) ，開放農產品進口，為降低入會對農業之衝擊，在民國89年及92年修改農業發展條例及相關法規，將過去「農地農有，農地農用」政策，調整為「放寬農地農有，落實農地農用」政策；修法後農地取得資格較寬，但政府對於農地之租稅優惠並未縮減，因此，修法後之農地租稅優惠規定，是否符合上開原則，值得深入探討。本研究採用文件分析法，探討農地租稅優惠之問題及其改善建議。研究結果發現，現行農地租稅優惠規定並未考慮到農地區位，在都市農地與非都市農地一體適用下，都市農地持有成本偏低，常常成為投機炒作之工具。其次，農地准許興建農舍之規定，不但嚴重破壞農業生產環境，農舍不用負擔地價稅，並享有不課徵土地增值稅，免徵遺產稅及贈與稅之優惠，亦常成為租稅規避之管道；準（視同）農業用地已非農地，給予租稅優惠，與獎勵「農地農用」之意旨不符；遺產稅及贈與稅採稅基減除法，無最高限額之規定，容易產生逆補貼效果（up-side-down effect）。本研究建議：在農業用地之定義方面，將農舍自土地稅法第10條第1項（農業發展條例第3條第10款、平均地權條例第3條第3款）規定中刪除，以維護農地資源。田賦方面，將土地稅法第22條但書規定刪除，都市農地應分級按優惠稅率課徵地價稅，並繳納10年以上之地價稅，始得申請變更編定為非農業用途，以減少都市農地炒作之誘因。另增訂課徵田賦之土地，土地所有權人應以自然人及農業發展條例所定農民團體、農業企業機構及農業試驗研究機構為限，以符合租稅法律主義原則及憲法扶植自耕農之意旨。土地增值稅方面，建議將土地稅法第39條之2及農業發展條例第38條之1（土地稅法施行細則第57條之1）規定均刪除，農地（含準農業農地）出售，均應課徵土地增值稅，惟保留土地稅法第35條重購自耕農地退還土地增值稅之規定，以符合憲法漲價歸公及獎勵自行耕作之人意旨。遺產及贈與稅方面，建議遺產贈與稅之減免應有最高限額之規定，以符合比例原則。關鍵詞：租稅優惠、租稅法律主義、平等原則、比例原則、外部性、農業用地 The provision of tax benefit should be restricted by the principles of equality, proportionality and tax legality under the constitution, as it violates the rule of " ability-to-pay principle ". In 2002, Taiwan del-regulated the import of agricultural products for access to the WTO (World Trade Organization). In order to reduce the impact on agriculture, the Legislative Yuan amended the Agricultural Development Act and related laws to adjust the policy of "agricultural land is owned by farmers for rural use only" to the policy of " relaxing ownership of agricultural land, but enforcing agricultural land for rural use " in 2000 and 2003. After amending the law, however, the government has not reduced the tax benefit for agricultural land although the qualification of owning agricultural land was relaxed.Therefore, it is disputable whether the regulations concerning tax benefit for agricultural landafter the amendment of the law correspond with the above principles, andhence further discussion is deserved.Analysis of documents is the research method used in this study, and the problems of tax benefit for farmland and recommendations for improvementare discussed. The results show that the present regulations concerning tax benefit for agricultural land have not taken into consideration the location of agricultural land. As the same standard applies to both urban and non-urban agricultural land, the urban agricultural land often turns into a speculative instrument because of relatively lower holding cost. Secondly, the regulation that permits the construction offarmhouseon agricultural land not only results in serious damage to the agricultural production environment, but also becomes a way of tax evasion because farmhouses are free from the burden of land value tax, exempted from land value increment tax, and also enjoy the benefit of estate tax and gift tax exemption. Land regarded as rural land is not reallyused for agricultural purpose, and so the offer of tax benefitdoes not match the intention of rewarding "agricultural land for rural use". Asthe estate and gift tax is levied on the basis of base-reduction method, with no upper limit, it is likelythat an adverse effect of subsidies would be resulted. This study suggests the following:Firstly, with respect to the definition of agricultural land, farmhouse should be deleted from Paragraph 1, Article 10 of Land Tax Act (Subparagraph 10, Article 3 of Agricultural Development Act and Subparagraph 3, Article 3 of The Equalization of Land Rights Act) to protect the resources of agricultural land.Secondly, in terms of agricultural land tax, the proviso of Article 22 of the Land Tax Act should be deleted. Urban agricultural land should be levied land value tax on the basis of graded preferential tax rate, and the land value tax should be paid for more than 10 years to be eligible for applying for changing the land to non-agricultural use,so that the incentive for speculation of urban agricultural land would be reduced. In addition, regulations on the land for levying agricultural land tax should be added, limiting the land owners to natural persons and the farmer groups, agribusiness organizations and agricultural research institutes prescribed in the Agricultural Development Act, so as to live up to the principle of tax legality and the intention of the constitution to foster self-tilling farmers.Thirdly, in terms of land value increment tax,it is recommended that Article 39-2 of the Land Tax Act and Article 38-1 of the Agricultural Development Act (Article 57-1 of for the Enforcement Rules of the Land Tax Act) be deleted. Land value increment tax should be levied for the sale of agricultural land (including deemed agricultural land), but Article 35 of the Land Tax Act stipulating the refund of land value increment tax for repurchase of self-cultivated farmland should be kept, to comply with the intention of the constitution to share the appreciation of land price with the public and to encourage people cultivating their own land.Lastly, in terms of estate and gift tax,it is recommended that an upper limit should be prescribed for the concession of estate and gift tax in order to comply with the principle of proportionality.Keywords：Tax benefit, tax legality, Principle of equality, Principle of proportionality,Externality,Agricultural land
Appears in Collections:	[會計學系所] 碩士論文

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
index.html	0Kb	HTML	161	View/Open

Loading...