查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 誰是「出名登記診所」所得之稅納稅義務人--出名登記者或出資借名者?
- 淺論薪資所得與執行業務所得之認定
- 論傳銷業與壽險業從業人員所得的課稅(上)--試評財政部八三年臺財稅字第八三一五八七二三七號函暨高雄高等行政法院九一年簡字第三九號判決
- 論傳銷業與壽險業從業人員所得的課稅(下)--試評財政部八三年臺財稅字第八三一五八七二三七號函暨高雄高等行政法院九一年簡字第三九號判決
- 受薪者應准列扣必要費用
- 從租稅法定原則與實質課稅原則論進口貿易課稅爭議--簡評最高行政法院一○一年度十二月份第二次庭長法官聯席會議決議
- 論實質課稅原則之適用
- 保險業務員之所得性質之研究
- 從表演人所得分類談執行業務所得與薪資所得的分類爭議
- 保險業務員所得與費用
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 誰是「出名登記診所」所得之稅納稅義務人--出名登記者或出資借名者?=Who is Required to Pay the Income Tax from a Competence-Renting Private Clinic: the Competence-Rented Employee or the Competence-Renting Employer? |
---|---|
作者 | 曾祺雯; 陳建志; 陳登郎; Tseng, Chi-wen; Chen, Jiann-jy; Chen, Dem-lion; |
期刊 | 醫事法學 |
出版日期 | 20111200 |
卷期 | 18:2 2011.12[民100.12] |
頁次 | 頁39-50 |
分類號 | 567.01 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 實質課稅; 租稅法律主義; 執行業務所得; 薪資所得; 診所醫師; Substantive taxation; Taxation by law; Income from professional practice; Income from salaries and wages; Clinic physician; |
中文摘要 | 憲法第19 條規定:「人民有依法律納稅之義務」。近年來,為求租稅公平,避免人民脫法逃稅,稅捐稽徵機關會針對特殊個案改採「實質課稅」原則,其操作方式依稅捐稽徵法之規定,係由稅捐稽徵機關負舉證責任,並依「實質課稅」原則改定納稅義務人,而非由人民主張。依所得稅法之規定,診所開業醫師之診所所得,與醫院受雇之醫師所得定性並不相同,前者為執行業務所得,後者為薪資所得。但是,當診所開業醫師並非診所實際經營者時,亦即當診所登記負責醫師(出名登記者)與實際經營者(出資借名者)其並非同一人,前者(出名登記者)受雇於後者(出資借名者)成立所謂之「出名登記診所」並負責執行醫療業務時,究竟誰是診所所得之納稅義務人?本文分析三則行政法院判決書內容,凸顯其中不合理之處。 |
英文摘要 | The 19th article of the Constitution states that the people have the obligation to pay taxes according to law. Inrecent years, in order to keep the equity in taxation and avoid tax evasion, the tax authorities would adopt the principle of ”substantive taxation” for the special cases. According to the Tax Collection Act and the principle of ”substantivetaxation,” the tax authorities shall bear the burden of proof in ascertaining the person in charge and responsible for theclinic, but not the people. In accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the income of the clinic physician isdifferent from that of the physician who works in the hospital; the former is classified into the income from professionalpractice, and the latter is the income from salaries and wages. However, when the clinic physician is not the actualoperator, that is to say, the registered accountable physician (competence-rented employee) is not the actual operator(competence-renting employer), and the latter has employed the former to set up a competence-renting private clinic toimplement medical business, who is the taxpayer? Herein, we analyze three verdicts from Taiwan Administrative Courtand indicate the unreasonable. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。