法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
公法上消滅時效之問題探討-以稅法上消滅時效為中心(Extinctive Prescription in Public Law - Focused on the Extinctive Prescription in Tax Law)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 陳清秀
出版日期: 2016.07
刊登出處: 台灣/中正財經法學第 13 期/125-178 頁
頁  數: 55 點閱次數: 2573
下載點數: 220 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 陳清秀
關 鍵 詞: 稅捐核課期間徵收期間執行期間消滅時效
中文摘要: 一、稅捐稽徵法之徵收期間屬於時效期間,為特別法規定,排除行政執行法有關執行期間規定。如對於已經逾越徵收時效期間之欠稅之強制執行,應屬違法執行。其繼續執行所得財產,構成公法上不當得利,應予以返還。
二、稅捐債權以外之其他一般公法上債權,於具有執行力後,屬於執行債權,除法律另有特別規定外,應統一優先適用行政執行法關於執行債權之時效規定,而排除行政程序法消滅時效規定之適用。此一作法與德國最新立法例作法相同。
三、有關移送執行,稅捐稽徵法之徵收期間以及行政執行法之執行期間,均有時效中斷,重新起算之制度設計,而延長執行時效期間,故並無法律漏洞存在不得再以有法律漏洞為由,類推適用民法時效中斷規定,以變相延長時效,否則將違背依法行政與法律保留原則。縱然認為仍應類推適用民法規定以執行行為作為時效中斷事由時,則應以發給執行憑證時點,作為執行終了,應重新起算時效期間。
英文關鍵詞: Tax,Periods for AssessmentPeriods for the Collection of TaxesPeriods for Administrative ExecutionsExtinctive Prescription
英文摘要: First, according to the Tax Collection Law periods for the collection of taxes belong to the extinctive prescription.It is a special law and exclude the application of provisions of Administrative Enforcement Law on the administrative implementation period. As for the enforcement of taxes already levied beyond the periods for the collection of taxes, it should be illegal execution.If government Continue to implement tax payer’s property,it constitutes unjust enrichment in public law and it should be returned.
Second,if the other general claims on public law other than taxes have executive power, belonging execution creditor, unless otherwise specifically provided by law, the provisions of Administrative Enforcement Law on periods for administrative executions shall prevail to apply and exclude the application of the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law on extinctive prescription. This practice is consequent with the latest German legislation.
Third, related to administrative enforcement,according to the Tax Collection Law and Administrative Enforcement Law,there are provisions on the administrative implementation period and have limitation interrupt, re-starting of the system design, and extended during a period of limitation, there is no legal loophole.So it could not be permitted to fill a legal loophole by analogy,to apply the provisions of the Civil Code limitation interrupt to disguise the extension of aging.Otherwise it would be contrary to the principles of rule of law. Even when we think that it should still apply by analogy civil law as the aging suspension event, it should be the end of the implementation at the time that the enforcement claims certificate issued, as should be re-starting the limitation period.
目  次: 壹、問題之提出
貳、公法上請求權消滅時效之意義
一、制度目的
二、規範依據
三、適用對象
四、法律效果
參、稅法上稅捐債權之消滅時效:核課期間與徵收期間
一、核課期間:作成課稅處分,行使租稅債權之時效期間
二、徵收期間
肆、公法上執行債權之消滅時效
一、現行規定
二、執行期間之法律性質
三、徵收期間與執行期間之區別
四、徵收期間應優先於執行期間之規定而適用
五、租稅債權如果已經逾越徵收期間,則債權消滅,不得強制執行
六、稅捐債權,有無其他時效不完成事由?
七、移送執行行為是否為時效中斷之事由?
伍、公法上執行債權之消滅時效規定與行政程序法消滅時效規定之關係
一、外國立法例之觀察
二、行政程序法規範「一般公法上債權」之消滅時效,行政執行法規範「執行債權」之消滅時效
陸、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
陳清秀,公法上消滅時效之問題探討-以稅法上消滅時效為中心,中正財經法學,第 13 期,125-178 頁,2016年07月。
返回功能列