瑜亮之爭：稅務訴訟代理訴訟績效差異之研究

Attorneys versus CPAs: A Study on Performance Difference of Tax Litigation Agents

林秀鳳(Hsiu-Feng Lin)；陳岳鴻(Yueh-Hung Chen)

稅務訴訟 ； 律師 ； 會計師 ； 轉換模型 ； tax litigation ； attorneys ； CPAs ； switching model

人文及社會科學集刊

28卷2期（2016 / 06 / 01）

259 - 298

繁體中文

本研究探討律師與會計師在主要稅務行政事件的訴訟績效差異。結果顯示，在事實審法院，會計師代理營業稅與遺贈稅案件績效優於律師；律師則於法律審法院呈現優勢。進一步考量高案件金額的經濟誘因，除了與法院層級分析的結論一致外，事實審法院會計師的訴訟績效皆優於律師，亦與全樣本估計相同。雙方各自擅長的稅務訴訟方面：律師較不擅長營利事業所得稅；會計師的營業稅訴訟表現最佳。綜觀而論，二人各有所長，會計師擅於所得稅與營業稅案件，並於事實審法院中，較能發揮專業技能；律師則以遺贈稅訴訟績效為佳，更見長於法律審法院的案件。

This study investigates the difference between attorneys and Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) in litigation performance. We employ the endogenous switching model to control for self-selection bias. The empirical result suggests that CPAs' litigation performance is better than attorneys' in lawsuits of income tax, business tax, and estate & gift tax. We consider both effects of court level and economic incentives. A court level analysis shows that attorneys have better litigation performance than CPAs in the supreme administrative court, while in contrast, CPAs have better litigation performance than attorneys in the high administrative court, and tests of economic incentives are consistent with court level analysis. Our within difference test shows that, attorneys perform worst in profit-seeking enterprise tax lawsuits because that is related to the accounting profession; CPAs have the best performance in business tax lawsuits. In brief, attorneys and CPAs has its own merits.

1. Liao, Hsiu-mei,Wang, Chen-chin,Chi, Wu-chun(2012).What Does the Complete Disclosure of Audit Fee Information Tell Us in Taiwan?.Taiwan Accounting Review,8(1),49-88.
   連結：
2. Blouin, Jennifer,Grein, Barbara M.,Rountree, Brian R.(2007).An Analysis of Forced Auditor Change: The Case of Former Arthur Andersen Clients.The Accounting Review,82(3),621-650.
3. Clermont, Kevin M.,Eisenberg, Theodore(1998).Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything about the Legal System? Win Rates and Removal Jurisdiction.Cornell Law Review,83(3),581-607.
4. Clogg, Clifford C.,Petkova, Eva,Haritou, Adamantios(1995).Statistical Methods for Comparing Regression Coefficients between Models.American Journal of Sociology,100(5),1261-1293.
5. Greene, William H.(2003).Econometric Analysis.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
6. Lederman, Leandra,Hrung, Warren B.(2006).Do Attorneys Do Their Client Justice? An Empirical Study of Lawyers' Effect on Tax Court Litigation Outcomes.Wake Forest Law Review,41(4),1235-1295.
7. Liu, Liping(2004).A Note on Luce-Fishburn Axiomatization of Rank-Dependent Utility.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,28(1),55-71.
8. Luce, R.Duncan,Fishburn, Peter C.(1991).Rank- and Sign-dependent Liner Utility Models for Finite First-order Gambles.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,4(1),29-59.
9. Luce, R.Duncan,Fishburn, Peter C.(1995).A Note on Deriving Rank-Dependent Utility Using Additive Joint Receipts.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,11(1),5-16.
10. Maddala, G. S.(1983).Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometric.New York:Cambridge University Press.
11. Posner, Richard A.(1973).An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration.The Journal of Legal Studies,2(2),399-458.
12. Simunic, Dan A.(1984).Auditing, Consulting, and Auditor Independence.Journal of Accounting Research,22(2),679-702.
13. Tversky, Amos,Kahneman, Daniel(1992).Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,5(4),297-323.
14. 王全三、廖珮真、林敬偉(2010)。訴訟代理人專業背景對所得稅訴訟案件的影響。臺大管理論叢，20(2)，173-208。
15. 黃士洲(2006)。國立臺灣大學法律研究所=College of Law, National Taiwan University。
16. 黃文琪(2004)。淡江大學會計學系在職專班=Department of Accounting, Tamkang University。
17. 黃國昌(2007)。律師代理對民事訴訟結果之影響—理論分析與實證研究間之激盪。中研院法學期刊，1，45-104。
18. 葛克昌(2005)。行政程序與納稅人基本權。臺北=Taipei:翰蘆圖書=Hanlu。
19. 葛克昌、陳清秀(2001)。稅務代理與納稅人權利。臺北=Taipei:翰蘆圖書=Hanlu。
20. 簡資修(2014)。經濟推理與法律。臺北=Taipei:元照=Angle。

1. 陳岳鴻、林秀鳳(2016)。一視同仁？法官專業化對稅務訴訟代理人訴訟績效之影響。中華會計學刊，12(1)，1-42。
2. (2018).Tax agent ad litem's impact on estate and gift tax cases of administrative litigation.Asia Pacific Management Review,23(2),81-89.