台灣土地課稅制度：問題、影響與改革

Land Taxes in Taiwan: Problems, Impact and Reforms

10.6677/JTLR.200111_(3).0003

蔡吉源(Chi-Yuan Tsai)

鎖定效果 ； 地租稅 ； 地價稅 ； 土地增值稅 ； lock-in effect ； site rent tax ； land value tax ； land value increment tax

臺灣土地研究

3期（2001 / 11 / 01）

37 - 82

繁體中文

土地交易課稅之稅基是依買賣前後期公告現值之差距為之。公告現值有可能大於或小於買賣價格，再加上並未充份考慮賣方在持有期間的改良成本及管理費用，因此，與公平合理徵稅有很大的距離，尤其是租稅假期（tax holiday，即兩個年度公告現值調整期間）所有交易（及產權移轉）均不必納稅，形成嚴重的租稅漏洞。其所以發生如此嚴重缺失，均源於台灣平均地權土地稅制在土地價格體系的自我混淆。例如，土地持有課徵地價稅，其稅基以公告地價為主；土地交易課徵土地增值稅，其稅基以公告現值為主。全國平均公告地價略為公告現值四分之一。在台灣課徵地價稅之都市土地其公告地價略等於法院拍賣價與政府公地出售價的8.9%到37.6%之間，公告現值略等於國有財產局公地出售價格的22.71%到76.63%之間。換言之，我們既沒有公開的土地市場價格，也沒有合理的評估市場價值。由於資訊不公開，所以一般市場買賣價格都變成秘密。做為市場價值評估的重要參考資料—一般市場買賣價格—既然無法公開取得，則公告現值及公告地價就變成毫無意義可言，而扭取了地價稅與土地增值稅的經濟功能及財政功能。尤有進者，實質地價稅率相對偏低，實質增值稅率相對偏高。兩者合併考慮，就能發現偏低的平均實質地價稅負擔（約0.1%）與偏高的平均實質土地增值稅負擔（約10%）造成嚴重的鎖定效果（lock-in effect），使市地供求失衡。本文利用簡單數學模型模擬，顯示現行稅制有利土地投機哄抬地價。為達公平正義原則，吾人認為改革土地稅制刻不容緩。改革方向應該減輕土地交易稅負，適度提高土地持有稅負，以消除土地投機，活絡房地產市場，促進經濟發展。

The tax base for land transaction tax is determined by the official present value (OPV) before and after the transaction. The official present value may be either larger or smaller than the transaction price; furthermore, it does not fully take into consideration the seller's improvement costs and management expenses during the period in which they held the land. There is thus a considerable gap between this system and fair, equitable taxation. This is particularly true because no tax need be paid on transactions (and transfers of title) during tax holidays (i.e. the period between consecutive annual adjustments of the official present value), creating a serious flaw in the taxation system. The reason why such a serious failing has developed is because of the confusion in the land valuation system under Taiwan's land rights equalization tax system. For example, when land value tax is levied on the ownership of land, the tax base, official land value, is derived mainly from the official present value. On average, official land value (OLV) in Taiwan is only one quarter of official present value. On urban land subject to land value tax, the official land value varies between 8.9% and 37.6% of the price that the land would reach if sold by court auction or by the government; official present value varies between 22.71% and 76.63% of the price at which land is sold by the National Property Bureau. In other words, there is neither an open land market price nor a reasonable appraised market value. Owing to the fact that information is not made freely available, the prices paid in ordinary market transactions are kept secret. As one of the most important bases for market value appraisal - the regular market sale price - is not available, the official present value and official land value become meaningless, and the economic and fiscal functions of land value tax (LVT) and land value increment tax (LVIT) are warped. Even more serious, the effective land value tax rate is too low, while the effective land value increment tax rate is too high. If one studies the two in combination, one can see that the combination of an excessively low average effective land value tax burden (around 0.1%) and an excessively high effective land value increment tax burden (around 10%) results in a serious lock-in effect, causing a loss of equilibrium in market supply and demand. In this article, simple mathematical models are used to show that the current tax system encourages land speculation and the pushing up of land prices. I believe that the reform of the land tax system is an urgent task if fairness and justice are to be achieved. The method of reform adopted should be to reduce the land transaction tax burden, while raising the tax burden on the ownership of land, in order to eliminate land speculation, revitalize the real estate market and promote economic development.

1. Bentick, B. L.(1979).The Impact of Taxation and Valuation Practices on the Timing and Efficiency of Land Use.Journal of Political Economy,87(4)
2. Case, K. E.(1994).Land Use and Taxation: Applying the Insights of Henry George.Cambridge, Mass:Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
3. Eckert, J. J.(1990).Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration.Chicago:International Association of Assessing Officers.
4. George, H.(1883).Progress and Poverty.NYC:Appleton-Century-Crobts Ind..
5. Harrison, F.(1983).The Power in the Land.London:Shepheard-Walwyn Ltd..
6. Hicks, U.(1961).Development from Below: Local Government and Finance in Developing Countries of the Commonwealth.London:Oxford University Press.
7. Lin, Robert(1994).Land Policy Problems in East Asia - Toward New Choices: A Comparative Study of Japan, Korea and Taiwan.Honolulu:East-West Center and Korean Research Institute for Human Settlements.
8. Mieszkowski, P.(1972).The Property Tax: An Excise Tax or a Profits Tax?.Journal of Public Economics,1
9. Muth, R.(1968).Issues in Urban Economics.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
10. Oates, W. E., Schwab, R. E.(1997).The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience.National Tax Journal,50(1)
11. Pugh, C.(1997).Poverty and Progress? Reflections on Housing and Urban Policies in Developing Countries, 1976-96.Urban Studies,34(10)
12. Rosen, R.(1992).Public Finance.Boston, Massachusetts:Irwin.
13. Tiebout, C. M.(1956).A pure Theory of Local Expenditures.Journal of Political Economy,64(5)
14. William, P. R.(1962).The Pittsburgh Graded Tax Plan.NYC:Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.
15. Youngman, J. M., Malme, J. H.(1994).An International Survey of Taxes on Land and Buildings.Boston, MA:Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
16. 周玉津(1993)。土地增值稅問題全方位之探討。財稅研究（財稅研究雜誌社） Public Finance Review，25(4)
17. 林全 Lin, Chuan(1993)。土地增值稅之改革芻議。財稅研究（財稅研究雜誌社） Public Finance Review，25(1)
18. 林英彥(1991)。土地經濟學。臺北:文笙書局。
19. 陳文久 Chen, Van-Jeou(1994)。土地稅制須逆向改革。人文及社會科學集刊 Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy，6(2)
20. 陳文久 Chen, Van-Jeou(1993)。為何以土地實際增值比例課稅能遏阻低報。經濟前瞻 Economic Outlook Bimonthly，4月號
21. 陳文久 Chen, Van-Jeou(1994)。實價認定、最適稅負與比例增值稅。財稅研究（財稅研究雜誌社） Public Finance Review，26(3)
22. 陳聽安 Chen, Ting-An(1993)。從公平與效率談土地增值稅何去何從。財稅研究（財稅研究雜誌社） Public Finance Review，25(1)
23. 華昌宜 Hua, Chang-I(1994)。最適房地價稅率及其在臺灣政策應用之探討。人文及社會科學集刊 Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy，6(2)
24. 黃淑惠 Huang, Shwu-Huei(1995)。論我國土地增值稅的功能及改進方向。臺北:華泰書局。
25. 蔡吉源 Tsai, Chi-Yuan(1982).Taxes and Residential Choice.Public Choice,38
26. 蔡吉源 Tsai, Chi-Yuan(1998).公共經濟學研討會.中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所.
27. 蔡吉源 Tsai, Chi-Yuan(1997)。凍省後縣市財政的健全之道－以臺中市為例。財稅研究（財稅研究雜誌社） Public Finance Review，29(5)
28. 蔡吉源 Tsai, Chi-Yuan(1994)。亨利喬治法則與都市土地稅制改革。人文及社會科學集刊 Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy，6(2)
29. 蔡吉源 Tsai, Chi-Yuan(1987)。市地漲價不能沒有對策！。中國論壇 China Tribune，25(2)
30. 蔡吉源 Tsai, Chi-Yuan(1997)。論土地稅制改革：地價稅與增值稅。財稅研究（財稅研究雜誌社） Public Finance Review，29(4)
31. 顏愛靜 Yen, Ai-Ching(1994).Land Policy Problems in East Asia - Toward New Choices: A Comparative Study of Japan, Korea and Taiwan.Honolulu:East-West Center and Korean Research Institute for Human Settlements.
32. 關秉寅 Kuan, Ping-Yin(1994)。「誰的公平？誰的正義？」－從土地增值稅爭議談公平與權力之關係。人文及社會科學集刊 Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy，6(2)

1. 曾彥閔、王宏文(2013)。臺北市與高雄市住宅財產稅之比較：兼論兩市財稅努力之差異。政治科學論叢，56，119-156。
2. 曾中信,傅健豪(2021)。以財稅資料分析台灣不動產稅制公平性。經濟論文，49(3)，411-444。
3. 曾中信,傅健豪(2021)。以財稅資料分析台灣不動產稅制公平性。經濟論文，49(3)，411-444。
4. 陳立夫(2008)。析論我國土地徵收法制上之爭議問題。台灣土地研究，11(1)，1-35。
5. 陳憶萍,林左裕(2023)。影響地價因素之研究－以「房地合一稅」及相關因素之探討為例。土地問題研究季刊，22(3)，80-98。
6. 陳志豪,邢志航(2019)。運用平衡計分卡建構評估公共建設公私協力（PPP）專案績效認知關鍵因素之研究。物業管理學報，10(1)，24-37。
7. 何懿貞(2023)。地價稅稅基公平性之研究－以臺北市為例。土地問題研究季刊，22(3)，99-116。
8. 林子雅、林子欽(2008)。公部門不動產估價成效評估—公平性之觀點。住宅學報，17(2)，63-80。
9. 林子欽,吳文傑,丁秀吟(2023)。從使用價值之差別課稅觀點分析農地合理使用。規劃學報，41(1)，19-33。
10. 羅時萬,陳翊芯,陳國樑,伍大開(2023)。財產稅租稅資本化：縣市合併升格的準實驗分析結果。人文及社會科學集刊，35(1)，111-153。
11. 王宏文(2010)。台北市地價稅公平性之研究。行政暨政策學報，51，47-76。
12. 徐國城、李泳龍(2007)。公告土地現值評價作業中區域因素調整率的合理性檢討。土地問題研究季刊，6(4)，58-67。
13. 游適銘(2015)。以荷蘭經驗談我國不動產評價與財產稅。土地問題研究季刊，14(4)，74-85。
14. 張永健(2011)。土地徵收補償之規範標準與實證評估。東吳法律學報，22(4)，27-64。
15. 張正、林子欽(2004)。地主和承租人如何面對土地徵收的風險？。台灣土地研究，7(1)，1-18。
16. 鄭輝培,林祖嘉,李明軒(2022)。不動產有效稅率對於房地產市場價量影響之探討：臺灣縣市級資料之應用。住宅學報，31(2)，1-27。
17. (2003)。公告土地現值與市場交易價格關係之砰究。土地經濟年刊，14，1-24。
18. (2008)。週期性不動產稅制之檢討與改進。財稅研究，40(1)，1-19。