美國經濟實質原則成文法化對稅務實務影響之探討

Study of the Effects of the Codification of the Economic Substance Doctrine in the U.S.

10.29887/NUKLJ.201209.0004

吳德華(Francis Wu)

實質重於形式原則 ； 經濟實質原則 ； 經濟實質原則成文法化 ； 經濟實質 ； 商業目的 ； Substance-Over-Form Doctrine ； Economic Substance Doctrine ； The Codification of The Economic Substance Doctrine ； Economic Substance ； Business Purpose

高大法學論叢

8卷1期（2012 / 09 / 01）

173 - 216

繁體中文

「經濟實質原則」（Economic Substance Doctrine）美國稅法領域中最著名的司法原則（Judicial Doctrine）之一。自一九三五年聯邦最高法院宣判Helvering v. Gregory 案以來，經濟實質原則成為法院用以否決納稅義務人的無實質經濟效果交易、卻主張有減免稅賦權利之稅務案件。雖然經濟實質原則影響稅法達七十五年之久，但畢竟還是「司法造法」下的產物，並非是經過國會所通過的成文法。蓋因法院對經濟實質原則要件及適用標準見解歧異，且在最高法院傾向原文主義之風氣下，國會擔心有朝一日經濟實質原則會被廢止，遂於二○一○年將爭議多年的經濟實質原則藉由通過「保健暨教育法案」（Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010）時增訂I.R.C. §7701(o)予以成文法化，明確規範之，以期終結法院在解釋經濟實質原則時不同見解之混亂，並將經濟實質原則「妾身不明」之疑慮一併消除，就地「合法化」。對於已習慣判例法下經濟實質原則的納稅義務人、國稅局及法院，成文法化將對三方產生重大的變化。I.R.C. §7701(o)將對未來稅務實務發展產生重大之影響。經濟實質原則成文法化是利是弊，尚待時間考驗；惟毫無疑問的是，經濟實質原則成文法化將納稅義務人、政府及法院三方推向另一個層次的競技場。

The economic substance doctrine is one of the most famous judicial doctrines in the area of tax law. Since Helvering v. Gregory (1935), courts have been applying the economic substance doctrine to disallow the tax benefits generated by transactions that had no effect on the economic position of the taxpayers. Although, the economic substance doctrine has a great impact in the area of tax law, it is still a ”judicially crafted doctrine”, not the law passed by Congress.Courts are split on the application of the economic substance doctrine. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly in favor of textualism, Congress was worried that the Supreme Court may overrule the economic substance doctrine. Therefore, Congress, as part of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, codified the economic substance doctrine as new code section I.R.C. §7701(o). The codification of the economic substance doctrine clarifies its application which has been applied by courts for many years. However, for taxpayers, the Internal Revenue Service and courts, the codification may bring many challenges.I.R.C. §7701(o) will have a great impact in the area of tax law. Only time will tell how good or bad this new section was. However, without a doubt, the codification will push taxpayers, the Internal Revenue Service and courts to another level.

1. Korb, Donald L., The Economic Substance Doctrine in the Current Tax Shelter Environment: 2005 University of Southern California Tax Institute (2005), available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/economic_substance_(1_25_05).pdf. (last visited 11/22/2011)
2. Hancock, Jason, Iowans vote to oust all three supreme court justices, The Iowa Independent, November 2, 2010, available at http://iowaindependent.com/46917/iowans-vote-to-oust-allthree-supreme-court-justices. (last visited 11/22/2011)
3. Greenberg Traurig & Crowell Moring LLP, Economic Substance Doctrine Codified: Surviving Scrutiny Under New IRC §7701(o), available at http://www.crowell.com/documents/Economic-Substance-Doctrine-Codified.pdf. (last visited 11/22/2011)
4. Large Business and International Division of the Internal Revenue Service, The. Guidance for Examiners and Managers on the Codified Economic Substance Doctrine and Related Penalties, available at http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=242253,00.html. (last visited 11/22/2011)
5. Sulzberger, A.G., Ouster of Iowa Judges Sends Signal to Bench, The New York Times, November 3, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04judges.html?scp=1&sq=iowa%20supreme%20court&st=cse. (last visited 11/22/2011)
6. Abrams, Howard E.(2010).Did Codification of Economic Substance Repeal the Partnership Anti-Abuse Rule?.Tax Management,51,299.
7. Bankman, Joseph(2000).The Economic Substance Doctrine.Southern California Law Review,74,5-30.
8. Berland, David L.(2011).Stopping the Pendulum: Why Stare Decisis Should Constrain the Court From Further Modification of the Search Incident to Arrest Exception.University of Illinois Law Review,2011,695-739.
9. Blank, Joshua D.(2009).Overcoming Overdisclosure: Toward Tax Shelter Detection.University of California Los Angeles Law Review,56,1629-1690.
10. Breyer, Stephen(1992).On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes.Southern California Law Review,65,845-874.
11. Donaldson, J. Bruce(1964).When Substance-Over-Form Argument is Available to the Taxpayer.Marquette Law Review,48,41-52.
12. Easterbrook, Frank H.(1994).Text, History, and Structure in Statutory Interpretation.Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy,17,61-70.
13. Eskridge, William N., Jr.(1998).Textualism, The Unknown Ideal? A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.Michigan Law Review,96,1509-1560.
14. Flesher, Tonya K.,Quinn, Tina(2011).Codification of the Economic Substance Doctrine or How Congress Commemorated the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Gregory Case.2011 American Taxation Association Midyear Meeting Paper: JLTR Conference
15. Foster, Sydney(2008).Should Courts Give Stare Decisis Effect to Statutory Interpretation Methodology?.Georgetown Law Review,96,1863-1911.
16. Galle, Brian(2006).Interpretative Theory and Tax Shelter Regulation.Virginia Tax Review,26,357-403.
17. Givner, Bruce(2010).Economic Substance Doctrine-Six Months After Codification.Journal of Tax Practice & Procedure,12(5),29-36.
18. Keinan, Yoram(2007).Rethinking the Role of the Judicial Step Transaction Principle and a Proposal for Codification.Akron Tax Journal,22,45-100.
19. Killebrew, Paul(2007).Where Are All The Left-Wing Textualists?.New York University Law Review,82,1895-1928.
20. Madison, Allen D.(2003).The Tension Between Textualism and Substance-Over-Form Doctrines in Tax Law.Santa Clara Law Review,43,699-750.
21. McMahon, Martin J., Jr.(2002).Economic Substance Purposive Activity, And Corporate Tax Shelters.Tax Notes,1017-1026.
22. McMahon, Martin J., Jr.(2003).Beyond A GAAR: Retrofitting the Code to Rein in 21st Century Tax Shelters.Tax Notes,1721-1748.
23. Nelson, Caleb(2005).What is Textualism?.Virginia Law Review,91,347-418.
24. Roberts, John C.(2001).Are Congressional Committees Constitutional?: Radical Textualism, Separation of Powers, And the Enactment Process.Case Western Reserve Law Review,52,489-571.
25. Scalia, Antonin(1989).The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules.University of Chicago Law Review,56,1175-1188.
26. Sinclair, Michael(2007).Precedent, Super-Precedent.George Mason Law Review,14,363- 411.
27. VanderWolk, Jefferson(2009).Codification of the Economic Substance Doctrine: If We Can't Stop It, Let's Improve It.Tax Notes International,55,547-553.
28. Ventry, Dennis J., Jr.(2008).Save the Economic Substance Doctrine form Congress.Tax Notes,1405-1412.
29. Wald, Patricia M.(1990).The Sizzling Sleeper: The Use of Legislative History in Constructing Statutes in the 1988-89 Term of the United States Supreme Court.American University Law Review,39,277-310.
30. Zelenak, Lawrence,Chirelstein, Marvin(2005).A Note on Tax Shelters.Columbia Law Review

1. 郭玉林(2018)。美國文本主義解釋方法為我國審判實務繼受之可能性及方法－以Justice Antonin Scalia 見解為例示。高大法學論叢，13(2)，135-206。
2. 林其玄(2016)。稅捐規避行為可罰性之探討。國立中正大學法學集刊，50，1-52。
3. (2020)。當今反避稅規則之發展與思辨。法學叢刊，65(2)，67-90。