论美国税法溯及力的司法审查规则——以联邦最高法院对溯及性税收立法的审查为基础
|
摘要
美国联邦最高法院适用正当程序原则,对具有正当目的且溯及方式合理的税收法案给予合宪性确认。具体审查时,区分税收的性质、是否溯及开征新税、溯及对纳税人行为的影响、溯及的时间等具体情形判断税法溯及合宪与否。本文对美国联邦最高法院的判例法规则进行了梳理,结合我国税法溯及力的法律和实践现状,从明确法律依据、规范执行性和解释性法规文件的溯及适用等角度,提出完善我国税法溯及力规则的思路。
The Supreme Court of the United States recognized the constitutionality of rational retrospective tax acts based on Due Process Doctrine. When doing the judicial review, the Court differentiated the nature of taxation, whether a new tax was levied, the impact on taxpayers, the time of tax act retrospectively reached back, along with other standards, to decide if a retrospective tax act is constitutional. This paper sorts out the case laws and regulations of the US Supreme Court. Combined with the legal and practical status of the retrospectivity of tax law in China, the paper proposes an idea for improving the rules of retrospectivity of tax law from such perspectives as defining legal basis and standardizing the retroactive application of executive and interpretative regulatory documents.
The Supreme Court of the United States recognized the constitutionality of rational retrospective tax acts based on Due Process Doctrine. When doing the judicial review, the Court differentiated the nature of taxation, whether a new tax was levied, the impact on taxpayers, the time of tax act retrospectively reached back, along with other standards, to decide if a retrospective tax act is constitutional. This paper sorts out the case laws and regulations of the US Supreme Court. Combined with the legal and practical status of the retrospectivity of tax law in China, the paper proposes an idea for improving the rules of retrospectivity of tax law from such perspectives as defining legal basis and standardizing the retroactive application of executive and interpretative regulatory documents.
引文
[1]杨小强.税法总论[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2002.
[2]熊伟.法治财税:从理想图景到现实诉求[J].清华法学,2014(5).
[3]翟继光.论税法中的溯及既往原则[J].税务研究,2010(2).
[4]朱冬梅,薛秀凤.对税法溯及力的思考[J].扬州大学税务学院学报,1998(2).
[5]四川省眉山市国际税收研究会课题组.税法溯及力的国际借鉴[J].税务研究,2016(4).
(1)宪法第十四修正案将该原则扩展到适用于各州的立法。
(2)United States v. Carlton,512 U.S. 26(1993)[EB/OL].[2018-09-01]. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/26/.这是联邦最高法院审理的关于税法溯及力的最新的判例之一。
(1)Welch v. Henry ET AL.305 U.S. 134(1938)[EB/OL].[2018-09-01]. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/305/134/.
(2)Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531(1927)[EB/OL].[2018-09-01]. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/531/.
(1)指的是遗产税、所得税还有消费税等。
(2)就此排除了前述法不溯及既往原则的适用。
(3)就此排除了契约条款的适用。
(4)参见前引Carton案判决。
(5)《税收规范性文件制定管理办法》第十三条也有类似的规定。该条规定:“税收规范性文件不得溯及既往,但是为了更好地保护税务行政相对人权利和利益而作出的特别规定除外。”
[2]熊伟.法治财税:从理想图景到现实诉求[J].清华法学,2014(5).
[3]翟继光.论税法中的溯及既往原则[J].税务研究,2010(2).
[4]朱冬梅,薛秀凤.对税法溯及力的思考[J].扬州大学税务学院学报,1998(2).
[5]四川省眉山市国际税收研究会课题组.税法溯及力的国际借鉴[J].税务研究,2016(4).
(1)宪法第十四修正案将该原则扩展到适用于各州的立法。
(2)United States v. Carlton,512 U.S. 26(1993)[EB/OL].[2018-09-01]. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/26/.这是联邦最高法院审理的关于税法溯及力的最新的判例之一。
(1)Welch v. Henry ET AL.305 U.S. 134(1938)[EB/OL].[2018-09-01]. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/305/134/.
(2)Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531(1927)[EB/OL].[2018-09-01]. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/531/.
(1)指的是遗产税、所得税还有消费税等。
(2)就此排除了前述法不溯及既往原则的适用。
(3)就此排除了契约条款的适用。
(4)参见前引Carton案判决。
(5)《税收规范性文件制定管理办法》第十三条也有类似的规定。该条规定:“税收规范性文件不得溯及既往,但是为了更好地保护税务行政相对人权利和利益而作出的特别规定除外。”