【摘要】：避稅行為屢見(jiàn)不鮮也屢禁不止,給我國(guó)的稅收收入和權(quán)益帶來(lái)很大的損失。所以,對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行反避稅法律制度的研究具有重要的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義,更有助于我國(guó)稅收法治的發(fā)展。公司避稅給我國(guó)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展帶來(lái)嚴(yán)重的負(fù)面影響,且我國(guó)反避稅的重點(diǎn)也是公司避稅,因此本文主要就公司避稅進(jìn)行探討。本文先從避稅入手,了解避稅的本質(zhì)和法律性質(zhì),學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)避稅法律性質(zhì)的探討有三個(gè)觀點(diǎn),分別是合法說(shuō)、違法說(shuō)和脫法說(shuō)。避稅的脫法說(shuō)是當(dāng)前的主流學(xué)說(shuō),避稅脫法說(shuō)主張避稅行為不違反法律文意,在形式上合法;實(shí)質(zhì)上背棄了立法意圖,違反了實(shí)質(zhì)課稅原則,損害了稅法的實(shí)質(zhì)正義,具有實(shí)質(zhì)違法性。故避稅既抵觸了稅法目的,同時(shí)又無(wú)法適用稅法,是一種脫法行為。接著本文探討了反避稅制度內(nèi)部的理論沖突,即稅收法定主義和實(shí)質(zhì)課稅原則的對(duì)立。稅收法定主義要求征稅機(jī)關(guān)依據(jù)法律規(guī)定且經(jīng)過(guò)法定程序進(jìn)行征稅,嚴(yán)格限制國(guó)家權(quán)力。而實(shí)質(zhì)課稅原則并不以稅法的明文規(guī)定為必要,當(dāng)課稅要件事實(shí)的形式與實(shí)質(zhì)不符時(shí),實(shí)質(zhì)課稅原則更注重經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)質(zhì),以經(jīng)濟(jì)事實(shí)的實(shí)質(zhì)作為稅法的適用依據(jù)。稅務(wù)機(jī)關(guān)可以對(duì)有避稅行為的納稅人展開(kāi)反避稅調(diào)查并進(jìn)行適當(dāng)?shù)募{稅調(diào)整。但是,從深層次上講,二者從不同側(cè)面共同維護(hù)了稅法的公平正義,使稅收負(fù)擔(dān)在納稅人之間得到合理分配。值得注意的是,稅收法定主義在矛盾對(duì)立的雙方占據(jù)著主導(dǎo)地位。實(shí)質(zhì)課稅原則應(yīng)在稅收法定主義的體系要求下適用,才能盡可能的減少其消極作用,并使形式正義和實(shí)質(zhì)正義達(dá)成統(tǒng)一。然后本文對(duì)我國(guó)的反避稅立法進(jìn)程和現(xiàn)階段法律制度進(jìn)行了一一梳理,探求其不足,主要缺陷是反避稅立法級(jí)次低,一般反避稅條款舉證責(zé)任不明晰、稅法漏洞多,反避稅范圍單一狹窄、納稅人權(quán)利保障欠缺等。最后根據(jù)我國(guó)反避稅法律制度的現(xiàn)狀,針對(duì)反避稅制度現(xiàn)存缺陷,分別從立法和制度上進(jìn)行了完善我國(guó)反避稅工作的法律思考,并提出了一些加強(qiáng)反避稅工作的建議,以達(dá)到完善我國(guó)反避稅法律制度的目的。比起將注意力放在反對(duì)避稅上,健全稅法、保證稅法的貫徹執(zhí)行更為重要。只有健全的反避稅法律制度,才能為我國(guó)接下來(lái)的一系列反避稅工作提供堅(jiān)實(shí)的法律保障。
[Abstract]:Tax avoidance is often prohibited, which brings great losses to the tax revenue and rights and interests of our country. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to study the current anti-tax avoidance legal system in our country, and it is more helpful to the development of tax rule of law in our country. Corporate tax avoidance has a serious negative impact on the social and economic development of our country, and the focus of anti-tax avoidance in our country is also corporate tax avoidance, so this paper mainly discusses the corporate tax avoidance. This paper starts with tax avoidance and understands the nature and legal nature of tax avoidance. There are three points of view in academic circles on the legal nature of tax avoidance, namely, the theory of legality, the theory of illegality and the theory of illegality. The theory of tax avoidance is the mainstream theory at present. The theory of tax avoidance advocates that tax avoidance is not contrary to the legal meaning and is legal in form; in essence, it reneges on the legislative intention, violates the principle of substantive taxation, damages the substantive justice of the tax law, and has the substantive illegality. Therefore, tax avoidance is not only contrary to the purpose of the tax law, but also unable to apply the tax law, which is a kind of illegal behavior. Then this paper discusses the theoretical conflict within the anti-tax avoidance system, that is, the antagonism between tax legalism and the principle of substantive taxation. Tax legalism requires tax authorities to collect taxes in accordance with the law and through legal procedures, and strictly restrict state power. However, the principle of substantive taxation is not necessary by the express provisions of the tax law. When the form of the important facts of taxation is inconsistent with the substance, the principle of substantive taxation pays more attention to the economic essence, and takes the essence of the economic facts as the basis for the application of the tax law. Tax authorities may carry out anti-tax avoidance investigations and make appropriate tax adjustments to taxpayers with tax avoidance. However, from a deep level, the two together maintain the fairness and justice of the tax law from different aspects, so that the tax burden can be reasonably distributed among taxpayers. It is worth noting that tax legalism occupies a dominant position in the contradictory and antagonistic sides. The principle of substantive taxation should be applied under the requirements of the system of tax legalism in order to reduce its negative effects as much as possible and to unify formal justice and substantive justice. Then this paper combs the legislative process and current legal system of anti-tax avoidance one by one, and explores its shortcomings. The main defects are the low level of anti-tax avoidance legislation, the unclear burden of proof of the general anti-tax avoidance clause, many loopholes in the tax law, the single scope of anti-tax avoidance, the lack of protection of taxpayers' rights, and so on. Finally, according to the present situation of the anti-tax avoidance legal system in our country, and in view of the existing defects of the anti-tax avoidance system, this paper makes some legal thoughts on perfecting the anti-tax avoidance work in our country from the aspects of legislation and system, and puts forward some suggestions for strengthening the anti-tax avoidance work in order to achieve the purpose of perfecting the anti-tax avoidance legal system in our country. It is more important to improve the tax law and ensure the implementation of the tax law than to focus on opposing tax avoidance. Only by perfecting the legal system of anti-tax avoidance can we provide a solid legal guarantee for the next series of anti-tax avoidance work in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.22

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張維瑞;;反避稅新探[J];中共山西省委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2006年06期

2 劉曉虹;;美國(guó)反避稅措施初探[J];國(guó)際關(guān)系學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年02期

3 黃景鈞;;兩岸攜手 共同促進(jìn)反避稅[J];北京政法職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年02期

4 方正;我國(guó)外商投資企業(yè)的避稅與反避稅初探[J];福州黨政論壇;1995年03期

5 董國(guó)慶;談外商投資企業(yè)避稅與反避稅問(wèn)題[J];社科縱橫;1995年04期

6 袁勤;歐陽(yáng)愛(ài)輝;;我國(guó)反避稅法設(shè)置構(gòu)想[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)縱橫;2007年06期

7 楊英男;;新企業(yè)所得稅法下反避稅政策的解讀[J];中國(guó)高新技術(shù)企業(yè);2008年23期

8 武曉娜;;新《企業(yè)所得稅法》下的避稅與反避稅問(wèn)題研究[J];中國(guó)證券期貨;2012年01期

9 涂文勇，，吳國(guó)舫;反避稅立法的國(guó)際比較與借鑒[J];稅務(wù)與經(jīng)濟(jì)(長(zhǎng)春稅務(wù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1995年01期

10 舒桂鳳;朱慧嚴(yán);黎軍華;;《企業(yè)所得稅法》反避稅規(guī)則帶來(lái)的挑戰(zhàn)[J];涉外稅務(wù);2008年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 吳亞榮;;淺議加強(qiáng)國(guó)際反避稅措施[A];海南省稅務(wù)學(xué)會(huì)四屆二次理事會(huì)暨全省第十一次稅收理論研討會(huì)專(zhuān)輯[C];2002年

2 王慧軍;;論外商投資企業(yè)和外國(guó)企業(yè)的避稅及我國(guó)的反避稅措施[A];對(duì)外經(jīng)貿(mào)財(cái)會(huì)論文選第十五輯[C];2003年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 張力鈞;反避稅挽回稅款320萬(wàn)[N];中國(guó)稅務(wù)報(bào);2005年

2 蔡昌;政府反避稅的立法及一般方法[N];財(cái)會(huì)信報(bào);2010年

3 本報(bào)記者 蔡巖紅;中國(guó)升級(jí)反避稅規(guī)則[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

4 包屹沁;反避稅需要走出幾個(gè)誤區(qū)[N];中國(guó)稅務(wù)報(bào);2001年

5 張文春;英國(guó)反避稅可能傷害競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力[N];中國(guó)稅務(wù)報(bào);2005年

6 策劃 丁靜 文兆祥;反避稅:關(guān)乎稅收流向的利益博弈[N];財(cái)會(huì)信報(bào);2010年

7 本報(bào)記者 姚長(zhǎng)輝;反避稅：起步晚但力度大[N];中國(guó)財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2012年

8 郭瑞軒;我國(guó)反避稅防控體系基本形成[N];中國(guó)稅務(wù)報(bào);2012年

9 本報(bào)記者 王心;反避稅：博弈跨國(guó)公司 參與國(guó)際規(guī)則改革進(jìn)程[N];中國(guó)稅務(wù)報(bào);2013年

10 本報(bào)記者 寇紅;反避稅: 中國(guó)既需追趕也需領(lǐng)跑[N];中國(guó)稅務(wù)報(bào);2011年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 沈肇章;基于企業(yè)避稅行為分析的反避稅策略研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 楊俊鵬;避稅與反避稅博弈研究[D];華南理工大學(xué);2015年

2 余萬(wàn)彪;實(shí)質(zhì)課稅原則在反避稅中的適用研究[D];福建師范大學(xué);2015年

3 王亭亭;虧損交易反避稅規(guī)則研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

4 曹佳佳;BEPS對(duì)中國(guó)稅收政策法律的影響及應(yīng)對(duì)措施研究[D];上海海關(guān)學(xué)院;2016年

5 陳玲;論實(shí)質(zhì)課稅原則在我國(guó)稅收規(guī)避治理中的運(yùn)用[D];湘潭大學(xué);2016年

6 曹揚(yáng)丹;個(gè)人所得稅反避稅對(duì)策探討[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2016年

7 孫雪貞;我國(guó)現(xiàn)行反避稅法律制度研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2017年

8 丁娜娜;湖南省反避稅對(duì)策研究[D];國(guó)防科學(xué)技術(shù)大學(xué);2007年

9 張迪;企業(yè)避稅與反避稅的博弈理論與實(shí)踐[D];首都經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2010年

10 劉霞;反避稅與我國(guó)的稅法改革[D];吉林大學(xué);2005年

本文編號(hào)：2510930