一般反避税诉讼证明标准的反思与厘清  

On Reflection and Clarifying of the Standard of Proof in the General Anti-avoidance Litigation

作　　者：何锦前[1] 赵福乾 HE Jinqian;ZHAO Fuqian

机构地区：[1]首都经济贸易大学法学院

出　　处：《税务研究》2021年第1期103-109,共7页

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大专项“税收立法的核心价值及其体系化研究”(项目编号:19VHJ008);国家法治与法学理论研究项目“国有财产保护公益诉讼等内等外界分研究”(项目编号:19SFB2053)的阶段性研究成果;首都经济贸易大学青年学术创新团队项目资助。

摘　　要：目前,税务行政诉讼尚无统一的证明标准,一般反避税诉讼证明标准更是处于高度不确定状态。这引发了司法实践中的两大困境:一是不同法院对一般反避税诉讼证明标准适用不统一,二是诉讼证明标准适用忽略了"不具有合理商业目"和"实质重于形式"之间的内在区别。究其根由,这既与相关法律和司法解释供给不足有关,也与一般反避税的特殊性尚未得到透彻认识有关。借鉴层次化证明标准理论,考虑一般反避税诉讼的特殊性,行政诉讼制度和《税收征管法》等税法制度应作出回应,尽快明确层次化的诉讼证明标准,即对客观行为的证明应以"明显优势"为标准,对主观目的的证明则以"相对优势"为标准。At present, there is no uniform standard of proof in tax administrative litigation, and the standard of proof of general anti-avoidance litigation is in a state of high uncertainty. This leads to two dilemmas in judicial practice. First, different courts do not apply uniformly to the general standard of proof of anti-avoidance litigation. Secondly, the application of the proof standard of litigation ignores the inherent difference between "without reasonable business purposes" and "substance is more important than form". The root of this is not only related to the lack of supply of relevant laws and judicial interpretations, but also related to the general anti-avoidance particularity that has not been fully recognized. Drawing on the theory of hierarchical proof standard, considering the particularity of general anti-avoidance litigation, the administrative litigation system and tax law systems such as the Law on the Administration of Tax Collection should respond to establish the hierarchical proof standard of litigation as soon as possible, that is, the proof of objective behavior should be based on "obvious advantage" and the proof of subjective purpose should be based on "comparative advantage".

关 键 词：一般反避税 诉讼证明标准 税务行政诉讼 税收征管法 

分 类 号：D925.3[政治法律—诉讼法学] D922.22[政治法律—法学]