| 中文题名： | 包税条款的法律效力研究 |
| 姓名： | |
| 保密级别： | 公开 |
| 论文语种： | 中文 |
| 学科代码： | 035101 |
| 学科专业： | |
| 学生类型： | 硕士 |
| 学位： | 法律硕士 |
| 学位类型： | |
| 学位年度： | 2021 |
| 校区： | |
| 学院： | |
| 研究方向： | 经济法学 |
| 第一导师姓名： | |
| 第一导师单位： | |
| 提交日期： | 2021-06-21 |
| 答辩日期： | 2021-06-21 |
| 外文题名： | RESEARCH ON THE LEGAL EFFECT OF TAX PACKAGE CLAUSE |
| 中文关键词： | |
| 外文关键词： | Tax package clause ; Determination of legal effect ; Autonomy of will ; Tax statutory ; Major misunderstanding |
| 中文摘要： |
包税条款是指民商事活动中，交易双方约定由一方主体承担因交易产生的一切税费的合同条款。尽管该条款在实践中非常普遍，但因缺乏明确的法律规定，实务中对包税条款的法律效力尚未达成一致的认定意见。有的法院根据意思自治原则，肯定包税条款的法律
效力；也有的法院对包税条款的法律效力持否定态度，认为该条款违反了《中华人民共和国税收征收管理法实施细则》的相关规定，不符合税收法定主义原则；还有的法院认为该条款在合同双方当事人之间有效，但对税务机关不具有法律拘束力。因对包税条款法律效力的争议较大，司法实践中出现“同案不同判”现象，降低了税收征管效率。
为统一司法裁判中的认定意见，本文从实践中存在的关于认定包税条款法律效力的争议入手，探究争议产生的具体原因，详细分析不同认定依据的可行性，并结合税收征管实践中的困境，最终得出对包税条款法律效力的认定结论，并提出解决此类争议的几点建议。
对于包税条款法律效力的认定问题，笔者以为，当交易双方意思表示真实，买受方对包税条款的含义有一定认识，且包税合同不属于格式合同的情况下，理应肯定包税条款在民事主体之间的法律效力。但包税合同对税务机关不具有法律拘束力，当非纳税人拒绝履行包税条款约定的税款缴纳义务时，纳税人应当依法纳税，包税条款无法成为纳税人拒绝履行纳税义务的抗辩事由。除此之外，包税条款也可能因个别税种的特殊情况，适用重大误解制度予以撤销，或者因部分包税条款符合格式条款的定义，适用格式条款的相关规定被否认其效力。因此，对于包税条款的法律效力要结合不同案件的具体情况予以认定，做到具体问题具体分析，切不可“一刀切”。
|
| 外文摘要： |
Tax package clauses refers to a contract clause in which both parties to a transaction agree that one party shall bear all taxes and fees arising from the transaction. Although this clause is very common in practice, due to the lack of clear legal provisions, in practice, there is no consensus on
the legal effect of the tax package clause. Some courts affirmed the legal effect of the tax-inclusive clause based on the principle of autonomy of will; some courts held a negative attitude towards the legal effect of the tax-inclusive clause, believing that the clause violated the relevant provisions of the "Rules for the Implementation of the Tax Collection and Management Law of the People's Republic of China" It does not conform to the principle of tax legalism; some courts believe that this clause is valid between the parties to the contract, but it is not legally binding on the tax authority. Due to the considerable controversy over the legal validity of the tax package clauses, the phenomenon of "different judgments in the same case" appeared in judicial practice, which
reduced the efficiency of tax collection and administration.
In order to unify the opinions in judicial judgments, this article starts with the disputes about the legal validity of the tax package clauses that exist in practice, explores the specific reasons for the disputes, analyzes the feasibility of different affirmation bases in detail, and combines the
difficulties in tax collection and management practices. , And finally reached a conclusion on the legal validity of the tax package clause, and put forward several suggestions for resolving such disputes. Regarding the determination of the legal validity of the tax-inclusive clause, the author believes that when the two parties in the transaction express their true intentions, the buyer has a certain understanding of the meaning of the tax-inclusive clause, and the tax-inclusive contract is not a standard contract, the tax-inclusive clause should be affirmed The legal effect between civil subjects. However, the tax package contract is not legally binding on the tax authority. When a non-taxpayer refuses to fulfill the tax payment obligation stipulated in the tax package clause, the
taxpayer shall pay the tax in accordance with the law. The tax package clause cannot be a defense for the taxpayer to refuse to perform the tax obligation. . In addition, tax-inclusive clauses may also be revoked due to the special circumstances of individual taxes and the application of a major misunderstanding system, or because some tax-inclusive clauses conform to the definition of standard clauses, the relevant provisions of the applicable standard clauses may be denied their validity. Therefore, the legal effect of tax-inclusive clauses should be determined in light of the specific circumstances of different cases, and specific issues should be analyzed in detail, and there must be no “one size fits all”.
|
| 参考文献总数： | 76 |
| 馆藏号： | 硕035101/21108 |
| 开放日期： | 2022-06-21 |
谷歌
