臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

論文提要

本論文以財政部財稅資料中心八十八年度之營利事業所得稅資料檔為研究樣本, 經過篩選程序以及刪去不合邏輯值之樣本後, 將受選案查核之資料從母體區分而出, 再自其中區分出電腦選案以及非電腦選案的資料, 並利用此電腦選案抽查資料作為發展樣本製作「查稅評分表」。
「查稅評分表」是利用歷史申報資料找出逃稅者的特徵, 並依這些不同的逃稅特徵給予不同的分數, 也就是將各逃稅特徵予以數量化, 然後將各特徵下所得到的分數全部加總起來作為總評分, 讓稅務稽徵機關可以依總評分的高低對納稅義務人的逃稅風險作一排序, 亦即稅務稽徵機關可以依據分數高低來預測納稅義務人的逃稅可能性, 並依此總評分作為選案的依據。
在「查稅評分表」的模型建構過程中, 不但能找出逃稅傾向與特徵, 還能利用「查稅評分表」顯示之結果作為選查逃稅案件的依據。當評分結果之總分愈高, 表示其「逃稅風險」較低,較不傾向逃稅; 當評分結果之總分愈低, 表示該營利事業組織具「高度逃稅風險」, 國稅局的稽查人員可以依「查稅評分表」決定是否查緝該營利事業組織之逃稅行為。
根據實證結果顯示, 隸屬於台北市國稅局的營利事業之得分較高, 申報別中以會計師稅務簽證申報的逃稅率較低、交際費用率與捐贈費用率則是顯現出在限額內列支比率愈高的逃稅率較低、存貨週轉率亦呈現出愈低者的逃稅率愈高的趨勢等等。且當我們將截切點設為0.5080時, 只要營利事業經過查稅評分表之計算後的總評分小於407 分者, 則該營利事業就被應該列為選案之一, 另外, 由AUC 值高達0.7297 可知「查稅評分表」具有優越的預測能力。所以, 藉由「查稅評分表」來選擇查緝案件不但能改善傳統之主觀查緝, 還能節省人力資源。

Abstract

This research uses business income tax returns filed for the tax year 1999 from The Data Processing Center of the Ministry of Finance in Taiwan. We take several steps to refine this data. Firstly, we delete firms with illogical values. Secondly, all non-audited firms are removed. Finaly, we seperate the data by firms with computerizing audited and firms with noncomputerizing audited. This computerizing audited data called development sample. We use it to produce the Find Evasion Scoring Card.
A Find Evasion Scoring Card is a formula for assigning points to enterprise characteristics in order to derive a numeric value that reflects how likely an enterprise is, relative to other enterprises, to experience and tell us if a particular enterprise is more or less likely to evade taxthan another enterprise.
We produce the Find Evasion Scoring Card under the assumption of maximizing tax revenue.During the process of producing the Find Evasion Scoring Card, we can not only find characters of evasion, but also use the outcome of the Find Evasion Scoring Card to make decisions. It shows that the firms are with better credit as scores are increasing. That is, they are a group with lower risk of tax evasion. Vice versa, it shows that the firms are with worse credit as scores are decreasing and they are a group with higher risk of tax evsion. Auditors of IRS can make a decision of audit it or not by the scores of the Find Evasion Scoring Card in order to improve the traditional and subjective audit and save human resources.
According to the result of our Find Evasion Scoring Card, we found that the error rate reaches 0.6527 as the cutoff-point is 0.5080, that is to say, businesses should be audited by IRS if they have scores below 407. We also found that business income tax returns attested by a
certified public accountant (CPA) or firms under the jurisdiction of the National Tax Administration of Taipei have higher scores than others. Under the examined disbursement amount, lower social expense rate or lower donate expense rate have lower scores. Profit-seeking enterprises with lower inventory turnover rate have the inclination of tax evasion. And the AUC value reaches 0.7297 implies that our Find Evasion Scoring Card has dominant predictiveness.

目錄

1 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機與目的. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 研究架構. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 文獻回顧與評述 7
2.1 逃稅行為相關文獻. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 營利事業組織如何逃稅 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 信用評分簡介 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.1 建構信用評分表的方法. . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.2 查稅評分表. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3 研究方法 21
3.1 研究樣本篩選 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 研究分析方法 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.1 查稅評分表的製作. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 變數之選擇與篩選 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3.1 解釋變數的選擇與說明 . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.2 預測變數的篩選. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3.3 逃稅的定義. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4 本章小結 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4 查稅評分表的建立與分析 37
4.1 敘述性統計與分析 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2 評分結果 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2.1 查稅評分表的結果. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.2 各預測變數評分的分析 . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2.3 查稅評分表的驗證. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5 結論與建議 64
5.1 研究結論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.2 研究限制 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

附錄 66

參考文獻 74

參考文獻

[1] 山風(2002),〈美國緝查逃漏稅方式簡介〉, 《中國稅務旬
刊》,1824,16-17。
[2] 王建煊 (2004)《租稅法》, 文笙書局。
[3] 王得山(2000),〈稅制公平新挑戰〉, 《中國稅務旬
刊》,1770,8-7。
[4] 朱敬一(1988), 〈台灣營利事業所得稅逃漏的成因與指標–
MIMIC 模型的應用〉, 《國立臺灣大學經濟論文叢
刊》,16,481-489。
[5] 孟德成(2002)《營利事業所得稅選案調查模型之建立–類神經
網路之應用》, 國立臺灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
[6] 林苡妊(2003)《應用Logit 模型於營利事業所得稅選案模式之
實證研究》, 私立逢甲大學會計與財稅研究所碩士論文。
[7] 胡秀杏(1986)《營利事業所得稅逃漏行為之研究》, 國立臺灣
大學商學研究所碩士論文。
[8] 洪吉山(2002)《稅捐申報行為之研究》, 國立成功大學法律學
研究所碩士論文。
[9] 郭淑汾(2004)《企業利用人頭虛報薪資逃漏稅分析〉, 國立政
治大學行政管理研究所碩士論文。
[10] 許志民(1986)《中小企業健全會計制度與防止逃漏稅之研
究》, 私立東吳大學會計研究所碩士論文。
[11] 梁再添(1991), 〈建立誠實申報暨愛心查帳的營所稅制度〉,
《稅務旬刊》,1429,9-10。
[12] 陳紹興(1984)《美國銀行會計及信用評等制度》, 中央銀行金
融業務檢查處。
[13] 陳明進(2003), 〈稽徵機關稅務查核對營利事業短漏報所得之
影響〉, 接受刊登中。
[14] 黃壽佐(1980)《營利事業所得稅選案調查研究》, 國立政治大
學財政學研究所碩士論文。
[15] 黃俊發(1999)《我國中型企業選擇會計師稅務簽證之因素研
究》, 國立臺灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
[16] 《稅法輯要》(2004), 財政部編印。
[17] 張進德(1991),〈如何改進營利事業查帳制度〉, 《稅務旬
刊》,1429,7-8。
[18] 劉珮芬(2002)《運用決策樹於營利事業所得稅結算申報書選案
查核之研究》, 國立臺灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
[19] 鮑世瑩譯(1973),〈從營利事業所得稅抽查核稅談抽樣查帳的
四項原則〉, 《稅務旬刊》,781,5-7。
[20] 廬欽滄(1996),〈日本稅務調查制度簡介之四–準備調查中之
選案分析方法〉, 《中國稅務旬刊》,1628,34-37。
[21] Allingham, M. G. and A. Sandom (1972), Income Tax
Evasion:A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Public
Economics, 1, 323-338.
[22] Andreoni, J., B. Erard and J. Feinstein (1998), Tax
Compliance. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 818-
860.
[23] Chan, K. and P. Mo (2000), Tax Holidays and Tax
Noncompliance: An Empiricial Study of Corporate Tax
Audits in China’s Developing economy. The Accounting
Review, 75, 4, 469-484.
[24] Cleveland,W.S. (1979), Robust locally weighted
regression and smoothing scatterplots. J. Amer.
Statist. Assoc., 74, 829-836.
[25] Dubin, Graetz and Wilde (1990), The Effect of Audit
Rates on the Federal Individual Income Tax, 1977-
1986. National Tax Journal, XLIII, 395-409.
[26] Erard, B. (1993), Tax with Representation. Journal of
Public Economics, 52, 163-197.
[27] Erard, B. and C. C. Ho (2002), Developing Econometric
Model for Measuring Tax Noncompliance Using
Operational Audit Data. Special Studies in Federal
Tax Statistics.
[28] Erard, B. and C. C. Ho (2001), Searching for Ghosts:
Who Are the Nonfilers and How Much Tax Do They Owe.
Journal of Public economics, 81, 25-50.
[29] Hagerman, R. and M. Zmijewski (1979), Some Economic
Determinants of Accounting Policy Choice. Journal of
Accounting and Economics, 1, 141-161.
[30] Hosmer, D. W. and Staneley Lemeshow (2000), Applied
Logistic Regression. Wiley-Interscience Publication.
[31] Hunter W. J. ang M. A. Nelson (1996), An IRS
Production Function. Nation Tax Journal, 49, 105-125 .
[32] Johnson R. A. and Dean, W. W. (1992), Applied
Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 3rd ed., Prentice-
Hall International, Inc.,pp. 573-627.
[33] Meizuh Huang (2004), Integrated Income Tax System,
CPA Tax Attestation and Corporate Tax Noncompliance.
Dissertation Proposal Graduate Institute of
Accounting of National Taiwan University.
[34] Mays, E. (2004), Credit Scoring for Risk Managers:
The Handbook for Lenders. South-Western:Thomson
Learning.
[35] Osteyee, D. B. and Good, I. J. (1974), Information,
weight of evidence, the singularity between
probability measures and signal detection. Berlin,
New York:Springer-Verlag.
[36] Rice, E. (1992) The Corporate Tax Gap: Evidence on
Tax Compliance by Small Corporations, in J. Slemord.
Why People Pay Taxes: Tax Compliance and Enforcement,
125-161, University of Michigan Press.
[37] Renchaer A. C. (2002), Methods of Multivariate
Analysis. 2nd ed,Wiley,pp. 451-503.
[38] Slemrod, J. and Keith, J. Crocker (2004), Corporate
Tax Evasion With Agency Costs. Working Paper 10690,
NBER Working Paper Series.
[39] Suming, Lin (2000), CPA Attested Tax Returns and Tax
Evasions. Taiwan Accounting Review, 1, 15-36.
[40] Vogel, J. (1974), Taxation and Public Opinion in
Sweden: An Interpretatuion of Recent Survey Data.
Nation Tax Journal, XXXVII, 499-513.
[41] Zmijewski, M. and R. Hagerman (1981), An Income
Strategy Approach to The Positive Theory of
Accounting Standard Setting and Choice. Journal of
Accounting and Economics, 3, 129-149.