陳汶津

Wen-Chin Chen

特別公課、目的稅、租稅國、環境公課、回收清除處理費、廢棄物清理法、資源回收管理基金

Special Common Levies, Purpose Tax, Tax State, Environmental Fees, Recycling, Clearance and Disposal Fees, Waste Disposal Act, Resource Recycling Management Fund

　　自從司法院大法官解釋第四二六號首次提及「特別公課」一詞以來,特別公課一直是行政機關採取管制手段中的新興工具,尤其在環境領域更是常見。特別公課此一概念源自於德國,指國家對特定一群人,為履行其特定任務所課徵之金錢給付義務。德國學說見解認為,特別公課的要件為:群體同質性、群體有責性、群體共益性及定期檢視課徵公課之合理性。然而這些要件的實質內涵仍有許多模糊不清之處,同時也一直飽受破壞租稅國原則以及國民財政負擔平等性的批評。本文以回收清除處理費為討論對象,以最高行政法院104年度判字第68號判決為例,從比例原則檢視課徵此種特別公課之合理性。

　　Since the Chief Justice of the Court explained that the term "special common levies" was first mentioned in Interpretation No. 426 of the Constitutional Court, special common levies have always been an emerging tool in the regulatory measures adopted by the executive authorities, especially in the environmental field. This concept is derived from Germany and refers to the obligation of the state to pay a certain group of people for the performance of their specific tasks. According to the German doctrine, the elements of the special public class are: group homogeneity, group responsibility, group commonality and the rationality of regular public inspection classes. However, there are still many ambiguities in the substantive connotations of these elements. At the same time, they have been criticized for undermining the principle of tax-paying countries and the equality of the national financial burden. This article takes the recovery and removal processing fee as the object of discussion, and the rationality of this special public class is examined from the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court (104) Judgment No. 68.