第五章、 結論與建議
第三節 研究建議
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
114
設備業者，內容涵蓋多項產業，包含電子零組件、光電業與 PC 系統等，
本研究未再進一步就各產業之狀況進行分析。為減緩獎勵投資條例之施行 所導致產業間之稅負不均，政府於制定促進產業升級條例時，改以功能別 獎勵取代獎勵投資條例時期之產業別或產品別獎勵，因此，於此時期，得 享有租稅優惠之企業已不再侷限於特定產業；故本研究於促進產業升級條 例時期，以產業別進行比較分析，而非以各產業內受獎勵與未受獎勵之企 業進行比較分析，可能影響本研究之結果。
最後，本研究係針對上市及上櫃公司進行研究，一般多為較大型之企 業，故本研究所獲致之結果可能無法類推至一般未上市上櫃或未公開發行 之企業，亦為本研究之限制。
第三節 研究建議
本論文以實證研究方式探討我國經濟發展各階段，政府所制定之租稅 優惠條例（獎勵投資條例、促進產業升級條例與生技新藥產業發展條例）
對於特定產業外顯稅負與隱含稅負（股東權益稅前報酬率）之影響。本節 將分別針對上市上櫃公司、政府部門與後續研究者提出建議。
一、 上市上櫃公司
上市上櫃公司雖可藉由法定之租稅優惠措施減免企業應繳納予政府 之外顯稅負，然而外顯稅負僅為企業租稅負擔之一部分，本研究之實證結 果顯示，外顯稅負降低之同時，因隱含稅負之存在，將導致企業之股東權 益稅前報酬率下降；因此，管理當局於進行與租稅減免相關之投資決策 時，為避免盲目追求租稅上有利資產，導致過度投資之情事發生，於作成 決策時，應將隱含稅負之影響同時納入考量。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
115
二、 政府部門
過去，政府於研擬租稅政策時，主要係以有效稅率作為衡量企業租稅 負擔之標準；然而，本研究之實證結果支持隱含稅理論，即享有租稅減免 之產業，其股東權益稅前報酬率較低，顯示其所負擔之隱含稅負較高，即 政府之租稅獎勵可能導致受獎勵產業之過度投資，反而降低其股東權益稅 前報酬率。因此，本研究建議政府以租稅獎勵作為政策工具時，除考量對 有效稅率之影響外，亦應一併考慮對企業可能產生之隱含稅負擔，唯有將 兩項因素均納入考量，才可正確評估租稅獎勵之全貌，減少錯誤政策發生 的可能性。
三、 後續之研究者
首先，本研究因受限於研究之期間（資料取得僅至 2012 年），於探討 促進產業升級條例廢止後與生技新藥產業發展條例施行後對於特定產業 之影響，無法獲致本研究原先之預期。若能將研究涵蓋期間延長，以較長 之期間觀察營利事業有效稅率之變化，消彌促進產業升級條例過渡期之影 響或因時間經過擴大生技新藥產業發展條例受獎勵對象之樣本數，應可使 整個研究更加完整，所得出之結論更具說服力。
此外，後續之研究者未來可針對單一產業進行長時間之分析研究，探 討不同期間各租稅優惠條例對於該特定產業租稅負擔之影響。
最後，後續之研究者未來若能取得充分之資料，可增加本研究之樣 本，將未上市上櫃之企業納入研究樣本，並就上市上櫃企業與未上市上櫃 企業之實證結果進行比較分析。
‧
陳明進，2002，營利事業有效稅率決定因素之實證研究，會計評論，第 34 期（1 月）：57-75。
陳明進，2003，我國租稅優惠對營利事業租稅負擔之影響，管理評論，第 22 卷（1 月）：127-151。
‧
Adhikari, A., C. Derashid, and H. Zhang. 2006. Public policy, political connections, and effective tax rates: Longitudinal evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 25 (September/October): 574-595.
Atwood, T. J. 2003. Implicit taxes: Evidence from taxable, AMT, and tax-exempt state and local government bond yields. Journal of American Taxation Association 25 (March): 1-20.
Berger, P. G. 1993. Explicit and implicit tax effects of the R&D tax credit. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (Autumn): 131-171.
Birnbaum, J. H., and A. S. Murray. 1987. Showdown at Gucci Gulch, Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform. New York, NY: Random
‧
market structure. Journal of American Taxation Association 21 (March): 1-19.Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ). 1986. 130 reasons why we need tax reform.
Washington, D. C.: Citizens for Tax Justice.
Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ). 1988. The corporate tax comeback. Washington, D.
C.: Citizens for Tax Justice.
Chen, M., S. Lin, and T. Chang. 2001. The impact of tax-exempt stock and land capital gains on corporate effective tax rates. Taiwan Accounting Review 2 (April): 33-56.
Chen, M. C., and C. Y. Hung. 2010. The effects of macroeconomic factors on implicit taxes: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 19 (December): 79-92.
Dunbar, A., and V. Stanley. 2012. The effect of taxes on conventional preferred stock:
Evidence from the 2003 JGTRRA dividend tax reduction. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 34 (Spring): 87-111.
Fullerton, D. 1984. Which effective tax rate? National Tax Journal 37 (March): 23-41.
Guenther, D. A. 1994. The relation between tax rates and pre-tax returns: Direct evidence from the 1981 and 1986 tax rate reductions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 18 (November): 379-393.
Gupta, S., and K. Newberry. 1997. Determinants of the variability in corporate effect tax rates: Evidence from longitudinal data. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 16 (Spring): 1-34.
Harris, D. G., and E. Kilic. 2009. Bilateral Implicit taxes and anti-competitive banking regulation. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 31 (Fall): 45-73.
Kern, B. B., and M. H. Morris. 1992. Taxes and firm size: The effect of tax legislation during the 1980s. Journal of the American Taxation Association 14 (1): 80-96.
Kim, K. A., and P. Limpaphayom, 1998, Taxes and firm size in pacific-basin emerging economies. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 7 (July): 47-68.
Liu, C., S. Lin, and D. Huang. 2001. Factors influencing corporate effective tax rates
‧
in Taiwan. Taiwan Accounting Review 2 (April): 57-84.
Manzon, G., and W.R. Smith. 1994. The effect of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986 on the distribution of effective tax rates.
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 13 (Winter): 349-362.
McIntyre, R., and D. Wilhelm. 1985. Corporate taxpayers and corporate freeloaders:
Four years of continued legalized tax avoidance by America’s largest corporations, 1981-84. 947-955. Washington, D. C.: Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), reprinted in Tax Notes.
Porcano, T. 1986. Corporate tax rates: Progressive, proportional, or regressive. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 7 (Spring): 17-31.
Rego, S. O. 2003. Tax-avoidance activities of U. S. multinational corporations.
Contemporary Accounting Research 20 (Winter): 805-833.
Salbador, D. A., and V. P. Vendrzyk. 2006. An examination of the relations among tax preferences, implicit taxes, and market power in a noncompetitive market.
The Journal of the American Taxation Association 28 (Fall): 47-67.
Scholes, M., and M. Wolson. 1992. Taxes and Business Strategy: A Planning Approach. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Scholes, M. S., M. A. Wolson, M. Erickson, E. L. Maydew, and T. Shevlin. 2002.
Taxes and Business Strategy: A Planning Approach. 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle river, N. J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Siegfried, J. 1974. Effective average U. S. corporation income tax rates. National Tax Journal 27 (June): 245-259.
Singh, D., R. P. Wilder, and K. P. Chan. 1987. Tax rates in small and large firm.
American Journal of Small Business 12 (Fall): 41-52.
Shackelford, D. A. 1991. The market for tax benefit: Evidence from leverages ESOPs.
Journal of Accounting and Economics 14 (June): 117-145.
Shevlin, T., and S. Porter. 1992. The corporate tax comeback in 1987: Some further evidence. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 14 (March): 58-79.
Stickney, C. and V. McGee. 1982. Effective corporate tax rates: The effect of size, capital intensity, leverage, and other factors. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 1 (Winter): 125-152.
Wang, S. 1991. The relation between firm size and effective tax rates: A test of firms’
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
120
political success. The Accounting Review 66 (January): 158-169.
Watts, L. W., and J. L. Zimmerman. 1978. Towards a positive theory of the determination of accounting standards. Accounting Review 53 (January):
112-134
Wilkie, P. 1988. Corporate average effective tax rates and inferences about relative tax preferences. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 10 (September): 75-88.
Wilkie, P. J. 1992. Empirical evidence of implicit taxes in the corporate sector. The Journal of American Taxation Association 14 (March): 97-115.
Wilkie, P., and S. Limberg. 1993. Measuring explicit tax (dis)advantage for corporate taxpayers: An alternative to average effective tax rates. Journal of the American Taxation Association 15 (Spring): 46-71.
Wright, B. 2001. An application of the Scholes and Wolfson model to examine the relation between implicit and explicit taxes and firm market structure: An analysis. Journal of American Taxation Association 23 (Fall): 59-67.
Wu, L., Y. Wang, W. Luo, and P. Gillis. 2012. State ownership, tax status and size effect of effective tax rate in China. Accounting and Business Research 42 (2):
97-114.
Zimmerman, J. 1983. Taxes and firm size. Journal of Accounting and Economics 5 (2): 119-149.