在我國稅制之中，營業稅之稅捐客體向來爲實務上疑難問題匯聚之 處。蓋於我國稅制中，無論係加値型或非加値型營業稅，乃均以「銷售貨 物、勞務」及「進口貨物」作爲其課徵對象。然而其中針對銷售貨物或勞 務之定義，標準經常難臻一致。特別是有關各級行政機關出於特定之行政 目的，對於負擔營業稅繳納義務之營業人所提供之各種行政補貼，是否亦 在營業稅課徵範圍之列，尤受矚目。就此，大法官釋字661號解釋，針對 財政部釋示汽車及船舶客運業所領受政府之補貼收入，明示排除於營業稅 課徵範圍之外。此一見解，於我國營業稅制之發展中，有其特殊之意義。 尤其是相對於歐洲法院及法國中央行政法院自1980年代以來所作成之一 系列裁判，此號大法官解釋在推理上更顯得饒富深入探究之趣味。本文擬 自該號解釋出發，深入比較分析我國稅制中行政補貼課徵加値型營業稅之 問題，比較法國稅捐稽徵實務中相類似案件之處理情形。並在文中試圖整 理或提出法國中央行政法院以及歐洲法院之判斷標準，俾作爲法制上後續 深入硏究之基礎。

The Subject Matter or the base fiscal of Value Added Tax (VAT) has often given rise to disputes in Taiwan’s taxation practice. In Taiwan’s fiscal system, VAT is imposed on operations such as “sale of goods or service” and “importation of goods.” However, there is no consistent definition of “sale of goods or service” in practice. In particular, whether a administrative subvention to a business entity is taxable or not in VAT, is an important issue in recent fiscal system of Taiwan. The Judicial Yuan has made the Interpretation No. 661, which explicitly excludes public transportation subsidies received by government/privately-owned public transportation businesses for compensating losses in running remote routes from the fiscal base of VAT. Such an interpretation stands for a remarkable watershed in the development of Taiwan’s VAT institution. The rationale of the J.Y. Interpretation No. 661 would be even more worth of further study if we compare the said J.Y. Interpretation to the series of judgments rendered by the European Court of Justice and the french Conseil d’Etat since 1980. By referring to J.Y. Interpretation No. 661, this article will provide a thorough analysis on issues arising from the levy of value-added tax on governmental subsidies in Taiwan’s tax laws and practices, and compare such laws and practices with its counterpart in french and european fiscal practice. This article will also systematize the reviewing standards adopted by European Court of Justice and the french Conseil d’Etat, in hope that it would provide basis for further legal study.