摘要 司法院釋字第345號解釋雖宣告欠稅限制出境規定合憲，但不等同於稅捐稽徵機關之個案裁量必然符合比例原則，個案裁量之妥適與否，是否符合比例原則，仍攸關有無違反公民與政治權利國際公約第12條及行政程序法第7條比例原則之要求。 2026年適逢我國辦理兩公約第四次國家報告國際審查會議，其中國際審查委員要求我國政府，應說明人民遭限制出境時，是否受有相關程序保障？是否有法官或其它獨立機關得以評估該限制出境處分之合法性？是否符合比例原則？從而，本文認為有重新檢視欠稅限制出境制度之必要性。 即使稅捐稽徵法第24條的立法理由一開始就表明，其目的係為了保全租稅債權，但實務操作上仍然有混淆稅捐稽徵法欠稅限制出境保全手段，及行政執行法欠稅限制住居執行手段之情形。本文認為若將二者混淆欠稅限制出境保全手段及欠稅限制住居執行手段，恐怕將使政府機關在檢視稅捐稽徵機關裁量個案是否有限制出境之必要時，無法從保全手段之觀點出發，進而無法具體客觀地檢驗欠稅限制出境處分是否符合比例原則。 因此本文先行釐清欠稅限制出境制度所涉及之基本權，並定性欠稅限制出境措施為保全手段及裁量行政後，嘗試區別稅捐稽徵法限制出境保全手段與行政執行法限制住居執行手段之差異性，再類型化欠稅人限制出境實務上爭議後進行分析。 最後呼應本次國際審查委員提出關於欠稅限制出境之正當法律程序問題，並總結本文之研究觀察與建議。;ABSTRACT While Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 345 declared the system of restricting exit from the country for tax delinquency to be constitutional， this does not mean that the exercise of individual discretion by tax collection authorities inherently complies with the principle of proportionality. Whether the discretion exercised in a specific case is appropriate and proportionate remains crucial to determining whether it violates the requirements of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act regarding the principle of proportionality. The year 2026 marks the Fourth International Review Conference on the National Reports on the Two Covenants in Taiwan. During this review， the international independent experts requested the government to clarify whether individuals subjected to exit restrictions are afforded relevant procedural safeguards; whether a judge or another independent body is available to assess the legality of such exit restriction orders; and whether these measures comply with the principle of proportionality. Consequently， this article contends that there is an imperative need to re-examine the system of exit restrictions for tax delinquency. Although the legislative intent behind Article 24 of the Tax Collection Act explicitly states from the outset that its purpose is to secure tax claims， practical operations still frequently conflate the exit restriction under the Tax Collection Act (which is a precautionary measure to secure claims) with the restriction of residence under the Administrative Enforcement Act (which is an enforcement method). This article argues that if the exit restriction as a precautionary measure and the restriction of residence as an enforcement method continue to be conflated， government agencies may fail to evaluate the necessity of an exit restriction from the perspective of securing claims when reviewing individual discretionary cases. Consequently， they will be unable to objectively and concretely examine whether an exit restriction order complies with the principle of proportionality. Therefore， this article first clarifies the fundamental rights implicated by the system of exit restrictions for tax delinquency and characterizes the exit restriction measure as a discretionary administrative act aimed at securing claims. It then attempts to distinguish the exit restriction under the Tax Collection Act from the restriction of residence under the Administrative Enforcement Act， followed by a typological analysis of practical controversies surrounding tax delinquents facing exit restrictions. Finally， this article addresses the issues of due process of law raised by the international review experts regarding exit restrictions for tax delinquency， and concludes with the research findings and recommendations of this study.
