The Business Tax Act provides in Article 51, Subparagraph 5, that a taxpayer who makes false entries of tax payment on purchases shall be liable to a penalty in a sum equal to five to twenty times the amount of the tax evaded besides being required to pay the principal tax, and may additionally be ordered to discontinue his business operation. In essence, the article makes the taxpayer liable to payment of the principal tax plus penalty only if he has made false entries of tax payment on purchases and has thereby evaded the payment of tax. The Ministry of Finance directive Tai-Tsai-Shui-Tze No. 7637376 (May 6, 1987), which requires that penalty be imposed under the aforesaid clause on a business operator so long as he is found to have purchased goods regardless of whether he has made false entries of tax payment on such purchases and has thereby evaded the payment of tax, should be made no longer operative to the extent that it is inconsistent with the essence of the above article and is contrary to the purpose of the Constitution in protecting the right and interest of the people. As regards the standards of penalty set forth by the above article, we do not find that they go beyond the scope of legislative discretion or are in conflict with the Constitution.

　　　 Punishment for violation of tax legislations may be imposed either because of an act of tax evasion or because of breach of duty under a tax law to act or not to act. The text of Paragraph 1 of Article 51 of the Business Tax Act states: "In any of the following circumstances, the taxpayer shall, in addition to being required to make payment of the principal tax, be liable to a penalty in a sum equal to five to twenty times the amount of the tax evaded, and may additionally be ordered to discontinue his business operation." Essentially, this is a penal provision dealing with acts of tax evasion. Therefore, to impose penalty on the ground of "making false entries of tax payment on purchases" under Subparagraph 5 of the same Article and Paragraph calls for the finding of the element where there exists such an act as a cause of the occurrence of the fact of tax evasion, and the provision is distinguishable from Article 44 of the Tax Levy Act, whereby the element required for imposition of penalty is merely the failure to deliver to or obtain from others vouchers regardless of whether there is any false entry of the tax payment on purchase as a cause of tax evasion. The Ministry of Finance directive Tai-Tsai-Shui-Tze No. 7637376 (May 6, 1987), which, without explicitly stating to such effect, requires that penalty be imposed under the aforesaid clause on a business operator so long as he is found to have purchased goods regardless of whether he has made false entries of tax payment on such purchases and has thereby evaded the payment of tax, should be made no longer operative to the extent that it is inconsistent with the essence of the above article and is contrary to the purpose of the Constitution in protecting the right and interest of the people. As regards the standards of penalty set forth by Article 51 of the Business Tax Act, being designed for the purpose of preventing tax evasion and insuring correct taxation, we do not find that they go beyond the scope of legislative discretion or are in conflict with the Constitution.　　

　　　 A business entity that has sold goods but failed to issue a uniform invoice to the direct purchaser is punishable under Article 44 of the Tax Levy Act. This is the opinion adopted by the Ministry of Finance in its directive (69) Tai-Tsai-Shui- Tze No. 36624 (August 8, 1980) and has been held to be constitutional by this Yuan in our J. Y. Interpretation No. 252. By the same legal rationale, that a business operator who has purchased goods but failed to obtain a uniform invoice from the direct seller should be held liable for penalty under Article 44 of the Tax Levy Act is consistent with the essence of the Interpretation mentioned above. Such a behavioral punishment differs from a punishment for tax evasion in the purposes of as well as the prerequisites for the punishment, the former being a sanction against the commitment of the act and the latter being a punishment conditioned upon the existence of the fact of tax evasion, which are not necessarily the same thing. It is opportune for us to make it clear here that where the act of breach of duty precedes the occurrence of tax evasion and where the imposition of a penalty for tax evasion is sufficient for meeting of the administrative objective, whether both should be made subject to punishment is a legislative issue as well as a question of opinions on the application of law.