公司資本即是股東的出資，在股東對公司債權人僅負有限責任的狀況下，歐陸傳統公司法學向來即特別強調公司資本作為公司清償債務擔保的功能，因此，亦發展出以形式資本數額為基礎的法定資本制。反之，英美法國家卻認為形式的資本額與公司實際的資產或償債能力無關，故其公司法制自不遵守嚴格的法定資本制。此兩種理念特別在歐盟各會員國間產生強烈的衝擊，蓋各會員國本各有其傳統的資本法制，而今卻需協調彼此間的差異，因此，此一學術爭議迄今仍未平息。 就盈餘分配而言，在實施法定資本制的國家中，盈餘分配受到法律相當嚴格的限制，而不採法定資本制的國家，其法規範則將盈餘分配的界限從形式上財務報表計算的結果脫勾，而以公司實質上是否有償債能力為標準。惟此兩者亦各有利弊也。 我國公司法向來即本於所謂的資本三原則而亦採嚴格的法定資本制，惟近年來數次修正後，卻使法定資本制有逐漸寬鬆的現象，尤其是二○○九年的修正草案中，公司法的主管機關更欲放寬原來資本公積作為盈餘分配的限制。故本文將以法定資本制的爭議為基礎，探討盈餘分配的方式，並對我國公司法對盈餘分配的修正草案提出批判與建言。

Corporate capital consists simply of shareholders’ contribution. Due to limited liability of shareholders it is important to maintain the assets in a certain level in comparison with the amount of capital in order to protect creditors. This function of capital is one of the central principles of the European Continental corporate law. On the contrary, the formal amount of corporate capital in the Anglo American law is in general regarded as irrelevant with the amount of the asset or the solvency of the corporation. Therefore their corporate laws don’t follow the strict legal capital requirements. The said two systems conflict particularly in the EU in course of the harmonization of different law systems. The debate continues to date. According to legal capital rules distribution of corporate earnings results from the balance sheet test. But in the other law system distribution depends on the solvency of the corporation. Each system has gains or losses. The legal capital rules are part of Taiwan Corporate Law. But after several amendments in recent years, the legal capital rules are tending looser. In the draft of corporation act in 2009 amendment of dividend regulations was proposed, in which the capital surplus could be distributed as earnings. This article discusses issues of distribution, legal capital rules, and further to provide suggestions for the future amendment.