It seems to me there is no law that prohibits Uber from matching customers to drivers. The reason is simple: there is no law that describes any such thing, and a fundamental tenet of law is "that which is not prohibited is allowed". The government are simply stretching existing laws like bubblegum because they don't like Uber. The law is an ass because this shouldn't even be possible.
I'm only guessing what's happening here, but I would imagine Uber realises it's cheaper to just pay the fines than to go to a Taiwanese court, which - if precedent is reliable - will be heavily biased and make lots of illogical arguments to justify their prejudices. Bear in mind that Taiwanese laws are written in even more impenetrable language than most, precisely so that they can be manipulated.
Your example is interesting in that it illustrates how utterly ridiculous laws can get. There actually is no difference between a house with guests going in and out, and a house with ordinary occupants going in and out. There are still the same number of people in the house because it only has a certain number of rooms. There are still the same number of comings and goings because, well, human behavior. Tourists (say) will have roughly the same occupancy pattern as someone living there and going to work 9 til 5. Airbnb pretty much proves the point.
The only problem arises when you sell hourly rates, such that, um, there are more comings than goings. However, we would assume that's covered by other laws, unrelated to house-occupancy laws: say, noise abatement or public nuisance. Or, if you alter the number of rooms and/or cram in too many people, laws about maximum occupancy or planning would kick in. A hotel should follow a fire code not because it's a hotel, but because the design of the building (many rooms with limited access) is a fire risk.
There is IMO no need to draw a distinction between hotels and residences.
Oh, but hotels should pay business taxes, while individuals pay income tax?
There's no "should" here. It's just traditional that things are arranged like that. As I said earlier, there are a dozen different ways you could get businesses (or individuals) to pay for the services they use.
My whole point is that the nature of modern business is becoming so complicated that the law should just accept the fact, and rearrange itself to suit, rather than prohibiting businesses it doesn't know how to deal with.
I remember reading somewhere about a social scientist doing research on development - as in, why some countries develop faster than others. He concluded that the main impediment to social progress is lawyers.