I have this question regarding tax residency in Taiwan.
https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=G0340003
Article 7
The term “person” as used in this Act refers to a natural person or juristic person. The term “individual” used in this Act means a natural person.
The term “individual residing in the Republic of China” refers to one of the following:
1. A person who has domicile within the territory of the Republic of China and resides at all times within the territory of the Republic of China;
2. A person who has no domicile within the territory of the Republic of China but resides within the territory of the Republic of China for a period of more than 183 days during a taxable year.
The term “individual not residing in the Republic of China” denotes an individual other than those as provided in the preceding paragraph. The term “taxpayer” as used in this Act means a person who is required under this Act to report or pay income tax.
The term “tax withholder” as used in this Act means a person who is required under this Act to withhold income tax from his payment to be made to a taxpayer.
Now doesn’t a “domicile” mean your home base? Like where all of your things are or does it strictly refer to having household registration? If your address is on your ARC card… shouldn’t that be referred to as your “domicile?” Particularly if you are living there.
Also looking at the Chinese too it refers to as “domicile.” 住所
本法稱人，係指自然人及法人。本法稱個人，係指自然人。
本法稱中華民國境內居住之個人，指左列兩種：
一、在中華民國境內有住所，並經常居住中華民國境內者。
二、在中華民國境內無住所，而於一課稅年度內在中華民國境內居留合計滿一百八十三天者。
本法稱非中華民國境內居住之個人，係指前項規定以外之個人。
本法稱納稅義務人，係指依本法規定，應申報或繳納所得稅之人。
本法稱扣繳義務人，係指依本法規定，應自付與納稅義務人之給付中扣繳所得稅款之人。
So now before you think I am going crazy…
Here is a supreme court ruling in Taiwan 案例-民事訴訟事件-所謂「住所」之定義？
訴訟上送達合法與否常生爭議，所謂「住所」定義是什麼？提供最高法院的見解供大家參考：
住所之認定兼採主觀主義及客觀主義精神，即依一定事實，足認以久住之意思，住於一定之地域者，即為設定其住所於該地，民法第 20 條定有明文。是住所，必主觀上有久住一定地域之意思，客觀上有住於一定地域之事實，該一定之地域始為住所，故其並不以登記為要件，戶籍登記之處所固得資為推定住所之依據，惟倘若有客觀事證足認當事人已久無居住該原登記戶籍之地域，並已變更意思以其他地域為住所者，即不得僅憑原戶籍登記之資料，一律認該地為其住所。
（最高法院 70 年台抗字第 306 號民事裁定）
To summarize, from what I understand from this ruling is that a “domicile” (住所) isn’t strictly based off of household registration as is subjective to whether it is your actual home base. (i.e. if you have lived here for 10 years then for tax purposes you should come under category 1 and not have to have tax withheld for 6 months in a year.)
HOWEVER, my Chinese is FARRR from perfect so maybe someone with better Chinese or more legal experience could have a look and see what they think. Also maybe we could suggest changing the definition so people with APRCs can be treated more fairly.
