# Taking action against Taiwan's definition of domicile/residence relating to foreigners **URL:** \ **Category:** Discrimination in Taiwan\ **Created:** [December 30, 2023, 4:45pm UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419 "2023-12-30T16:45:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Andrew](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/andrew/32/179806_2.png) [@Andrew](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Andrew)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 4:45pm UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/1 "2023-12-30T16:45:17Z")
I’m about to split off a bunch of posts from the bank tax residency certificates thread, basically everything since @Mataiou’s [response from the National Human Rights Commission of the Control Yuan](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/take-action-against-taiwan-bank-tax-residency-tax-certificates/228635/580), because I think that the discussion has now evolved into a much broader thing than taking action against bank tax residency certificates per se. I’ll leave that thread open for any future developments/discussion about the tax certificates themselves, and I’m going to continue with my own complaints to Mega Bank and Richart/Taishin about how they handle them, but I think this battle against banks themselves has pretty much run its course if they’re just basing their internal policies on the interpretation of “domicile” used by the National Taxation Bureau/Taxation Administration/MOF. For their part, Taiwanese authorities appear unwilling to do anything about this, as confirmed by their responses to @Mataiou’s Control Yuan complaint as well as previous complaints I’ve made to [CTBC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/take-action-against-taiwan-bank-tax-residency-tax-certificates/228635/415) and the [National Taxation Bureau of Taipei](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/take-action-against-taiwan-bank-tax-residency-tax-certificates/228635/510). What we’re talking about now is involving our own governments to try and encourage a wider-reaching change to Taiwan’s definition of “domicile” under Article 7 of the Income Tax Act as meaning “household registration”. The exclusion and differential treatment of foreigners here seem to violate the non-discrimination clauses of Taiwan’s double taxation agreements, e.g., for the UK: > **Article 24 — non-discrimination** > Citizens or nationals of a territory shall not be subjected in the other territory to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith, which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which citizens or nationals of that other territory in the same circumstances, in particular with respect to residence, are or may be subjected. Besides bank tax withholding certificates, the biggest implication of this seems to be that the residences of people whose centers of life are clearly here (e.g., long-term residents, ARC holders, APRC holders, people with homes, families, jobs, and so on in Taiwan) shouldn’t be solely determined based on the 183-day rule (as it isn’t with Taiwanese), and they shouldn’t be subject to a higher tax rate because they don’t have household registration. I think this situation has probably caught a fair few people out over the years (e.g., anyone moving their lives to Taiwan in the second half of a year, or leaving in the first half of a year, or spending an extended period abroad despite Taiwan being their regular home). Not to mention everyone subject to higher income tax withholding from their salaries/wages for the first six months of each year. I’m trying to restrain my optimism at the moment, but the initial responses seem promising, and if this differential treatment could be fixed by involving the tax authorities and/or Taiwan-based representative offices of our own countries… well, it’s fun to imagine Taiwanese tax authorities thinking at some point in the future “we really should have just let them write ‘Taiwan’ on their withholding certificates”. 😁 I’m hoping that more people will get involved in writing to their own tax authorities/representatives, but this is what has been done so far (to my knowledge): - **Italy:** @Mataiou has contacted the Italian Economic, Trade and Cultural Promotion Office (I’m guessing) and they seem to be treating it seriously. - **Australia:** @justintaiwan has contacted the Australian Office Taipei. No updates as of yet (presumably in the new year). - **UK:** I’ve e-mailed the British Office Taipei, who seem to be taking the issue seriously and suggested I contact HMRC so they can start a Mutual Agreement Procedure with the Taiwanese side (will be doing this soon!). @Mataiou has also e-mailed someone he knows at the British Chamber of Commerce in Taipei. - **Germany:** @slawa has contacted the German Institute Taipei. No updates as of yet (presumably in the new year). - **Canada:** @jimbob132 is intending to write to them when he’s back in Taiwan in January, hopefully some other Canadians can get involved too. ---
**Author:** ![jimbob132](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jimbob132](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/jimbob132)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2023, 2:56am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/2 "2023-12-12T02:56:33Z")
> [@Take action against Taiwan bank tax residency tax certificates](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/take-action-against-taiwan-bank-tax-residency-tax-certificates/228635/580): > > _Every person has at all times one domicile, and no person has more than one domicile at a time._”, because they can always go back to their country or elsewhere, so they can’t be “permanent” permanent… Seems their definition of domicile is not clear and maybe it can be proved contradictory. If a person can only have one domicile based on their nationality then they are not recognizing dual nationality or NWOHR status. ---
**Author:** ![justintaiwan](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/7ea924/32.png) [@justintaiwan](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/justintaiwan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2023, 3:02am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/3 "2023-12-12T03:02:53Z")
> [@Take action against Taiwan bank tax residency tax certificates](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/take-action-against-taiwan-bank-tax-residency-tax-certificates/228635/580): > > they can always go back to their country or elsewhere, so they can’t be “permanent” permanent So Taiwanese citizens can’t move overseas? Is this North Korea? And they also that permanent residents don’t have the intent to reside permanently? Wtf. Rather than fixing the problem, they’re assisting the tax office in its interpretation which is not what a Human Rights Commission exists for ---
**Author:** ![slawa](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/slawa/32/112823_2.png) [@slawa](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/slawa)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2023, 3:03am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/4 "2023-12-12T03:03:12Z")
Quick OCR and automatic translation for the first letter. _Beware! Character recognition and translation can be off._ > [@](#): > > 監察院國家人權委員會函 > > 主旨: > > 有關台端陳情合法居留於台灣之外國人未能與具有戶籍 之公民同視為稅務居住者等納稅問題,涉及對外國人課 稅之歧視及差別對待等情一案,請查照。 > > 說明: > > 一、復台端112年4月20日及21日陳情書,以及112年8月7日及 10月16日來信。 > > 二、依《消除一切形式種族歧視國際公約(ICERD)》第1條及 第30號一般性建議,締約國對於公民與非公民間為區 別、排斥、限制或優惠,若非基於合法目的或手段與目 的不當聯結,即構成歧視,如因合法目的對兩者採取適 當區別之對待,則未違反該公約。 > > 三、關於《所得稅法》第7條單以戶籍作為住所認定,無法以 有效居留證登記地址視為住所,進而區別對待,適用不 同稅率,有無涉及歧視一節,查依《民法》第20條、第 1002條及最高法院110年度台上字第2031號民事判決意 旨,我國關於住所之認定,必須主觀上有久住之意思及 客觀上有居住之事實,始足認為住所。未具戶籍之本國人或外國人如經認定為居住者,其境內外所得均須納入 課稅,此係因我國係採戶籍制度始然,得以戶籍地推定 為其住所。至於在台未有戶籍之外國人雖有居留地址, 因尚乏久住之主觀意思,故以居留日數作為課稅居住者 具經常居住事實之客觀認定。是以,上開對於經常居住 事實涉及「住所」之主客觀認定,有其合理正當聯結。 > > 四、參據財政部112年9月15日台財稅字第11200581390號及內 政部移民署112年5月26日移署移字第1120067414號等函 復,我國關於外國人之課稅係依其於同一課稅年度在台 合計居留日數分為居住者或非居住者,進而適用不同稅 率與扣繳方式,並非以有無國籍區分,尚與國際間採綜 所稅制主要國家之課稅管轄認定原則類同。現行綜所稅 制對居住者與非居住者之認定原則及所採區別對待,並 非就本國人與外國人為差別待遇,且具有正當合理的關 聯性,再者,外僑於報稅系統已可介接下載入出境資 料,無須另提證明,因此現行稅制尚難認有違反ICERD 意旨而造成對外國人課稅歧視或差別對待情事。 > > 五、綜上,台端來函陳情內容,經本會依相關國際公約檢 視,無涉及違反公約之歧視情形。 > [@deepl translation](#): > > Letter from the National Human Rights Commission of the Office of the Ombudsman > > Subject: > Please refer to the case of Taiwan’s claim that foreigners legally residing outside of Taiwan cannot be treated as tax residents in the same way as citizens with household registration, which involves the discrimination and differential treatment of foreigners in taxation. > > Please refer to the following: > > 1. Reply to Taituan’s briefs of April 20 and 21, 112, and his letters of August 7 and October 16, 112. > > 2. In accordance with Article 1 and General Recommendation No. 30 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference made by a State Party between citizens and non-citizens that is not based on a legitimate aim or on an improper association of means with an aim constitutes discrimination, and the adoption of a proper differentiation between the two, if based on a legitimate aim, does not constitute a violation of the Convention. > > 3. Concerning Article 7 of the Income Tax Act, whether discrimination is involved in treating the address of a valid residence permit as the domicile of a person who is unable to be considered as a domicile by using the domicile as the sole basis of the household registration, and then treating the two differently by applying different tax rates, according to the purpose of Articles 20 and 1002 of the Civil Code and the Supreme Court’s Civil Judgment No. 2031 of 110th year of the People’s Republic of China, the domicile of a person in Taiwan must be determined by subjective intention to reside permanently and objective fact of residence. To be considered a domicile, a person must have the subjective intention to reside therein for a long period of time and the objective fact of residing therein. If a non-domiciled native or foreigner is recognized as domiciled, his/her domestic or foreign income is subject to tax. This is due to the fact that Taiwan has adopted the household registration system, and the place of domicile is presumed to be the domicile of the alien. As for foreigners who do not have a household registration in Taiwan, although they have a residence address, they do not have the subjective intention to reside there permanently. Therefore, the number of days of residence is used as an objective recognition of the fact of permanent residence for tax purposes. Therefore, there is a reasonable and proper connection between the above and the subjective and objective recognition of “residence” in relation to the fact of habitual residence. > > 4. According to the Ministry of Finance (MOF)'s letter No. 11200581390 dated September 15, 2012, and the Immigration Department (ID)'s letter No. 1120067414 dated May 26, 2012, Taiwan’s tax on foreign nationals is based on the number of days of residence in Taiwan in the same year of assessment, and thus different tax rates and withholding methods are applied. This classification is not based on nationality, and is similar to the principle of recognizing jurisdictions that have adopted the comprehensive tax system in the international community. The principle of recognizing resident and non-resident under the current comprehensive tax system and the differentiation of treatment adopted are not based on the differentiation of treatment between local and foreigners, and have proper and reasonable relevance. In addition, foreigners can download their entry and exit information through the tax filing system without the need to provide additional proof, therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the current tax system has violated the purpose of the ICERD, resulting in tax discrimination or different treatment of foreigners. > > 5. In conclusion, the contents of the letter from Taiwan have been examined by the TaiwanICDF in accordance with the relevant international conventions, and there are no cases of discrimination in violation of the conventions. ---
**Author:** ![justintaiwan](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/7ea924/32.png) [@justintaiwan](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/justintaiwan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2023, 3:23am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/5 "2023-12-12T03:23:17Z")
Different circumstances but related and might help you decide what to do @Mataiou Australia does not have a household registration system or anything remotely similar and foreigners and Australians are treated in the same way as the Human Rights commissioned claimed Taiwan does (nonsesne of course) ‘intent to reside’. Immigration status does not affect intent to reside. The exception to this was working holiday visa holders who previously were not able to be treated as tax residents under any circumstances. A group of foreigners with a WHV took the Australian Taxation Office to the High Court (the highest court in the Australian judiciary) and won. Partially. The High Court found the ATO in breach of Australia’s international treaties with some countries. Unfortunately Taiwan is not one of them. If you could find that Taiwan has a non-discrimination clause in its treaties with some countries it might be a start? Wouldn’t help everyone but might make it easier to get the ball rolling > **[Taxation of Australian resident WHMs from NDA countries](https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/coming-to-australia-or-going-overseas/coming-to-australia/taxation-of-australian-resident-whms-from-nda-countries#)** > > Check when working holiday makers who are Australian residents for tax purposes are taxed as Australian residents. [https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?DocID=JUD%2F2021ATC20-803%2F00001&path=law&path=view&path=document](https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?DocID=JUD%2F2021ATC20-803%2F00001&path=law&path=view&path=document) ---
**Author:** ![Niurou](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/0ea827/32.png) [@Niurou](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Niurou)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2023, 5:28am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/6 "2023-12-12T05:28:53Z")
I expected that kind of BS answer from my former dealings with government agencies here. They will never contradict their masters, especially when a foreigner is involved. Sad state of affairs. The other crappy part is the government is basically saying that they don’t expect foreigners to stay here permanently even though they have PR. It goes to the whole ‘when are you going home’ question many people ask and the government agrees with that. ---
**Author:** ![afterspivak](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ccd318/32.png) [@afterspivak](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/afterspivak)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2023, 6:00am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/7 "2023-12-12T06:00:29Z")
> [@Niurou](#): > > I expected that kind of BS answer from my former dealings with government agencies here. They will never contradict their masters Yes—_but they sometimes contradict other agencies in government_, as I found out in my tangle with the Tax Bureau and what was then the Ministry of Science and Technology. Eyeballing this situation, and as someone with no background at all in legal studies, I’d venture to say that the Tax Bureau is willfully disregarding the Ministry of the Interior. What’s the point of having a category designated as APRC if the “permanent” part is interpreted by the Tax Bureau as “temporary”? In that case it would have been called an “ATRC.” 😁 My limited success in the past fighting these sorts of issues (at a much less sophisticated level than the brilliant and fearless @Mataiou ) was to get one of the agencies (then the Ministry of Science of Technology) to send a curt formal letter to the Tax Bureau, after which the latter changed their tune immediately. Guy ---
**Author:** ![Mataiou](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/mataiou/32/178744_2.png) [@Mataiou](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Mataiou)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2023, 8:27am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/8 "2023-12-13T08:27:08Z")
I did so, a few updates; 1. I have lodged an administrative appeal against the Ministry of Finance 2. I have sent a protest claim to my consular representative post since this practice seems to violate the double taxation agreement between italy and Taiwan (and basically all other double taxation agreements signed with other countries, check if yours have done that and inform your representatives to protest with TW government!) ---
**Author:** ![justintaiwan](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/7ea924/32.png) [@justintaiwan](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/justintaiwan)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2023, 8:50am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/9 "2023-12-13T08:50:28Z")
Emailed the Australia Office (embassy). Not sure who else I could email it too I’m not sure if this is the correct email to send this too so please advise me the best place to send this. It has come to my attention that the Taiwanese Ministry of finance is likely in violation of the # INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS ACT 1953 - SCHEDULE 1 Taipei agreement The ministry of finance and the Himan Rights Commission recently claimed that is not possible for ARC and Permanent ARC holders, including Australians, to be permanently domiciled In Taiwan due to the lack of household registration. This in contrast to objective fact of someone’s permanent home. ---
**Author:** ![Mataiou](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/mataiou/32/178744_2.png) [@Mataiou](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Mataiou)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 3:25am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/10 "2023-12-14T03:25:52Z")
My “consulate” here just called me back to confirm a few details, they will submit the request to the chief of mission for further action. They agree this is not what it should be ---
**Author:** ![Andrew](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/andrew/32/179806_2.png) [@Andrew](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Andrew)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 3:47am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/11 "2023-12-14T03:47:00Z")
Looks like there’s something for the UK too. Will try and contact them when I have time: > ## Article 24 — non-discrimination > > 1. Citizens or nationals of a territory shall not be subjected in the other territory to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith, which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which citizens or nationals of that other territory in the same circumstances, in particular with respect to residence, are or may be subjected. > **[2002 UK-Taiwan Double Taxation Agreement, as amended in 2021 — in force](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/taiwan-tax-treaties/2002-uk-taiwan-double-taxation-agreement-as-amended-in-2021-in-force)** ---
**Author:** ![Mataiou](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/mataiou/32/178744_2.png) [@Mataiou](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Mataiou)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 4:04am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/12 "2023-12-14T04:04:58Z")
was going to ask you to do so! thanks mate, I have a contact at the british office, can share with you. ---
**Author:** ![Mataiou](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/mataiou/32/178744_2.png) [@Mataiou](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Mataiou)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 4:08am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/13 "2023-12-14T04:08:06Z")
@slawa germany has it too, try to contact the german office pls. ---
**Author:** ![Mataiou](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/mataiou/32/178744_2.png) [@Mataiou](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Mataiou)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 4:08am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/14 "2023-12-14T04:08:33Z")
since you are still a kiwi, also NZ has an agremment, try to contact the office too ---
**Author:** ![slawa](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/slawa/32/112823_2.png) [@slawa](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/slawa)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 5:14am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/15 "2023-12-14T05:14:52Z")
To clarify, this aims to stop the practice of Taiwanese tax office to force banks/employers/etc. to put ‘DE’ for the field of Tax Jurisdiction Code （居住地國或地區代碼） for people who are only tax residents in Taiwan. I can confirm that it is the case for bank interest statements and also employer tax statements. Here is the agreement between Germany and Taiwan in English: > **[2012-10-08-Taiwan-Abkommen-DBA-Englische-Fassung.pdf](https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Standardartikel/Themen/Steuern/Internationales_Steuerrecht/Staatenbezogene_Informationen/Laender_A_Z/Taiwan/2012-10-08-Taiwan-Abkommen-DBA-Englische-Fassung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3)** > > 144.43 KB This part is also in the German agreement: > [@English version of the agreement](#): > > Article 23 > > Non-discrimination > > (1) Residents of a territory shall not be subjected in the other territory to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which residents of that other territory in the same circumstances, especially with respect to residence, are or may be subjected. > [@In German version of the agreement](#): > > Artikel 23 > > Gleichbehandlung > > (1) Ansässige eines Gebiets dürfen im anderen Gebiet keiner Besteuerung oder damit zusammenhängenden Verpflichtung unterworfen werden, die anders oder belastender sind als die Besteuerung und die damit zusammenhängenden Verpflichtungen, denen Ansässige des anderen Gebiets unter gleichen Verhältnissen, insbesondere hinsichtlich der Ansässigkeit unterworfen sind oder unterworfen werden können. This is might be relevant for your contact dealing with this as well @fifieldt ---
**Author:** ![Mataiou](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/mataiou/32/178744_2.png) [@Mataiou](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Mataiou)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 5:31am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/16 "2023-12-14T05:31:22Z")
Correct, the tax authorities in TW need to consider any foreigner with a permit of stay for more than 1 yr as domiciled in the country, hence satisfying the text of art 7 par 2 sub 1 of the income tax act, so all withholdings will be done correctly at the resident rate and no more forced false CRS declarations. I believe in the agreement there is also an article talking about centre of vital interests for determination of residence and domicile. Cite that and say it is easy to ascertain that ---
**Author:** ![slawa](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/slawa/32/112823_2.png) [@slawa](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/slawa)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 5:45am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/17 "2023-12-14T05:45:54Z")
Would it be helpful to attach the response to your recent complaint, how Taiwan fails to recognize foreigners here as domiciled? ---
**Author:** ![Andrew](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/andrew/32/179806_2.png) [@Andrew](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Andrew)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 5:48am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/18 "2023-12-14T05:48:26Z")
That’s what I was thinking. Maybe a PDF version would be useful if @Mataiou can provide it, or could just link to the post here? ---
**Author:** ![slawa](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/slawa/32/112823_2.png) [@slawa](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/slawa)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 6:36am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/19 "2023-12-14T06:36:47Z")
I finished writing my letter to the General Director of German Embassy in Taipei. I need to get some pictures of my tax statements at home later today. Will send it off tomorrow. A better quality scan of the reply to @Mataiou complaint would be appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![Mataiou](https://forumosa-12829.kxcdn.com/user_avatar/tw.forumosa.com/mataiou/32/178744_2.png) [@Mataiou](https://tw.forumosa.com/u/Mataiou)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2023, 6:52am UTC](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419/20 "2023-12-14T06:52:53Z")
refer to the attachments of my post on 12-dec, that’s the official reply (in chinese ofc). [Next page](https://tw.forumosa.com/t/taking-action-against-taiwans-definition-of-domicile-residence-relating-to-foreigners/236419.md?page=2)