Taking action against Taiwan's definition of domicile/residence relating to foreigners

I’m on my wife’s HHR - why doesn’t that count?

It’s even worse for foreigners who receive CNY bonuses in January/February.

These bonuses can make up a significant portion of a worker’s yearly salary.

1 Like

Nope, we r an asterisk, not really in the HHR per se.


As you do not have your own section you are but a mere name as a spouse which means you do not have HHR

1 Like

received replies from both NIA and MOI. NIA ofc they say they have no jurisdiction (I knew it, just sent anyways), but finally MOI gave me a good confirmation from their part in Chinese, see below:

They say that if a foreigner has indeed domicile in the country (住所), “中華民國領域內有住所”, as mentioned in Articles 3 to 5 and 15 of the Nationality Act, "it refers to a person who lives within the territory of the State with the intention of permanent residence and holds a valid foreigner’s residence permit or foreigner permanent residence permit. " They even put down in writing that ARC holders can have domicile (住所) as per their interpretation.

However they then, ofc, cover MOF’s ass and say that the Income Tax Act is their exclusive jurisdiction and hence I should refer to them.

But, now we have here a ministry saying that foreigners can have domicile. That’s a good starting point.

Now let’s see what the Ministry of Justice says, as they have the jurisdiction over the Civil Code, which is the building block of domicile interpretation.


Can you copy paste the contents? OCR sometimes recognizes the wrong Chinese characters.

1 Like


1 Like


Keep up the great work man! I think you will eventually nail the MOF for being in noncompliance.



Private facebook messaged this Australian MP about Taiwan’s breaches of its agreements with Australia (and its states) - working holiday visas, licence exchange, taxation


How likely would he replying to you be?

Next to 0 :joy:

I’m not part of his electorate or even his state. but aside from that honestly no one cares about Taiwan.

Australia needs farmworkers and Taiwanese fill that void. Australia would just run on the assumption that Taiwan follows the rules (as Australia does) but so few Australians actually use the bilateral agreements that it is a rather insignificant issue.

Less than 50 Australians a year get a working holiday visa to go to Taiwan. In regards to taxation while it isn’t fair, most people would just let it go for the first year cos it doesn’t matter after that.

If say the UK or NZ was breaching its agreements that would be worth an MP perusing just due to volume.

1 Like

The current domicile system for foreigners isn’t so bad if you do not have much local ties, as I mentioned in my other thread: Benefits of APRC over citizenship - #33 by jimbob132

It was written in a way to be punitive to foreign local workers, but in doing so it gives those without local jobs a lot of freedom (more so than citizens in certain cases).

If this effort passes then they should have an opt in system for foreigners, so they can set their domicile outside of Taiwan similar to a citizen opting to not have household registration. Otherwise for a digital nomad entrepreneur who wants to live half a year in Taiwan but maintain non residency they may have to either give up APRC or obtain citizenship. I hope the current scheme goes on for 10 more years, I am quite liking it as a foreigner. Especially since the US definition of domicile for non resident aliens is where your permanent residence is, not where you are paying taxes, so you can legally maintain no tax residency on both sides. Canada is similar if you are deemed non resident and cut ties a long time ago.

1 Like

First, I think this isn’t really any concern, because even using the correct definition of “domiciled”, for the digital nomad situation you are describing it is still quite easy to prove that you are not domiciled in Taiwan if you maintain strong residential ties elsewhere. We can fix the definition of domiciled and digital nomads can still be attributed correctly.

But secondly, it sounds like you’re advocating continuing to screw over the vast majority of foreign residents just so that a bunch of digital nomads can avoid paying taxes to any of the places they live in. Please don’t do that.


hear hear hear, benefit to a few grifters with royal pain in the arse to the vast majority of normal folks.

But he seems to be adamant on his belief that the current situation is ok.

I’m advocating for the change to have an opt in/out system similar to how citizens can opt in/out of the household registration system, rather than implemented in a way that says those with long term ARC are automatically worldwide tax residents.

As long as they apply the correct definition of “domicile” then it should be fine, but I think domicile is a foreign term here and they may not know what it means since they use household registration instead.

Perhaps one way is to give APRC holders household registration so they have automatic domicile and other benefits that come with it, and if they give up household registration then their APRC is automatically cancelled, so that’s their way to opt out. I would be fine with such a trade off since having household registration comes with many other benefits that APRC holders currently do not have.

Surprisingly enough, I hear that this was actually discussed at some point in the past with someone high up in the HHR administration, who was apparently amenable to the idea…


Well, that would be the best for everything.

In Italy is already like this, once a foreigner moves in needs to first report to police to register and then to town hall to get his HHR and domicile registration, and according to the tax legislation of Italy, from that moment, that’s the recognition of tax residency.


That would mean a lot of changes to be made. Such as removing the TARC requirement for newly naturalized nationals (at least those who had an APRC prior to naturalization).

I really don’t see this happening in the short term.

1 Like

That would make too much sense. It’ll make APRC so much more useful and desirable.


Maybe, just maybe, the NWOHR and TARC categories should be thrown into the dustbin too.

Just spit ballin’ here.



That would require Taiwan to tighten its laws on how nationality is passed down. Currently it is too loose.

But I do agree.