No, that was a different issue: That was about the amount of overseas income being automatically being adjusted based on the number of days in Taiwan even when the number was higher than 300 (from what I know, said adjustment should only happen once the number of days in Taiwan drops below 300).
Right now, I am talking about what’s printed on the “Individual Income Tax Statement” right underneath “Consolidated Gross Income”. So the certificate that’s supposed to show totals for the year is actually not for the entire year, but only for the part until I “left” in December.
I actually did receive some interest income (which is still included in the total shown on the certificate, I think) after the end date of the certificate.
In my case, they still accepted the full deductions etc., so I am not really sure if there are really any practical implications.
But I probably should be getting a resident certificate again this year just to be on the safe side…
I just finally received an e-mail from the UK tax authority (HMRC) responding to the several e-mails I’ve sent since the start of the year:
I am currently reviewing the information below regarding the taxation of UK/foreign citizens residing in Taiwan. I will be making contact with the Taiwanese tax authority to discuss this matter.
You have referenced a Supreme Court Ruling regarding domicile and household registration. Do you have a copy of this or any further details so I locate this?
If you have any more details you wish to add about your case below, please do let me know.
So I’ll need to try and track down these Supreme Court rulings again. I did attempt that a couple of times before, like when preparing the stuff for the European Chamber of Commerce, without complete success.
I’m aware of a couple of legal websites referencing these rulings and do have two or three ruling numbers written down somewhere (that I wasn’t able to find the full text of), but if someone knows of some more solid resources for these and could provide them that would be rather useful!
These are the main two I’ve come across, indicating that household registration isn’t required for domicile and shouldn’t be the only criterion used to assess it. There also appear to be a load of other rulings based on these and saying the same thing.
Have asked them to keep me updated of any next steps, so let’s see if they take it any further.
Exactly where and how can i get this document? I need it to prove to my bank abroad that i am a Taiwan resident for tax purposes. Otherwise they’ll continue to apply local withholding tax on my stock dividends. I hate double taxation. Thanks.
One problem might be that I believe they’ll only issue it after you’ve been here more than 183 days in that year (which is part of the point of this thread), so it might not be a perfect solution if the other country wants something more long term.
I just got an e-mail from HMRC saying they’d made contact with Taiwanese tax authorities and they’d keep me updated.
Apparently we’re doing a mutual agreement procedure as defined in the DTA, i.e., HMRC is complaining on my behalf about the discriminatory treatment in my specific case as a UK citizen, although the lady I’m in contact with did acknowledge that it’s broader than that and applies to all UK and foreign citizens.
As I said before, I’m skeptical that this will be successful because I can’t personally claim to have been doubly taxed or taxed at a higher rate owing to this policy, so I predict that the Taiwanese tax office/MOF will use that as an excuse for why the non-discrimination clause doesn’t apply… but it’s a start.
For any other UK citizens who don’t like the current situation but couldn’t previously be bothered doing anything about it: Now would be a good time to jump in. The two specific situations that seem relevant would be:
Anyone who routinely has tax withheld at the non-resident rate of 18% for the first six months of each year despite being domiciled/resident in Taiwan by any normal definition, and who would prefer not to be giving an interest-free loan to their employer and the government for >1 year every year.
Anyone who became domiciled/resident in Taiwan or stopped being domiciled/resident in Taiwan by any normal definition part way through the year, such that were actually taxed at the non-resident rate for that year when the resident rate would have been preferable (which wouldn’t need to be very recently — I think up to at least five years would be fine). (@BigDave — I’m not sure whether this might apply to you for 2024?)
If someone wants to do that they can let me know. All it would take is a couple of e-mails.
Don’t you also have bank accounts that tax you at 20% for the first half of every year because the banks see you as non-residents? If they really bring that argument, that’s something you could counter.
I guess that’s what we are claiming, but I also don’t work for a local company or have any income tax withheld at all… so it’s dubious. Just preempting what I think the MOF will say.
Yeah, fair point. I’ve mentioned the tax on interest to HMRC too. I think the distinction between tax and tax withholding might still be relevant there, but it’s something to keep in mind.
I don’t really keep any significant amount of money in Taiwan either though, so my withholding amount on interest is negligible. I’m mostly complaining about this as a matter of principle, and it’s why I didn’t really want this to be about me specifically.
from the position paper of the ECCT, recommendation of the Tax committee (position paper just presented to the NDC for Governmental consideration):
It is recommended that the MOF presume individuals holding an APRC are residents during their period of permanent residency, unless their average annual stay falls short of the legal standard, leading to the cancellation of their APRC. In such cases, only then should the non-resident withholding tax rate be applied. This approach would ensure that foreign nationals holding an APRC are not subject to unfair treatment in the application of withholding tax rates. This would also be beneficial toward the government’s initiative to attract foreign talent to Taiwan.
I know, this falls short of actual domicile concept as per logically reading art. 7 of the income tax act, however this is a very “confucian” approach much more digestible to the old farts bureaucrats at the MOF and NTB.
To be fair, other countries are also known to “push boundaries” when it comes to domicile. I know that the tax authorities in Germany like to argue that moving away from Germany “temporary” for some years (as part of an assignment, as a student, …) does not equal giving up the domicile. To my knowledge, they don’t go as far as “denying” domicile for people on non-permanent residence permits abroad, but the general tendency to interpret the “domicile” rather strictly is not limited to Taiwan, I’d say…
I don’t know in detail, but I’ve heard that the UK also seems to interpret these rules in a similar “strict” way (especially if people return within less than 5 years, etc. …),
So personally, I would think the proposal “fair” overall. Definitely not optimal, but also understandable…
The European Chamber of Commerce has now published its 2025 position papers. A full list can be found here, and the one from the Tax Committee is here.
This is a new issue. According to Article 7 of Taiwan’s Income Tax Act (ITA), the term “individual residing in the Republic of China (ROC)” refers to a person who has “domicile” within the territory of the ROC and resides at all times within the territory of the ROC, or a person who has no domicile within the territory of the ROC but resides within the territory of the ROC for a period of more than 183 days during a taxable year, and is thus considered a resident. Although the current law only requires that the individual resides in a place with the intention of remaining there permanently, the tax ruling (No. 10104610410) issued by the MOF in 2012, restricts the concept of “domicile” to individuals who have a “household registration” in Taiwan, and who meet at least one of the following conditions:
Stayed in Taiwan for a total of 31 days or more within the same taxable year.
Stayed in Taiwan for more than 1 day but less than 31 days within the same taxable year, with their substantial living and economic centre still in Taiwan.
According to the relevant provisions of the Household Registration Act, foreign nationals cannot register household registration in Taiwan until they become naturalised (with ROC nationality). Therefore, regardless of the length of continuous stay, foreign nationals holding an APRC are unable to establish household registration in Taiwan and must calculate annually whether their stay in Taiwan exceeds 183 days.
Although the tax ruling issued by the MOF allows the tax withholder to preliminarily determine a foreign national’s days of stay in Taiwan for the year based on their passport visa or resident certificate, in practice, the tax withholder often withholds taxes at the non-resident rate when paying various types of income to foreign nationals. If the individual later stays in Taiwan for 183 days or more and files an individual income tax return, the actual tax withheld is recalculated at the lower resident rate, and the difference can be claimed for credit or refund by the taxpayer when filing an individual income tax return.
With the above-mentioned approach and practices for determining the residency status, foreign nationals who reside in a place with the intention of remaining there permanently and have obtained an APRC may not be able to claim they have a domicile in Taiwan. This situation leads to inequality in the applicable withholding tax rates, particularly as the withholding tax rate for non-residents (e.g., 18% for salaries and 20% for deposit interest) is higher than that for residents (e.g., 5% for salaries and 10% for interest).
Recommendations
It is recommended that the MOF presume individuals holding an APRC are residents during their period of permanent residency, unless their average annual stay falls short of the legal standard, leading to the cancellation of their APRC. In such cases, only then should the non-resident withholding tax rate be applied. This approach would ensure that foreign nationals holding an APRC are not subject to unfair treatment in the application of withholding tax rates. This would also be beneficial toward the government’s initiative to attract foreign talent to Taiwan.
They changed quite a lot from the draft I sent, but it seems to cover the main points.
This one from the Better Living Committee is also worth a read. I suggested while returning my draft of the above that they include something about app-based/digital/online banks in there, and they have (Section 2.1):
The foreign community, though, continues to experience a wide range of obstacles in managing their financial affairs, through limited or no access to services routinely available to ROC citizens. Individual cases have been documented by the ECCT, and by Talent Taiwan and reported to relevant authorities and are extensively discussed in online forums, but the issues are widespread. Of particular concern is the absolute refusal of all but one of Taiwan’s digital/online/app-based banks to allow foreign residents to open accounts with them.
We are encouraged by the steps taken by the International Talent Taiwan Office to educate the financial industry about the needs of foreign residents, and to work with some banks to create programmes designed for the foreign community. The office is also proactive in providing detailed guidance for foreigners on how to navigate the banking environment, but the continued unwillingness of many banks to offer some services to legal foreign residents of good standing is unacceptable. As word spreads internationally about restrictive banking practices in relation to non-citizens, the attractiveness of Taiwan as a destination for foreign talent risks being seriously compromised.
Yeah, I pretty much gave up on the British Office doing anything. I was intending to chase things up with HMRC when I get around to it, see if they’d heard anything back.
I think going the route with APRC we have a strong case:
Since the APRC is granted only to individuals who live permanently in Taiwan and is revoked if they do not reside in the country long enough, it should be accepted as valid proof of tax domicile. Similarly, the Taiwanese Household Registration (HHR) for citizens can also be canceled if residency requirements are not met. Both documents attest to permanent residence and are subject to revocation if the conditions are not fulfilled. Therefore, it would be justified to equate the APRC with the HHR for tax purposes.
