We already have this thread about the new UID numbers for foreign residents holding an ARC/APRC:
This thread is for those of us who try to leave this UID mess behind by naturalizing as a Taiwanese national - only to find out that the TARC that the government issues them as a NWOHR in the process has exactly the same UID number and thus exactly the same issues 
I’ll start:
https://taiwantravel.tad.gov.tw/web_page/index.jsp
The domestic travel subsidy registration website clearly states:
獎助對象：本國國民且為個別旅客（散客）。
Eligible recipients: Citizens of this country who are individual travelers (individual tourists).
…but when trying to register, rejects UIDs.
I’ve sent a complaint to the MOTC, so probably they’ll update the event web page soon to state that only nationals with HHR are eligible
Good idea. I’ve long thought that this was a useful angle for addressing the problem, just haven’t had someone who had the status and was willing to write a few letters. Dare you to try an online bank 
I only tried an eWallet so far:
Registering for iPass Money, I was able to select that I have a residence certificate. I was also able to select “Taiwan” as nationality and upload my TARC. However, some days later, they sent me the following text message:
【iPASS MONEY通知】感謝註冊iPASS MONEY，因您註冊帳戶時提供居留證，未有國籍資訊供核對，無法驗證完整身份資訊，請於7日內提供您註冊國家護照正本影像檔至(reg@i-pass.com.tw)完成註冊程序。若未於期限內提供文件進行確認，本公司將退回您的註冊申請，感謝您。聯絡資訊：一卡通官網>客戶服務>聯繫我們>下方選單依序選擇iPASS MONEY/註冊問題/外國人註冊問題
[iPASS MONEY Notice] Thank you for registering with iPASS MONEY. Because you provided a residence permit during account registration but lacked nationality information for verification, we cannot confirm your complete identity. Please provide an image of your passport (original from your registered country) to (reg@i-pass.com.tw) within 7 days to complete the registration process. If you fail to provide the required documents within the deadline, your registration application will be rejected. Thank you. Contact Information: iPass website > Customer Service > Contact Us > Select iPASS MONEY/Registration Issues/Foreigner Registration Issues from the menu below.
I had to submit a copy of my passport; but then they activated the account without issue. However, I am still unable to use the advertised PayPay (Japan) integration - and instead receive an error message “This feature is available exclusively for domestic users”.
It seems like the similarity between an ARC and TARC caused them to assume that I submitted an ARC which was missing the nationality information.
The only information on the TARC that it belongs to a TW national is - well - that under type it doesn’t say “外僑…” but “臺灣地區居留證”. Other than that, there’s absolutely no indication about nationality (except a small note on the back that the card is valid in combination with a TW passport). Where an ARC has a field for nationality, the TARC only lists place of birth. It also lacks a passport number.
NIA probably could have included a “Nationality: Taiwan” on the card. But they didn’t 
And, of course, some real banks:
The prize for having the most “interesting” reaction to seeing a TARC definitely goes to HSBC, more specifically their Linkou branch:
It all started out quite fine. I walked into the branch, showed the guard my HSBC-branded ATM card (to calm them down by showing that I am already a customer and not coming to open an account) and my TARC and just told him that it’s a new one. He happily handed me a number which was called a couple of minutes later.
The issues started when - after checking the TARC briefly - the employee asked me to see my passport. I happily handed over my TW passport. And that’s when the employee became visibly confused.
The confusion became stronger and roughly the following conversation resulted:
I don’t remember the exact sequence of events that followed, but a couple of minutes later, I was holding my TW passport in front of the bank employee who just kept exclaiming rather loudly: “不是台灣人! 不是台灣人! 不是台灣人! …”.
At this point, I thought I had to leave the branch and send a formal complaint. However, the employee regained her composure and told me to wait a bit. She made another phone call. After some minutes (which felt like an eternity), her mood had changed considerably, and she finally handed me a form to fill out for changing my nationality on record to TW. She finally admitted, too, that I am in fact a Taiwanese national, they wouldn’t need to cancel my online banking or credit card; the TARC just looked to similar to an ARC to her. And she only hesitated briefly when I filled out that I am only a tax resident of Taiwan and no other country
I still don’t know what her first assumption was about my status - she truly seemed to believe that it was some kind of non-resident status, so that would explain why she initially thought they needed to restrict my account.
Compared to that, the process at E.SUN and Cathay was rather smooth (except for very long waiting times compared to HSBC…).
Maybe that was because of those two banks, neither asked me to see my passport. At this point, I’m about 80% sure that they both never noticed that they were in fact holding a TARC and not an ARC, and so they just went through the “new-ARC”-SOP without noticing the difference. I didn’t have to fill out any form at both. After my experience with HSBC, though, I didn’t really care…
I do believe it is indeed an issue that TARCs look basically identical to ARCs. The number still show that we are like foreigners, since 8/9 as second digit, so no reall distinction, and really a few looks at the TARC denomination on the type field.
Anyways, again, this is a matter of scale. So few foreigners naturalising anyways it is not a problem for the gov. It is not important to them and fixing this… well, requires a big exercise in rewriting quite a few regulations (I still think no legislative passage required) and not just by NIA/MOI, but also a few other ministries to include TARC holders into the actual citizens bracket (just citizen in waiting).
From my understanding, the TARC will also affect some unlucky few who were born abroad to TW parents without HHR who didn’t receive the citizenship of their birth country for various reasons. For them, the TARC might be needed to live in their only country of citizenship…
At least foreigners naturalizing go into this voluntarily and knowing what they’re getting into.
But yeah, overall, the TARC seems too exotic for many institutions to really bother treating it different from an ARC.
Another “participant” for this thread - again, it’s a government website:
The Ministry of sports hands out small vouchers for completing sports-related activities. The program was announced as follows:
為鼓勵全民養成規律運動習慣，落實「讓運動成為日常」的健康生活理念，響應「99國民體育日」活動，運動部將於115年9月1日至11月30日推出「揮汗有禮」活動，凡民國98年12月31日(含)以前出生之國民，只要完成指定運動任務並上傳紀錄，經審核通過後，即可前往超商、超市、量販店等合作通路兌換健康好禮，讓運動不只累積健康，也能週週享有實質回饋。
However, the event website restricts registration to people with HHR - the registration website rejects UID numbers:
參加資格
年滿16歲（民國98年12月31日（含）以前出生），具中華民國國籍且在國內設有戶籍。
Sent out another complaint; this time to the Ministry of Sports.
The complaint is referencing 釋字第542號 which (AI summary):
Interpretation No. 542 (司法院釋字第542號, 4 April 2002) concerned compensation for residents who had to move out of the Feitsui Reservoir catchment area.
The government made eligibility for relocation compensation depend essentially on whether a person had household registration (戶籍) in the affected area. That created a problem for people who actually lived there but were not registered there.
The Constitutional Court made three points that are useful beyond that specific case:
- Benefit-conferring administrative measures (給付行政) are still bound by constitutional principles, especially Article 7 equality.
- Household registration is only one possible way of proving actual residence. The Court described 戶籍 as 「僅係基於特定目的所為之行政管制措施」 — “merely an administrative-control measure established for a particular purpose.”
- Government may use household registration as an administrative criterion, even outside its original purpose, but doing so must still comply with the equality principle. If the actual policy objective can be satisfied or proven in another way, rigidly excluding people solely because they lack 戶籍 may be unjustified.
It’s still a bit of a stretch and I’m no lawyer (and neither is ChatGPT which drafted my complaint ); but this interpretation might also be relevant for similar foreigner-related complaints.
And two more:
For an upcoming trip to Penghu, I wanted to get supplementary rental car insurance.
There seem to be three companies / options for this basically:
Of these three, only LuckyBo accepts UID / TARC numbers (they also accept foreigners, by the way!).
However, LuckyBo doesn’t offer “Taiwan” as a nationality - so I ended up choosing “國籍: 亞洲(Asia)” (I was tempted to choose “China” instead and then submit a complaint to some authority that they force NWOHR to state that they’re Chinese citizens ).
Mingtai and Cathay restrict their offering to TW nationals - the phone support at Cathay told me that they consider NWOHR as foreigners, so they’re also excluded from this offering:
Might submit a complaint (or rather: two complaints) after my vacation…
Their reply:
您115年8月31日致本署署長信箱電子郵件反映平日住宿獎助網站無法登錄無戶籍國民統一證號一案，說明如下：
一、本活動係為帶動居住於台灣國人平日國內旅遊所辦理之獎助措施，依活動相關規定及作業機制，參與旅客須於活動系統登錄個人資料，並以國民身分證統一編號進行資格確認、使用次數控管及後續查核。
二、前開作業機制係基於本活動獎助資格確認、避免重複使用及後續核銷查核等作業需要所為之制度設計，並非對中華民國國民之國籍資格或身分作成認定。
三、臺端所提之意見，本署已瞭解。考量相關活動之資格認定、身分驗證、系統功能及後續查核等作業實務，於未來規劃相關獎助措施時將一併納入參考。
謝謝您的來信。祝您
健康快樂！
署 長 陳 玉 秀 敬啟
Regarding your email dated August 31, 115, sent to the Director-General’s Mailbox at this Bureau, in which you reported that the Daily Domestic Travel Incentive Program website does not allow registration for nationals without a National ID Number, the explanation is as follows:
- This program is an incentive initiative designed to promote domestic travel on weekdays among Taiwanese nationals residing in Taiwan. In accordance with the relevant regulations and operational procedures for the program, participating travelers are required to register their personal information in the program system and use their National ID Number for eligibility verification, usage frequency control, and subsequent audits.
- The aforementioned operational mechanisms are designed to meet the operational needs of this program, such as verifying eligibility for subsidies, preventing duplicate use, and conducting subsequent audit and verification procedures; they do not constitute a determination of the nationality or identity of citizens of the Republic of China.
- This Bureau has taken note of the comments you raised. Considering the practical aspects of eligibility determination, identity verification, system functionality, and subsequent audit procedures for relevant programs, we will take these into account when planning future incentive measures.
Thank you for your letter. Wishing you
good health and happiness!
Sincerely,
Chen Yu-Hsiu, Director-General
As expected, nothing really coming out of this, but I do have a feeling that it reads more accommodating than some other ministry responses to inquiries by non-citizens. The reply at least acknowledges that they did not exclude NWOHRs out of principle but because of the issue of identity verification.
They also replied:
親愛的民眾您好：
感謝您對「揮汗有禮」活動的關心，並提出「臺灣地區無戶籍國民」相關問題，回復如下：
本次活動係透過內政部戶役政系統驗證年滿16歲以上現有國內戶籍之國民身分，在預算資源有限下，現行活動資格及系統設計係依活動辦法所定條件辦理，報名系統亦據此進行身分驗證作業。
關於您所提參與身分之問題，本活動係以鼓勵民眾養成規律運動習慣、提升運動風氣為目標，同時，本部亦重視您的提議，持續關注多元族群參與公共事務及運動推廣活動之需求，後續將研議擴大發放對象之可行性。
再次感謝您對運動推廣事務的關心與支持，敬祝平安健康。
Dear Citizens:
Thank you for your interest in the “Sweat and Earn Rewards” campaign and for raising questions regarding “citizens without household registration in Taiwan.” Our response is as follows:
This campaign verifies the status of nationals aged 16 and older with domestic household registration through the Ministry of the Interior’s Household Registration System. Given limited budgetary resources, the current eligibility criteria and system design are implemented in accordance with the conditions set forth in the campaign guidelines, and the registration system conducts identity verification accordingly.
Regarding your question about eligibility to participate, the goal of this campaign is to encourage the public to develop regular exercise habits and promote a culture of physical activity. At the same time, our Ministry values your suggestion and remains attentive to the needs of diverse groups regarding participation in public affairs and sports promotion activities. We will explore the feasibility of expanding the eligible participant pool in the future.
Thank you once again for your interest in and support of sports promotion efforts. We wish you peace and good health.
Reads rather similar to the tourism subsidy complaint response; again, the issue they blame is the identity verification system.
I’ve followed up and asked to clarify why excluding NWOHRs was necessary for budget reasons and if they considered using a system for UID verification and if this caused any specific issues I should address to another ministry. I also pressed them further about concrete plans to change this in the future:
Their reply:
親愛的民眾您好：
感謝您再次就「揮汗有禮」活動參與資格及身分驗證方式提供意見， 說明如下：
本次活動係依活動規劃、經費規模及活動辦法訂定參與資格， 並透過內政部戶役政系統進行身分驗證。 前次回復所提預算資源有限， 係指本活動整體經費及
發放數量有所限制。
有關您建議將臺灣地區無戶籍國民納入參與對象， 並採居留證或統一證號等方式進行驗證， 本部已納入後續活動規劃參考，未來將視活動目的、 經費及行政
與系統作業可行性， 持續研議擴大參與對象及適切驗證方式。
感謝您對運動推廣事務的關心與建議，敬祝平安健康。
運動部 敬啟
Dear member of the public:
Thank you for again providing comments on participation eligibility and identity-verification methods for the “Rewards for Working Up a Sweat” campaign (揮汗有禮). We explain as follows:
Participation eligibility for this campaign was set according to the campaign plan, funding scale and campaign rules, and identity was verified through the Ministry of the Interior’s household-registration and conscription administration system. The limited budget resources mentioned in our previous response meant that the campaign’s overall funding and number of rewards were limited.
As to your proposal to include nationals without household registration in the Taiwan Area among the participants and to use residence certificates or Unified Identification Numbers for verification, the Ministry has included it as a reference for planning subsequent campaigns. In the future, in light of campaign purposes, funding, and the feasibility of administrative and system operations, we will continue studying broader participation and appropriate verification methods.
Thank you for your interest in and suggestions concerning sports promotion. Wishing you peace and good health.
Ministry of Sports
Again, no solution that would give me access to those precious $50 vouchers once they resume this program or restart a similar one.
Thus, I’ve decided to escalated and just submitted a complaint to the Executive Yuan.
Let’s see what will come out of this
Believe me, that year will fly by. Before you know it, you’ll be on here telling everyone that renouncing is good for the soul.
Will be at least 2 years for me because I’ll be out of TW > 30 days this year. And probably more like three years because of other reasons 
I have to take that back.
My follow-up:
交通部觀光署您好：
感謝貴署115年9月9日觀宿字第XXXXX號回覆。貴署已說明，國民身分證統一編號用於資格確認、使用次數控管及後續查核。
然而，《發展觀光條例》第1條將增進國民身心健康及加速國內經濟繁榮列為目的；憲法第7條及《行政程序法》第6條亦要求差別待遇具有正當理由。本活動實施要點以「本國國民」為對象，貴署亦稱其目的為帶動「居住於台灣國人」旅遊，但採用只有設有戶籍者才有的國民身分證字號作為唯一登錄方式，使活動實際上只開放部分國民參加。
敬請協助說明：
一、資格確認、使用次數控管及後續查核，為何不能以臺灣地區居留證或統一證號達成，因而須將實際參加資格限於持有國民身分證字號的國民？
二、規劃本活動時，是否曾考慮可支援臺灣地區居留證或統一證號的驗證系統或其他方式？如有，未採用的主要原因為何？如原因涉及其他機關的資料、系統或制度限制，也請說明限制內容及主管機關。
三、既然貴署已知悉此問題，為何本期活動仍未提供不需大幅修改系統的人工登錄或其他替代流程？目前是否可提供此類流程？
謝謝。
Dear Tourism Administration,
Thank you for your September 9, 2026 reply, reference XXXXX You explained that National Identification Card unified numbers are used for eligibility verification, usage-count control and subsequent checks.
However, Article 1 of the Tourism Development Act includes improving nationals’ physical and mental health and accelerating domestic economic prosperity among its purposes. Constitution Article 7 and Article 6 of the Administrative Procedure Act also require a proper reason for differential treatment. The program’s Implementation Guidelines identify “nationals of this country” as its participants, and your reply also described its purpose as encouraging travel by “nationals living in Taiwan”. Yet the National Identification Card number, which is held only by persons with household registration, is the sole means of registration. In practice, this opens the program to only some nationals.
Please explain:
- Why can eligibility verification, usage-count control and subsequent checks not be carried out using a Taiwan Area Resident Certificate (臺灣地區居留證, TARC) or Unified Identification Number (統一證號), making it necessary to limit actual eligibility to nationals who hold a National Identification Card number?
- When planning the program, did the Administration consider a verification system or another method that supports a TARC or Unified Identification Number? If so, what was the main reason it was not adopted? If the reason involves limitations in another agency’s data, system or institutional arrangements, please explain the limitation and identify the competent agency.
- Now that the Administration is aware of this problem, why has the current phase still not offered manual registration or another alternative process that does not require major system changes? Can such a process now be made available?
Thank you.
…was handled very inadequately:
您115年9月16日致本署署長信箱電子郵件反映平日住宿獎助網站無法登錄無戶籍國民統一證號一案，本署已瞭解，將於未來規劃相關獎助措施時一併納入參考。
謝謝您的來信。祝您
健康快樂！
署 長 陳 玉 秀 敬啟
Regarding your September 16, ROC year 115 (2026), email to this Administration’s Director-General mailbox reporting that the weekday accommodation subsidy website cannot register the Unified Identification Number of a national without household registration, this Administration understands the matter and will include it for consideration when planning related subsidy measures in the future.
Thank you for writing. Wishing you health and happiness.
Director-General Chen Yu-hsiu (陳玉秀)
The shortcomings of their reply lead me to file yet another petition with the Executive Yuan - this time also asking them to assess why the ministry failed to answer my petition according to regulations:
觀光署於115年9月18日僅回覆：「本署已瞭解，將於未來規劃相關獎助措施時一併納入參考。」未回答上述問題，也未提出本期替代方式或後續改善措施、負責單位及時程。《行政程序法》第170條要求行政機關迅速、確實處理人民陳情；第171條規定，認為陳情有理由時應採取適當措施，認為無理由時應通知陳情人並說明其意旨。《行政院及所屬各機關處理人民陳情案件要點》第10點並要求答復敘明具體處理意見及法規依據。觀光署的回覆既無適當措施，也未說明不採取措施的意旨、具體處理意見或法規依據，未實質處理陳情內容。
On September 18, 2026, the Tourism Administration replied only: “This Administration understands the matter and will include it for consideration when planning related subsidy measures in the future.” It answered none of those questions and offered neither a current alternative nor a future action, responsible office or timeframe. Article 170 of the Administrative Procedure Act requires prompt and proper handling of people’s petitions. Article 171 requires appropriate measures if a petition is justified, or notice explaining the agency’s position if it is not. Point 10 of the Directions for Handling People’s Petitions by the Executive Yuan and Its Subordinate Agencies also requires a specific handling position and legal basis. The reply set out no appropriate measure and did not explain a decision not to act, a specific handling position, or legal basis; it therefore did not substantively address the petition.
…it turns out that this might not have been the best way: The Mailbox to the premier has just notified me that they have forwarded my two cases back to the original ministries for review.
Quite likely that they’ll end up on the table of the same person again whose answers I’m describing as inadequate in my complaints 
Difference is that when they reply they now should CC the Premier
Or, off to control yuan next?
I’m curious about what will happen. Maybe they simply reject the petition based on repetitive content…
Yeah, thinking about going this way if the next round of responses is truly inadequate again…
Started with a complaint to Cathay (as MSIG didn’t completely reject me but mentioned that I could try a physical store first and I didn’t have time and energy to pursue this further. Cathay, on the other hand, told me that they simply only accept nationals with HHR).
They response:
感謝您的來信，以及對 BeSafe「租借車安心遊」商品的關注。
有關您反映於投保過程中無法完成投保一事，本公司已了解您的意見。
BeSafe「租借車安心遊」為線上投保商品，依本商品現行投保機制，係以身分證字號辦理身分驗證及投保申請；未符合現行投保方式者，目前無法投保本商品。
另就您建議開放其他證件格式辦理投保及調整相關驗證機制一節，本公司已納入參考，惟現階段尚無相關規劃。
感謝您提供寶貴意見。對於本次投保服務未能符合您的需求，造成您的不便，本公司謹致歉意，並感謝您提供的建議，作為本公司持續精進服務之參考。
Thank you for your letter and your interest in BeSafe’s “Rental Car Peace of Mind” product.
We have taken note of your feedback regarding the inability to complete the insurance application process.
BeSafe’s “Rental Car Peace of Mind” is an online insurance product. Under the current application process for this product, identity verification and insurance applications are processed using an ID number; those who do not meet the current eligibility requirements are currently unable to purchase this product.
Additionally, regarding your suggestion to allow other forms of identification for enrollment and to adjust the relevant verification mechanisms, we have taken your feedback into consideration; however, we currently have no plans to implement these changes.
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused by our insurance service failing to meet your needs on this occasion, and we appreciate your suggestions, which we will use as a reference for continuously improving our services.
Interestingly, they consider having HHR as an “eligibility requirement” - that will be the main point of my further escalation. They even confirm that they have no plans to change this.
…and that’s probably exactly what happened with the Sports Ministry:
親愛的民眾您好：
感謝您再次就「揮汗有禮」活動參加資格及身分驗證機制提出意見。有關您前次陳情及本次所提事項，本部已充分瞭解，回復如下：
「揮汗有禮」為本部推動之試辦活動，在總量有限的情況下，優先保障現有戶籍之國民參與權利，爰將參與資格訂定為年滿16歲、具中華民國國籍且在國內設有戶籍者，並配合現行系統身分驗證機制辦理。
有關您所提在臺居住之無戶籍國民雖未設有戶籍，仍持有臺灣地區居留證及統一證號，以及是否得採行其他身分驗證方式參與活動等意見，本部已充分瞭解您的訴求。
「揮汗有禮」作為試辦活動，將廣納各界意見，您所提出之寶貴建議，將一併納入後續活動制度及系統規劃檢討參考。
感謝您持續關心全民運動政策，並多次提供具體意見。本部將審慎納入後續活動規劃及制度精進之參考，敬祝平安健康。
運動部 敬啟
Dear member of the public:
Thank you for again offering comments about participation eligibility and the identity-verification mechanism for the “Rewards for Working Up a Sweat” campaign (揮汗有禮). The Ministry fully understands the matters raised in your previous petition and this submission and replies as follows:
“Rewards for Working Up a Sweat” is a pilot campaign promoted by the Ministry. Because the total quantity is limited, priority was given to protecting the participation rights of nationals with existing household registration. Participation eligibility was therefore set as being at least sixteen years old, possessing ROC nationality and having household registration within the country, with processing conducted in conjunction with the existing system’s identity-verification mechanism.
The Ministry fully understands your request concerning the fact that nationals without household registration who reside in Taiwan still hold Taiwan Area Resident Certificates (臺灣地區居留證) and Unified Identification Numbers (統一證號) despite lacking household registration, and concerning whether other identity-verification methods could be adopted to allow them to participate in the campaign.
As “Rewards for Working Up a Sweat” is a pilot campaign, the Ministry will broadly gather views from all sectors. Your valuable proposal will be included as a reference when reviewing the framework and system planning for subsequent campaigns.
Thank you for your continued interest in sports-for-all policy and for repeatedly offering concrete comments. The Ministry will carefully include them as a reference in planning subsequent campaigns and refining the system. Wishing you peace and good health.
Ministry of Sports (運動部)
Even through the translation, I read out of this that they start becoming annoyed with me
Yet, the most interesting part of their reply is this:
Because the total quantity is limited, priority was given to protecting the participation rights of nationals with existing household registration.
在總量有限的情況下，優先保障現有戶籍之國民參與權利
While we all know that NWHRs are ranked “higher” than NWOHRs in practice, that’s quite in contrary what article 7 of the constitution demands:
中華民國人民，無分男女、宗教、種族、階級、黨派，在法律上一律平等。
All citizens of the Republic of China, irrespective of sex, religion, race, class, or party affiliation, shall be equal before the law.
…and Article 5 of the National Sports Act:
政府應保障人民平等使用運動設施及參與體育活動之權利。
各機關、機構、學校、法人及團體應依有關法令規定，配合國家體育政策，切實推動體育活動，並促進運動參與之性別平等。
Governments at all levels should ensure that all people have equal rights to access sports facilities and participate in sports activities.
All organizations, institutions, schools, legal entities, and associations should adhere to national sports policies in accordance with relevant laws and regulations to effectively promote sports activities and advance gender equality in sports participation.
From my understanding of their response, the ministry explicitly stated that they purposely wanted to protect participation rights of NWHRs over NWOHRs. They did not give any reason, though, why they believe that this is justified.
I guess a lot of locals do not know TARC exists or what it is.
To be fair, I’m a foreigner and I’ve read entire threads about TARC, and I’m still not 100% clear on the exact meaning/status (are you fully Taiwanese or transitioning to Taiwanese)? .
