I. The compulsory execution on obligatory payment under public law (e.g. compulsory exeuction on tax arrears and fines) has related with public interest, national finance, carry out of public power, cultivation of legal obedience of people and social fairness and justice maintenance. The legislators especially specify the targets and requirements for restriction on residence (including restriction on exit and taking the sea) in Article 17 and 24 of Administrative Execution Act. In addition, the compulsory execution procedures are the final outpost and defense line to carry out national creditor’s right. There is no amount and period limitation set by neither the Administrative Enforcement Agency nor different regulations aiming at different payment owed. Therefore, the restriction on exit is managed in accordance with Article 17 and 24 of Administrative Execution Act instead of Article 24 of Tax Collection Act.
II. The Article 24 of Tax Collection Act was established to have tax authorities secure the rights over taxes and focus on security of obligator’s properties. While the regulations set forth in Article 17 and 24 of Administrative Execution Act are criteria for Administrative Enforcement Agency to implement compulsory execution procedures focusing on whether the obligator has intention to default on contract, escape, transfer properties, violate sharing obligations such blamable events. All the purpose, requirements, review procedures and authorities are different in both Laws. There fore, the exit restriction managed in accordance with Administrative Execution Act shall not be subject to the limitation of amount and period as set forth in Article 24 of Tax Collection Act.
※ According to Article 1 of Administrative Execution Act: “ the administrative execution shall comply with regulations specified herein. For matters not mentioned herein, the regulations of other Laws shall apply”.
※ According to paragraph 1 of Article 17of Administrative Enforcement Law, “where there is one of following circumstances occurred to the obligator, the administrative enforcement agency may order the obligator to provide a certain amount of secuirty within a certain timeframe and limit his/her place of residence:(I) Fail to fulfill the obligation when it is obviously possible way to do so, (II) It is considered a flight-risk, (III) Hiding or disposing of assets to avoid enforcement, (IV) Refuse making statement to enforcement staff during investigation of enforcement target(s), (V) Fail to report or makes false reports about property status, (VI) Fail to appear after lawful notice.
According to paragraph 2 of Article 17, if the total arrears amount of obligator is less than NT$ (same as below) 100,000, the limit place of residence shall not apply, except that the obligator has already left the countries for two times. According to regulations of Article 24: “Regarding arrest, detention, and obligations of the obligator, the following persons are also applied: 1. The obligator is minor or interdicted person and his/her statutory agent, 2. The manager or liquidator of firm; or partners in partnership, representative or administrator of non-corporate organization, 4. The chairman of the company or other cooperate, 5. The successor, estate administrator or executor of last will for obligator deceased.
※ According to paragraph 3 of Article 24 of Tax Collection Act: “Any individual residing in the Republic of China or any profit-seeking enterprise operating within the territory of the Republic of China, which fails to pay tax in due date, the single account of tax due or the combined account of tax due plus fine, if over the amount of NT$1,000,000 for the individual or over the amount of NT$2,000,000 for the profit-seeking enterprise; as well as before the conclusion of procedures for administrative remedies, if the amount is over NT$1,500,000 for the individual, and the amount is over NT$3,000,000 for the profit-seeking enterprise, the Ministry of Finance may request, the National Immigration Agency of the Ministry of Interior to restrict the said taxpayer from exiting the Republic of China. If the taxpayer is a profit-seeking enterprise, the responsible person thereof may be restricted from exiting the Republic of China. However, in the event that the taxpayer has furnished property equivalent to the tax payable as security, such restriction shall be lifted”. According to paragraph 6: “The period of restriction from exiting the Republic of China by the National Immigration Agency of the Ministry of Interior shall not be over five years from the date of enforcement.”