The provisions of the Act Governing the Levy of Tax, which require a petitioner to pay a portion of the tax or post adequate security as a condition for a petition for review and thus deprive a party who cannot pay or post security of his opportunity of seeking administrative relief, constitute an unnecessary restriction on the people*s rights to administrative appeal and litigation. The same Act further provides that once a petition for review is filed, the compulsory enforcement thereof shall be suspended until such procedure of administrative relief is finally concluded.  This is also unfair to those who have not commenced such procedure of administrative relief. These provisions are inconsistent with the intention behind Articles 7, 16, and 19 of the Constitution and shall become void within two years from the date of this Interpretation. During the interim period, the foregoing provisions shall, along with the issues of securing the payment of tax and priority in payment of tax, be reviewed and revised from an overall perspective, so that both the constitutional provisions for protecting the rights of administrative appeal and litigation and the principle of equality in assessing tax will be effectively advanced.

       Articles 35 to 37 and Article 38, Paragraph 1, of the Act Governing the Levy of Tax, which require a petitioner to pay a portion of the tax or post adequate security as a condition for a petition for review, thus requiring a petitioner to go through the review process before seeking administrative appeal or litigation, despite their benefit of procuring the speedy recovery or security for part of the tax, could produce the result that only those who can afford the required payment have the remedy of administrative relief and that those who can not post adequate security may lose such remedy. Moreover, Article 38, Paragraph 3, and Article 39 provide that once an application for review is instituted, the compulsory enforcement of the tax shall be deferred until the final conclusion of the review, administrative appeal or litigation. Those who apply for review may, after paying only one half or one third of the tax assessed or providing security therefor, use the administrative relief procedure to significantly delay the payment of the remaining portion to conceal assets and thus evade the remaining tax. Not only do these provisions fail to accomplish their purpose of correcting problems, they constitute unnecessary restrictions on the right of administrative appeal or litigation. Article 39 is unfair to those who choose not to go through the administrative relief procedure and contradicts the principle of administrative relief which requires that enforcement of an administrative order shall not be affected by the commencement of an administrative relief procedure. Therefore the foregoing provisions as mentioned in this text are inconsistent with the intention behind Articles 7, 16, and 19 of the Constitution and shall become void within two years from the date of this Interpretation. During the interim period, the foregoing provisions shall be, along with the issues of security for and priority in payment of taxes, reviewed and revised in a comprehensive manner, so that the constitutional principles of protecting the rights of administrative appeal and litigation as well as the principle of fair taxation may be completely effectuated. 

*Translated by David W. Su of Lee & Li, Attorneys-at-Law.