Article 19 of the Constitution providing that “the people shall have the duty to pay tax as prescribed by law” means that the people shall have the duty to pay tax or the privilege to enjoy the benefit of tax exemption or reduction in pursuance of the requirements of law. That the substance of law is, to a reasonable extent, a matter of legislative discretion has been repeatedly made clear by this Yuan in our Interpretations Nos. 217, 315 and 367. The taxpaying bodies, tax denominations, tax rates, tax paying methods, and tax payment period being expressly defined in the House Tax Act, the provisions of Article 1 thereof with respect to the legal basis on which house tax may be collected, Article 5 on tax rates, Article 5 with respect to the procedure to authorize local governments to determine the tax rates, and Article 15 with respect to house tax exemption and reduction are not in conflict with Article 19 of the Constitution. Furthermore, because all residences of a current value not over a certain amount are exempt from house tax under the House Tax Act, Article 15, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 9, with no distinction between houses for the owners’ residences and other residences, all leasehold residences of a current value not over a certain amount are allowed the same tax benefit. It must be pointed out, however, that the tax levied on houses is a type of property tax. Under the previous House Dues Act, houses were categorized into those for residence purposes and for business purposes, each of which was further classified into houses for personal use and for lease, the former being subject to assessment of house dues based on the respective value of the house and the latter being subject to payment of dues based on the rental earned. The house dues were therefore of the nature of both property tax and revenue tax. Under the current House Tax Act, however, house tax is levied at the same rate based on the value of the house, irrespective of whether it is for residence or for business purpose and with no distinction between houses for personal use and for lease, and all residences of the same current value are exempt from house tax. Such statute is hence not in conflict with the purpose of the Constitution in guaranteeing the people the right of equality and their property right. While there exists a relationship of general law and special law between the Land Act and the House Tax Act insofar as the assessment of house tax is concerned, and the tax rate specified by the House Tax Act must prevail, there is a discrepancy between the Land Act, which classifies “land improvements” intoconstructional improvements and agricultural improvements under Article 5 and provides under Article 187 that “a constructional improvement used as the owner’s residence shall be exempt from tax,” and the House Tax Act, which provides under Article 1: “House tax shall be levied under this Act in all areas where no land improvement tax is collected by the government of a municipality under direct jurisdiction of the Executive Yuan or of another county (city or bureau),” whereby no exemption from house tax is allowed for a house used as the owner’s residence. The discrepancy between the two statutes is apt to cause misinterpretation in application. Furthermore, the Land Act provision under the first sentence of Article 147 that “no tax or surtax in whatever denomination may be imposed on land or improvement thereon except as herein specified” can hardly be deemed to be in accord with the House Tax Act. The conflicts between the Land Act and the House Tax Act such as those we have pointed out above must be reviewed and revised to bring the texts of such statutes in harmony with each other.