Blue-White 'Taiwan Future Account Special Statute' to be negotiated today; Executive Yuan: Property gifts do not require legislation

Taiwan's Executive Yuan has stated its opposition to a special legislative bill proposed by the Blue-White coalition, known as the "Taiwan Future Account Special Statute." The coalition aims to pass the bill this legislative session, but the Executive Yuan maintains that the government's existing child growth subsidy program does not necessitate new legislation or a special statute.

Government officials emphasized that issuing "allowances" to citizens constitutes a "gift" of property from the government. They cited past precedents and constitutional principles, arguing that such disbursements do not require the enactment of a law. Furthermore, recipients of these government allowances or subsidies are not subject to income tax, according to existing tax regulations.

The Executive Yuan pointed to previous welfare programs like "childcare allowances," "school subsidies," and "rent subsidies" that were implemented through "operational guidelines" rather than specific legislation. These included the current childcare allowance for children aged 0-2 and the educational subsidy for children aged 2-5, as well as past rent subsidy programs.

“

The government issuing 'allowances' to the people is the government 'gifting' property to the people. According to past examples and constitutional principles, there is no need to go through 'enacting laws' to handle it. People receiving government gifts or subsidies do not need to pay taxes.

Officials further explained that according to Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 17 of the Income Tax Act, property acquired through inheritance, legacy, or gift is exempt from income tax. The government has previously issued interpretations clarifying that these allowances and subsidies fall under the category of government "gifts."

The Executive Yuan also referenced constitutional court interpretations, specifically Interpretation No. 443 from 1997, which clarified the principle of "legal reservation." This principle dictates that laws are required for matters that "deprive people of life or restrict personal freedom" or "involve the restriction of other freedoms and rights." However, for "payment administration" or "benefit administration," the legal requirements are less stringent. Interpretation No. 614 in 2006 further supported this, stating that if a regulation does not restrict citizens' freedoms or rights, the competent authority can establish relevant rules. The government views the child growth subsidy as falling under this less stringent category, as it does not restrict rights but rather provides a benefit upon reaching a certain age.

“

The principle of 'legal reservation' states that only when 'depriving people of life or restricting personal freedom' and 'involving the restriction of other freedoms and rights' must it be regulated by 'law.' However, if it is merely 'payment administration,' the legal density is more relaxed and not as strict as restricting people's rights.