Taiwan food industry has been struck by the government agency's disclosure that certain unfaithful manufacturers have mixed toxic chemicals into the food additives for the past 30 years, and the chemicals may seriously threaten public health. This event has not only shocked the confidence of the customers to the industry, but also drew public attention on the well-management and the safe use of chemicals.
In order to manage the fast advancing and widely applicable chemical substance appropriately, the laws and regulations among the international jurisprudences in recent years tend to regulate unfamiliar chemicals as “new chemical substances” and leverage registration systems to follow their use and import. REACH is one the most successful models which has been implemented by European Union since 2006. China, one of our most important business partners, has also learned from the EU experience and implemented its amended " Measures on Environmental Management of New Chemical Substances" (also known as "Chinese REACH") last year. It is not only a necessity for our industry which has invested or is running a business in China to realize how this new regulation may influence their business as differently , but also for our authority concerned to observe how can our domestic law and regulation may connect to this international trend. Therefore, except for briefing the content of Chinese REACH, this article may also review those existing law and regulations in Taiwan and observe the law making movement taken by our authority. We expect that the comparison and observation in this article may be a reference for our authorities concerned to map out a better environment for new chemical management.
China government invests great funds in their Science and Technology Project management system, containing most of innovated technology. It also creates the great business opportunity for domestic industry.
China government builds up a Bid Invitation and Bidding Procedure in the original Science and Technology Project Regime recent years, in order to make the regime become more open and full of transparency. It also improves Regime to become more fairness and efficiency. Taiwan industry may try to apply for those Science and Technology Project, due to this attractive opportunity, but they should understand china's legal system before they really do that.
This Article will introduce the "Bid Invitation and Bidding Law of the Peoples Republic of China", and the "Provisional Regulation on Bid Invitation and Bidding of Science and Technology Project", then clarify applied relationship between the "Bid Invitation and Bidding Law of the Peoples Republic of China", and "Government Procurement Law of the Peoples Republic of China". It also analyzes "Bid Invitation and Bidding Procedure", "Administration of Contract Performance Procedure", "Inspection and Acceptance Procedure", and "Protest and Complaint Procedure, providing complete legal observation and opinion for Taiwan industry finally.
Bid Invitation and Bidding Law of the Peoples Republic of China; Government Procurement Law of the Peoples Republic of China; Provisional Regulation on Bid Invitation and Bidding of Science and Technology Project; Applying for Science and Technology Project Regime; Bid Invitation and Bidding Procedure; Administration of Contract Performance Procedure; Inspection and Acceptance Procedure; Protest and Complaint Procedure.
The investment costs of complying with pertinent laws and regulations for manufacturing, marketing, and profiting from drugs and medical devices (abbreviated as MD) are far higher than the costs necessary for securing a market permit. The usage of MD products contains the risk of harming their users or the patients, who might sue the manufacturer for damages in the court based on tort law. To help reduce the risk of such litigation, the industry should be aware of the laws governing the state tort litigations and the preemption doctrine of the federal laws of the United States. This article collected four critical decisions by the United States Supreme Court to analyze the requirements of federal preemption from the state tort litigations in these cases. The article also analyzed the issues of preemption in our law system in a hypothetical case. These issues include the competing regulatory requirements of the laws and regulations on the drugs and MDs and the Drug Injury Relief Act versus the Civil Code and the Consumer Protection Law.
The article concluded: 1. The pre-market-approval of MD in the United States is exempted from the state tort litigations; 2. Brand-name-drug manufacturers must proactively update the drug label regarding severe risks evidenced by the latest findings; 3. Generic-drug manufacturers are exempted from the product liability litigations and not required to comply with the aforementioned brand-name-drug manufacturers' obligation; 4. No preemption issues are involved in these kinds of product liability litigations in our country; 5. The judge of general court is not bound by the approval of marketing of drug and MD; 6. The judge of general court is not bound by the determination and verdict of the Drug Injury Relief Act.
Computer-Aided Detection (CADe) software systematically assists medical doctors to detect suspicious diseased site(s) inside patients' bodies, and it would help patients receive proper medical treatments as soon as possible. Only few of this type of medical device (MD) have been legally marketed either in the United States of America (USA) or in Taiwan. This is a novel MD, and the rules regulating it are still under development. Thus, it is valuable to investigate and discuss its regulations. To clarify the requirements of legally marketing the MD, this article not only collects and summarizes the latest draft guidance announced by the USA, but also compares and analyzes the similarities and differences between USA and Taiwan, and further explains the logics that USA applies to clarify and qualify CADe for marketing, so that the Department of Health (DOH) in Taiwan could use them as references. Meanwhile, the article collects the related requirements by the Administrative Procedure Act and by the Freedom of Government Information Law of our nation, and makes the following suggestions on MD regulations to the DOH: creating product code in the system of categorization, providing clearer definition of classification, and actively announcing the (abbreviated) marketing route that secures legal permission for each individual product.
In the era of internet and mobile communication, practices of a method patent concerning innovative service might often involve several entities, and sometimes the method patent can only be infringed jointly. Joint infringement of method/process patents is an issue needed to be addressed by patent law, since it is assumed that a method patent can only be directly infringed by one entity to perform all the steps disclosed in the patent. In the U.S., CAFC has established the "control or direction" standard to address the issue, but the standard has been criticized and it is under revision now.
In Japan, there is no clearly-established standard to address the issue of joint infringement, but it seems that the entity that controls and benefits from the joint infringement might be held liable. Based on its discussion about the recent development in the U.S. and Japan, this article attempts to provide some suggestions for inventors of innovative service models to use patents to protect their inventions properly: they should try to avoid describing their inventions in the way of being practiced by multi-entities, they should try to claim both method and system/apparatus inventions, and they should try to predict the potential infringement of their patents in order to address the problem of how to prove the infringement.
Preface In actual practice, the research and development of biotech medicine, food, and environmental products cannot be done by in-lab researches. This is a unique character of the biotechnology industry. To get the research going, the researchers need to search for and exploit new biological materials and, samples outside the lab. Therefore, the access to and management of biological resources have significant impact on the stimulation and development of national biotech industry. Ever since the enforcement of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 by 172 countries, a general principal about conserving biological diversity and using biological resources has been set. According to CBD, States have sovereign rights over their own biological resources. CBD also encourages each State to access to and manage the biological resources conformed with the principals of conservation, sustainability, NOEL environment friendly, and adequate sharing of benefit arising from biological resources. Therefore, issues such as environmental protection and sustainability have become political issues internationally. If the ABS system for the access to biological resources is designed too strictly, the establishment of the system will make the research and development staffs and related institutions hang back with hesitation both domestically and internationally. Their intention of bioprospecting in the designated country will then be reduced. On the other hand, if the system is designed too loosely, it will not be able to protect the rights of the owner of the resources. As a result, currently, every country holds a cautious attitude in setting up the regulations of managing the access to biological resources. Currently, many countries and regional international organizations already set up ABS system, such as Andean Community, African Union, Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), Australia, South Africa, and India, all are enthusiastic with the establishment of the regulations regarding the access management of biological resources and genetic resources. On the other hand, there are still many countries only use traditional and existing conservation-related regulations to manage the access of biological resources. Since it has been more than 10 years that the regulation of access to biological resources and benefit sharing has been developed in some countries, how is Taiwan's current situation regarding this issue? Taiwan's Existing Regulations on the Access to Bioloical Resources In terms of regulations, Taiwan's existing management style of the access to biological resources is similar to that of the US and the EU. It refers to the existing regulations on environmental protection and conservation, and evaluates from the perspective of environmental protection to control and manage the exploitation and application of the related biological resources. These regulations include the Wildlife Conservation Act, theNational Park Law, the Forestry Act, the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, and the Aboriginal Basic Act. The paragraphs below describe the contents of the acts mentioned that are related to the access to biological resources. 1 、 Wildlife Conservation Act According to the Wildlife Conservation Act, the Protected Species and the products made of cannot be hunted, traded, owned, imported, exported, raised, bred, and processed unless the number of protected wildlife has exceeded the amount the environment permits, or carry the objectives of academic research and education with the permits of central or regional authorities. As for the hunting of General Wildlife, pre-application and approval is needed with the exception of projects based on the objectives of academic research or education. In addition, the import and export of the living wildlife and the products of Protected Wildlife are restricted to the condition of being permitted by management authority. With respect to the import and export of living Protected Wildlife, Academic research institutions and colleagues are the only person who can seek for the approval of management authority before they proceed. 2 、 National Park Law The design and management of Taiwan's national parks are based on the regulations listed in the National Park Law with the purpose of protecting our country's exclusive natural scenery, wildlife and historical spots. Based on the properties and the nature of resources, the national park management structures the preserved area into general control area, playground and resting area, spot of historical interest, special landmark area, and ecological protection area. Ecological protection area refers to the areas where the natural surroundings, creatures, the society they live and propagate are strictly protected only for the research of ecology. According to the regulation of National Park Law, inside the national park area, it is prohibited to hunt animals, fish, take off flowers or trees, not to mention the behaviours that are prohibited by the management authority. Exceptions are made based on the conditions of preserved areas and for the research purposes. In the general control area or resting area, the national park authority allows fishing or other activities agreed by the authority. However, these activities are prohibited in the preserved area of historical interest, special landmark area, and ecological protection area. To suit special purposes, in the special landmark area or ecological protection area, collection of specimens is allowed subject to the approval of authority. Under the purpose of academic research, better management of public safety, and special management of national park, the Ministry of the Interior will permit the collection of specimen. However, to enter the ecological protection area, one must obtain the permission of authority. 3 、 Forestry Act To protect the forest resources and to maximize the public welfare and economic effectiveness, some of the properties are classified as forestry land and being managed by authority. Based on the Forestry Act, management authority has to restrict the area of cutting timber and to identify the area or period of restricted digging of greensward, tree roots, and grass roots, based on the condition of the forest. In addition, to maintain the current ecological environment in the forest, and to preserve the diversity of species, identification of natural preserved area is needed inside the forestland. The entrance and exit of human and vehicles are controlled based on the nature of the resources inside the preserve area. Unless obtaining the approval from the management authority, not a single activity of damaging, logging or digging soil, stones, greensward and roots is allowed. Furthermore, any unauthorized activity of collecting specimen inside the forest recreation area and natural reserve will be fined. Collecting flowers and plants in these areas, or trespassing the natural reserve will also be fined. Only the activities taken by the aborigines to sustain their living or accommodate their customs are not restricted. 4 、 Cultural Heritage Preservation Act The objectives of setting up the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act are to preserve and apply the cultural resources, to enrich the spiritual lives of citizens, and to add glory to the existing diverse cultures. The Cultural Heritage Preservation Act classifies the natural landscape and scenery as cultural assets. Vistas of Natural Culture refer to the natural areas, landforms, plants and mineral which contain the values of preservation. It can be further grouped into natural preserved area and natural monuments. Since the natural monuments include the unusual plants and mineral, it is connected to the management of biological resources. According to the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, unless approved by the management authority, it is prohibited to collect, log, destroy the plants or bio resources classified as natural monuments or trespass into the area of natural preserve. For the purposes of academic research, or for the memorial ceremony of aboriginal custom, research institute and the aborigines can collect the natural monuments without the approval of authority. 5 、 Aboriginal Basic Act To protect the basic rights of the aborigines, and to sustain and develop the aboriginal society, the Aboriginal Basic Act was designed and enacted. The government not only admits the aborigine's rights in lands and natural resources, but also permits the non-profit behaviour such as hunting of wildlife, colleting of wild plants and fungi for the objective of complying with traditional culture, ceremony or private uses. In addition, the Aboriginal Basic Act provides the requirement of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) to require government or private individual to inform the aborigines before they proceed with land development, resource exploitation, ecological preservation, and academic research in the land where the aborigines live. They need to consult and obtain the aborigines' agreement or participation, and to share the related interests derived from this project. In the case of restricting the aborigine's right of the use of land or natural resources by law, the government,shall consult with the aborigines or the tribe and reach the agreement. When the government wish to design and establish national park, national scenic area, forestry area, ecological protection area, recreational area, or other resource management authorities, the government should obtain the agreement from the local aborigines and to build up the co-management mechanism.The Research on ownership of cell therapy products
The Research on ownership of cell therapy products 1. Issues concerning ownership of cell therapy products Regarding the issue of ownership interests, American Medical Association(AMA)has pointed out in 2016 that using human tissues to develop commercially available products raises question about who holds property rights in human biological materials. In United States, there have been several disputes concern the issue of the whether the donor of the cell therapy can claim ownership of the product, including Moore v. Regents of University of California(1990), Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute(2003), and Washington University v. Catalona(2007). The courts tend to hold that since cells and tissues were donated voluntarily, the donors had already lost their property rights of their cells and tissues at the time of the donation. In Moore case, even if the researchers used Moore’s cells to obtain commercial benefits in an involuntary situation, the court still held that the property rights of removed cells were not suitable to be claimed by their donor, so as to avoid the burden for researcher to clarify whether the use of cells violates the wishes of the donors and therefore decrease the legal risk for R&D activities. United Kingdom Medical Research Council(MRC)also noted in 2019 that the donated human material is usually described as ‘gifts’, and donors of samples are not usually regarded as having ownership or property rights in these. Accordingly, both USA and UK tends to believe that it is not suitable for cell donors to claim ownership. 2. The ownership of cell therapy products in the lens of Taiwan’s Civil Code In Taiwan, Article 766 of Civil Code stipulated: “Unless otherwise provided by the Act, the component parts of a thing and the natural profits thereof, belong, even after their separation from the thing, to the owner of the thing.” Accordingly, many scholars believe that the ownership of separated body parts of the human body belong to the person whom the parts were separated from. Therefore, it should be considered that the ownership of the cells obtained from the donor still belongs to the donor. In addition, since it is stipulated in Article 406 of Civil Code that “A gift is a contract whereby the parties agree that one of the parties delivers his property gratuitously to another party and the latter agrees to accept it.”, if the act of donation can be considered as a gift relationship, then the ownership of the cells has been delivered from donor to other party who accept it accordingly. However, in the different versions of Regenerative Medicine Biologics Regulation (draft) proposed by Taiwan legislators, some of which replace the term “donor” with “provider”. Therefore, for cell providers, instead of cell donors, after providing cells, whether they can claim ownership of cell therapy product still needs further discussion. According to Article 69 of the Civil Code, it is stipulated that “Natural profits are products of the earth, animals, and other products which are produced from another thing without diminution of its substance.” In addition, Article 766 of the Civil Code stipulated that “Unless otherwise provided by the Act, the component parts of a thing and the natural profits thereof, belong, even after their separation from the thing, to the owner of the thing.” Thus, many scholars believe that when the product is organic, original substance and the natural profits thereof are all belong to the owner of the original substance. For example, when proteins are produced from isolated cells, the proteins can be deemed as natural profits and the ownership of proteins and isolated cells all belong to the owner of the cells. Nevertheless, according to Article 814 of the Civil Code, it is stipulated that “When a person has contributed work to a personal property belonging to another, the ownership of the personal property upon which the work is done belongs to the owner of the material thereof. However, if the value of the contributing work obviously exceeds the value of the material, the ownership of the personal property upon which the work is done belongs to the contributing person.” Thus, scholar believes that since regenerative medical technology, which induces cell differentiation, involves quite complex biotechnology technology, and should be deemed as contributing work. Therefore, the ownership of cell products after contributing work should belongs to the contributing person. Thus, if the provider provides the cells to the researcher, after complex biotechnology contributing work, the original ownership of the cells should be deemed to have been eliminated, and there is no basis for providers to claim ownership. However, since the development of cell therapy products involves a series of R&D activities, it still need to be clarified that who is entitled to the ownership of the final cell therapy products. According to Taiwan’s Civil Code, the ownership of product after contributing work should belongs to the contributing person. However, when there are numerous contributing persons, which person should the ownership belong to, might be determined on a case-by-case basis. 3. Conclusion The biggest difference between cell therapy products and all other small molecule drugs or biologics is that original cell materials are provided by donors or providers, and the whole development process involves numerous contributing persons. Hence, ownership disputes are prone to arise. In addition to the above-discussed disputes, United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research(UKCCCR)also noted that there is a long list of people and organizations who might lay claim to the ownership of specimens and their derivatives, including the donor and relatives, the surgeon and pathologist, the hospital authority where the sample was taken, the scientists engaged in the research, the institution where the research work was carried out, the funding organization supporting the research and any collaborating commercial company. Thus, the ultimate control of subsequent ownership and patent rights will need to be negotiated. Since the same issues might also occur in Taiwan, while developing cell therapy products, carefully clarifying the ownership between stakeholders is necessary for avoiding possible dispute. American Medical Association [AMA], Commercial Use of Human Biological Materials, Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.3.9, Nov. 14, 2016, https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/commercial-use-human-biological-materials (last visited Jan. 3, 2021). Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990) Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, 264 F. Suppl. 2d, 1064 (SD Fl. 2003) Washington University v. Catalona, 490 F 3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007) Medical Research Council [MRC], Human Tissue and Biological Samples for Use in Research: Operational and Ethical Guidelines, 2019, https://mrc.ukri.org/publications/browse/human-tissue-and-biological-samples-for-use-in-research/ (last visited Jan. 3, 2021). Wen-Hui Chiu, The legal entitlement of human body, tissue and derivatives in civil law, Angle Publishing, 2016, at 327. id, at 341. Okano, M., Takebayashi, S., Okumura, K., Li, E., Gaudray, P., Carle, G. F., & Bliek, J. UKCCCR guidelines for the use of cell lines in cancer research.Cytogenetic and Genome Research,86(3-4), 1999, https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2363383&blobtype=pdf (last visited Jan. 3, 2021).Post Brexit – An Update on the United Kingdom Privacy Regime
Post Brexit – An Update on the United Kingdom Privacy Regime 2021/9/10 After lengthy talks, on 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (‘UK’) finally exited the European Union (‘EU’). Then, the UK shifted into a transition period. The UK government was bombarded with questions from all stakeholders. In particular, the data and privacy industry yelled out the loudest – what am I going to do with data flowing from the EU to the UK? Privacy professionals queried – would the UK have a new privacy regime that significantly departs from the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’)? Eventually, the UK made a compromise with all stakeholders – the British, the Europeans and the rest of the world – by bridging its privacy laws with the GDPR. On 28 June 2021, the UK obtained an adequacy decision from the EU. This was widely anticipated but also widely known to be delayed, as it was heavily impacted by the aftermaths of the invalidation of the US- EU Privacy Shield. While the rest of the world seems to silently observe the transition undertaken by the UK, post-Brexit changes to the UK’s privacy regime is not only a domestic or regional matter, it is an international matter. Global supply chains and cross border data flows will be affected, shuffling the global economy into a new order. Therefore, it is crucial as citizens of a digital economy to unpack and understand the current UK privacy regime. This paper intends to give the reader a brief introduction to the current privacy regime of the UK. The author proposes to set out the structure of the UK privacy legislation, and to discuss important privacy topics. This paper only focuses on the general processing regime, which is the regime that is most relevant to general stakeholders. UK Privacy Legislation There are two main privacy legislation in the UK – the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘DPA’) and the United Kingdom General Data Protection Act (‘UK GDPR’). These two acts must be read together in order to form a coherent understanding of the current UK privacy regime. The UK GDPR is the creature of Brexit. The UK government wanted a smooth transition out of the EU and acknowledged that they needed to preserve the GDPR in their domestic privacy regime to an extent that would allow them to secure an adequacy decision. The UK government also wanted to create less impact on private companies. Thus, the UK GDPR was born. Largely it aligns closely with the GDPR, supplemented by the DPA. ICO The Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) is the independent authority supervising the compliance of privacy laws in the UK. Prior to Brexit, the ICO was the UK’s supervisory authority under the GDPR. A unique feature of the ICO’s powers and functions is that it adopts a notice system. The ICO has power to issue four types of notices: information notices, assessment notices, enforcement notices and penalty notices. The information notice requires controllers or processors to provide information. The ICO must issue an assessment notice before conducting data protection audits. Enforcement is only exercisable by giving an enforcement notice. Administrative fines are only exercisable by giving a penalty notice. Territorial Application Section 207(1A) of the DPA states that the DPA applies to any controller or processor established in the UK, regardless where the processing of personal data takes place. Like the GDPR, the DPA and the UK GDPR have an extraterritorial reach to overseas controllers or processors. The DPA and the UK GDPR apply to overseas controllers or processors who process personal data relating to data subjects in the UK, and the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services, or the monitoring of data subjects’ behavior. Transfers of Personal Data to Third Countries On 28 June 2021, the UK received an adequacy decision from the EU. This means that until 27 June 2025, data can continue to flow freely between the UK and the European Economic Area (‘EEA’). As for transferring personal data to third countries other than the EU, the UK has similar laws to the GDPR. Both the DPA and the UK GDPR restrict controllers or processors from transferring personal data to third countries. A transfer of personal data to a third country is permitted if it is based on adequacy regulations. An EU adequacy decision is known as ‘adequacy regulations’ under the UK regime. If there is no adequacy regulations, then a transfer of personal data to a third country will only be permitted if it is covered by appropriate safeguards, including standard data protection clauses, binding corporate rules, codes of conduct, and certifications. The ICO intends to publish UK standard data protection clauses in 2021. In the meantime, the EU has published a new set of standard data protection clauses (‘SCCs’). However, it must be noted that the EU SCCs are not accepted to be valid in the UK, and may only be used for reference purposes. It is also worth noting that the UK has approved three certification schemes to assist organizations in demonstrating compliance to data protection laws. Lawful Bases for Processing Basically, the lawful bases for processing in the UK regime are the same as the GDPR. Six lawful bases are set out in article 6 of the UK GDPR. To process personal data, at least one of the following lawful bases must be satisfied: The data subject has given consent to the processing; The processing is necessary for the performance of a contract; The processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation; The processing is necessary to protect vital interests of an individual – that is, protecting an individual’s life; The processing is necessary for the performance of a public task; The processing is necessary for the purpose of legitimate interests, unless other interests or fundamental rights and freedoms override those legitimate interests. Rights & Exemptions The UK privacy regime, like the GDPR, gives data subjects certain rights. Most of the rights granted under the UK privacy regime is akin to the GDPR and can be found under the UK GDPR. Individual rights under the UK privacy regime is closely linked with its exemptions, this may be said to be a unique feature of the UK privacy regime which sets it apart from the GDPR. Under the DPA and the UK GDPR, there are certain exemptions, meaning organizations are exempted from certain obligations, most of them are associated with individual rights. For example, if data is processed for scientific or historical research purposes, or statistical purposes, organizations are exempted from provisions on the right of access, the right to rectification, the right to restrict processing and the right to object in certain circumstances. Penalties The penalty for infringement of the UK GDPR is the amount specified in article 83 of the UK GDPR. If an amount is not specified, the penalty is the standard maximum amount. The standard maximum amount, at the time of writing, is £8,700,000 (around 10 million Euros) or 2% of the undertaking’s total annual worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year. In any other case, the standard maximum amount is £8,700,000 (around 10 million Euros). Conclusion The UK privacy regime closely aligns with the GDPR. However it would be too simple of a statement to say that the UK privacy regime is almost identical to the GDPR. The ICO’s unique enforcement powers exercised through a notice system is a distinct feature of the UK privacy regime. Recent legal trends show that the UK while trying to preserve its ties with the EU is gradually developing an independent privacy persona. The best example is that in regards to transfers to third countries, the UK has developed its first certification scheme and is attempting to develop its own standard data protection clauses. The UK’s transition out of the EU has certainly been interesting; however, the UK’s transformation from the EU is certainly awaited with awe.  Commission Implementing Decision of 28.6.2021, pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom, C(2021) 4800 final,https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/decision_on_the_adequate_protection_of_personal_data_by_the_united_kingdom_-_general_data_protection_regulation_en.pdf..  Judgment of 16 July 2020, Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems, C-311/18, EU:C:2020:559, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0311.  Data Protection Act 2018, §115.  Data Protection Act 2018, §207(1A); REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), art 3.  supra note 1.  Data Protection Act 2018, §17A-18; REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), art 44-50.  Data Protection Act 2018, §17A-18; REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), art 46-47. International transfers after the UK exit from the EU Implementation Period, ICO, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/international-transfers-after-uk-exit/ (last visited Sep. 10, 2021).  Standard contractual clauses for international transfers, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/standard-contractual-clauses-scc/standard-contractual-clauses-international-transfers_en (last visited Sep. 10, 2021).  ICO, New certification schemes will “raise the bar” of data protection in children’s privacy, age assurance and asset disposal, ICO, Aug. 19, 2021, https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2021/08/ico-approves-the-first-uk-gdpr-certification-scheme-criteria/ (last visited Sep. 10, 2021).  REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), art 6(1)-(2); Lawful basis for processing, ICO, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/ (last visited Sep. 10, 2021).  Data Protection Act 2018, sch 2, part 6, para 27.  id. at §157.  id.  id.  id.A Before and After Impact Comparison of Applying Statute for Industrial Innovation Article 23-1 Draft on Venture Capital Limited Partnerships
A Before and After Impact Comparison of Applying Statute for Industrial Innovation Article 23-1 Draft on Venture Capital Limited Partnerships I. Background Because the business models adopted by Industries, such as venture capital, film, stage performance and others, are intended to be temporary entities, and the existing business laws are not applicable for such industries, the Legislature Yuan passed the “Limited Partnership Act” in June 2015, for the purpose of encouraging capital injection into these industries. However, since the Act was passed, there are currently only nine limited partnerships listed on the Ministry of Economic Affairs' limited partnership information website. Among them, “Da-Zuo Limited Partnership (Germany) Taiwan Branch” and “Stober Antriebstechnik Limited Partnership (Germany) Taiwan Branch”, are branch companies established by foreign businesses, the remaining seven companies are audio video production and information service businesses. It is a pity that no venture capital company is adopting this format. In fact, several foreign countries have set up supporting measures for their taxation systems targeting those business structures, such as limited partnerships. For example, the pass-through taxation method (or referred to as single entity taxation) is adopted by the United States, while Transparenzprinzip is used by Germany. These two taxation methods may have different names, but their core ideas are to pass the profits of a limited partnership to the earnings of partners. However, following the adoption of the Limited Partnership Act in Taiwan, the Ministry of Finance issued an interpretation letter stating that because the current legal system confers an independent legal entity status to the business structure of a limited partnership, it should be treated as a profit-seeking business and taxed with Profit-Seeking Enterprise Income Tax. Therefore, to actualize the legislative objective of encouraging innovative businesses organized under tenets of the Limited Partnership Act, the Executive Yuan presented a draft amendment for Article 23-1 of the Statute for Industrial Innovation (hereinafter referred to as the Draft), introducing the "Pass Through Taxation Principle" as adopted by several foreign countries. That is, a Limited Partnership will not be levied with the Profit-Seeking Enterprise Income Tax, but each partner will file income tax reports based on after-profit-gains from the partnership that are passed through to each partner. It is expected that the venture capital industry will now be encouraged to adopt the limited partnership structure, and thus increase investment capital in new ventures. II. The Pass Through Taxation Method is Applicable to Newly Established Venture Capital Limited Partnerships 1. The Requirements and Effects (1) The Requirements According to the provisions of Article 23-1 Paragraph 3 of the Draft, to be eligible for Pass Through Taxation, newly established venture capital limited partnerships must meet the following requirements: 1. The venture capital limited partnerships are established between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019. 2. Investment threshold of the total agreed capital contribution, total received capital contribution, and accumulated total capital contribution, within five years of the establishment of venture capital limited partnerships: Total Agreed Capital Contribution in the Limited Partnership Agreement Total Received Capital Contribution Accumulated Investment Amount for Start-up Companies The Year of Establishment 3 hundred million ✕ ✕ The Second Year ✕ ✕ The Third Year 1 hundred million ✕ The Fourth Year 2 hundred million Reaching 30 percent of the total received capital contribution of the year or 3 hundred million NT dollars. The Fifth Year 3 hundred million 3. The total amount, that an overseas company applies in capital and investments in actual business operations in Taiwan, reaches 50% of its total received capital contribution of that year. 4. In compliance with government policies. 5. Reviewed and approved by the central competent authority each year. (2) The Effects The effects of applying the provisions of Article 23-1 Paragraph 3 of the Draft are as follows: 1. Venture capital limited partnerships are exempt from the Profit-Seeking Enterprise Income Tax. 2. Taxation method for partners in a limited partnership after obtaining profit gains: (1) Pursuant to the Income Tax Act, Individual partners and for-profit business partners are taxed on their proportionally-calculated, distributed earnings. (2) Individual partners and foreign for-profit business partners are exempt from income tax on the stock earnings distributed by a limited partnership. 2. Benefit Analysis Before and After Applying Pass Through Taxation Method A domestic individual A, a domestic profit-making business B, and a foreign profit-making business C jointly form a venture capital limited partnership, One. The earnings distribution of the company One is 10%, 80% and 10% for A, B, and C partners, respectively. The calculated earnings of company One are one million (where eight hundred thousand are stock earnings, and two hundred thousand are non-stock earnings). How much income tax should be paid by the company One, and partners A, B, and C? (1) Pursuant to the Income Tax Act, before the amended draft: 1. One Venture Capital Limited Partnership Should pay Profit-Seeking Enterprise Income Tax = (NT$1,000,000 (earning) - NT$500,000)x12% (tax rate)=NT$60,000 2. Domestic Individual A Should file a comprehensive income report with business profit income =(NT$1,000,000-NT$60,000) x 10% (company One draft a voucher for net amount for A) + NT$60,000÷2×10% (deductible tax rate)= NT$97,000 Tax payable on profit earnings＝NT$91,500×5%(tax rate)＝NT$4,850 Actual income tax paid＝NT$4,850 - NT$60,000÷2×10% (deductible tax rate) ＝NT$1,485 3. Domestic For-Profit Business B Pursuant to the provisions of Article 42 of the Income Tax Act, the net dividend or net income received by a profit-seeking company is not included in the income tax calculation. 4. Foreign For-Profit Business C Tax paid at its earning source＝(NT$1,000,000 - NT$60,000) ×10% (earning distribution rate) ×20% (tax rate at earning source)＝NT$18,800 (2) Applying Pass Through Taxation Method After Enacting the Amendment 1. One Venture Capital Limited Partnership No income tax. 2. Domestic Individual A Should pay tax＝NT$800,000 (non-stock distributed earnings)×10% (earning distribution rate)×5% (comprehensive income tax rate)＝NT$1,000 3. Domestic For-Profit Business B Pursuant to the provisions of Article 42 of the Income Tax Act, the net dividend or net income received by a profit-seeking company is not included in the income tax calculation. 4. Foreign For-Profit Business C Tax paid at its earning source＝NT$800,000 (non-stock distributed earnings)×10%(earning distribution rate)×20% (tax rate at earning source)＝NT$4,000 The aforementioned example shows that under the situation, where the earning distribution is the same and tax rate for the same taxation subject is the same, the newly-established venture capital limited partnerships and their shareholders enjoy a more favorable tax benefit with the adoption of pass through taxation method: Before the Amendment After the Amendment Venture Capital Limited Partnership NT$60,000 Excluded in calculation Shareholders Domestic Individual NT$1,850 NT$1,000 Domestic For-Profit Business Excluded in calculation Excluded in calculation Foreign For-Profit Business NT$18,800 NT$4,000 Sub-total NT$80,650 NT$5,000 III. Conclusion Compared to the corporate taxation, the application of the pass through taxation method allows for a significant reduction in tax burden. While developing Taiwan’s pass through tax scheme, the government referenced corporate taxation under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC), where companies that meet the conditions of Chapter S can adopt the “pass through” method, that is, pass the earnings to the owner, with the income of shareholders being the objects of taxation; and studied the "Transparenzprinzip" adopted by the German taxation board for partnership style for-profit businesses. Following these legislative examples, where profits are identified as belonging to organization members, the government legislation includes the adoption of the pass through taxation scheme for venture capital limited partnerships in the amended draft of Article 23-1 of the Statute for Industrial Innovation, so that the legislation is up to international standards and norms, while making an important breakthrough in the current income tax system. This is truly worthy of praise.  The Legislative Yuan Gazette, Vol. 104, No. 51, page 325. URL:http://misq.ly.gov.tw/MISQ//IQuery/misq5000Action.action  A View on the Limited Partnership in Taiwan, Cross-Strait Law Review, No. 54, Liao, Da-Ying, Page 42.  Ministry of Economic Affairs - Limited Partnership Registration Information URL: http://gcis.nat.gov.tw/lmpub/lms/dir.jsp?showgcislocation=true&agencycode=allbf  Same as annotate 2, pages 51-52.  Reference Letter of Interpretation dated December 18, 2015, Tai-Cai-Shui Zi No. 10400636640, the Ministry of Finance  First half of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Income Basic Tax Act  Second half of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Income Basic Tax Act  A Study on the Limited Partnership Act, Master’s degree thesis, College of Law, Soochow University, Wu, Tsung-Yeh, pages 95-96.  Reference annotate 2, pages 52.