It is clearly prescribed in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of the Land Tax Act that where land is transferred without compensation, the person who pays the land value increment tax is the person who acquires the land ownership.　With regard to the subdivision of co-owned land, when the value of land acquired through subdivision by co-owners is lower than the value calculated based on their respective portions and they are not compensated, this is considered one form of transfer without compensation. Therefore, the land value increment tax should be levied on that incremental portion of land of the co-owner who obtained a higher land value. The Ministry of Finance Directive (67) Tai-Tsai-Shui-Tze No. 34896, regarding the expropriation of the land value increment tax does not contravene the aforementioned rule, and is therefore not in conflict with Article 19 of the Constitution.

　　　 It should first be noted that, the directive at issue, i.e., the Ministry of Finance Directive No. (67)-T.T.S.-34896, was in response to the request made by Hsu Ming-Fu on May 23, 1978, which was also made known to various tax offices under the said Ministry, and was later applied by the Administrative Court in rendering one of its final decisions, i.e., Judgment P.T. No. 225 (Adm. Ct. 1981), and thus should be considered as an order.　Accordingly, the petition for interpretation made by the Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Article 4-I (ii) of the Grand Justices Council Adjudication Act and hence should be heard by this Court.

　　　 Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of the Land Tax Act clearly provides that where land is transferred without compensation, the person who pays the land value increment tax is the person who acquired the land ownership. Paragraph 2 of the same article further provides that the term “transfer without compensation” refers to transfer by legacy and gift, and by other such comparable forms of transfer; therefore, such transfer is not limited to legacies and gifts alone. This can be perceived by the term “other such comparable forms of transfer”.　Where co-owned land is subdivided, the sole ownership of each subdivided portion is derived from the intra-transfer of each co-owner’s respective share. When the value of the land acquired by a co-owner through subdivision is higher than his or her respective share, and such co-owner has not compensated other co-owners who received lower land values for their respective portions, this is considered one form of transfer without compensation. Therefore, the land value increment tax shall be levied on that portion of land calculated at a higher value and be paid by such co-owner who obtained the higher land value, so as to ensure that the increment will be shared by the people in common.　With respect to the rules under Article 65, Paragraph 1, of the Enforcement Rules of the Statute for the Equalization of Urban Land Rights: “Where co-owned land is subdivided, if the value of the portion of land each co-owner acquired after subdivision is comparable to the value as computed from his or her own original share, no land value increment tax will be levied, but if the value is not comparable, co-owners whose land is calculated at a lower value should pay the land value increment tax on that lesser portion of land value” and Article 42, Paragraph 2, of the Enforcement Rules of the Land Tax Act : “When the co-owned land value for subdivision uses the original owner's share as the basis of calculation, no land value increment tax will be levied.　However, if the land value for subdivision did not use the original owner’s share as a basis for calculation, the land value increment tax should be levied upon the co-owner who received the lower land value on that lesser portion of land”, or co-owners whose land is calculated at a lower value and have not been compensated. However, the aforementioned rules are incompatible and difficult to apply.　The Ministry of Finance Directive (67) Tai-Tsai-Shui-Tze No. 34896, issued on March 5, 1971 [Please check this date.], states: “After the subdivision of co-owned land, in case each co-owner’s land value as determined from the calculation of the publicly announced land value at the time of subdivision and the land value computed from the original owner’s share is not comparable, and there is no agreement on compensation between co-owners, the rule under Article 5, Subparagraph 2, of the Estate and Gift Tax Law states: “Where a property is transferred, and a debt is remitted or undertaken with apparent disparity of price, that deficit portion” shall be deemed as inheritance, and estate tax shall be levied in accordance with law; at this time, the owner whose land was appraised at a higher value will be the beneficiary, and the competent tax authority shall levy the land value increment tax upon that excess portion of land value”. Although the reasoning is inappropriate, regarding that portion of the land value increment tax levied upon the owner who obtained land ownership from transfer without compensation, it is deemed to be consistent with the rules provided under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, and Paragraph 2 of the same article, and thus shall not be affected by the enforcement rules stated above, and should not be considered contradictory to Article 19 of the Constitution.　In addition, when co-owned land is transferred due to subdivision, the land value obtained by all co-owners and the value as calculated based on their own respective shares are comparable. In case there is an increase in price of the land during the subdivision, or whether a land value increment tax should be levied or not, is not within the scope of this petition for reasoning. Thus, we point out that there is no need to provide reasoning for these issues.