The 1219 Redress Movement Called for an End to Unjust Cases and a Better Nation through the Rule of Law | WPN World People News

The movement, which called for "true legal and tax reform and salvation of Taiwan with conscience" and created quite an echo among all walks of life, was extended as the "1219 Redress Movement." The adherence of Tai Ji Men's grandmaster and disciples to the pursuit of justice for 20 years demonstrates that they do not compromise with the authoritarian regime of Taiwan. This unjust case should be ended so that the administrative system of the government can regain the trust of the people. This is also a vital historical moment of civic awakening. It is hoped that justice will be done and this country will become a better nation through the rule of law.

Appeals of Tai Ji Men's grandmaster and disciples: The honorariums received by Tai Ji Men's grandmaster from his disciples were tax-free income as verified by the final criminal decision rendered after three instances of judicial trial and by the open survey of the National Taxation Bureau (NTB) and supported by sufficient legal theories and evidence. The Ministry of Finance should cancel illegal dispositions and end the unjust case according to the resolution adopted during the interministerial meeting organized by the Executive Yuan on December 9, 2011 in order to safeguard the legal regime.

Human Rights Trampled by Authoritarian Regime and Redress by the Judiciary and the Control Yuan

The Tai Ji Men tax case is an unjust and erroneous case in which tax bills should not have been issued from the very beginning and due process is seriously violated.

Tai Ji Men was victimized in 1996 when the government cracked down on evil religious cults. As a result of false tips, prosecutors in Kaohsiung and Hsinchu conducted investigations and interrogated Tai Ji Men. The cases were closed because no legal violation was found during the investigation. In response to the same false tips, Prosecutor Kuan-jen Hou directly launched illegal nationwide raids in 19 locations where Tai Ji Men's facilities and residences of some disciples were located in Taiwan through hundreds of prosecutors, police officers and investigators with loaded guns. Fabricating offenses of fraud and tax evasion, Kuan-jen Hou made up false amounts in his indictment and falsely alleged that they were proceeds from fraud and requested that they be confiscated by the court on one hand, while falsely stating that they were cram school tuitions and business revenues and referring this matter to the NTB for taxation on the other hand.

Obviously aware of the self-contradictory finding of the nature of relevant amounts in the indictment, the NTB has failed to wait for a final court decision to confirm the nature of the income in line with the legislative spirit of Article 177 of the Administrative Litigation Act and to conduct ex officio investigation. The NTB also did not provide the individuals concerned any opportunity to provide an explanation. The NTB has failed, from the very beginning, to assume the burden of proof under Article 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act and conduct entry-by-entry substantive audit. Instead, it has forcibly collected illegal taxes for as long as 20 years merely based on the false indictment in the criminal case.

Redress has been provided by the judiciary and the Control Yuan, which indicated there was no payable tax.

 In 2002, the Control Yuan actively investigated, listing eight major legal violations of Kuan-jen Hou and requesting the Ministry of Justice to impose a strict sanction. The Control Yuan also confirmed that the prosecution based on the indictment, which contradicts evidentiary materials, did not meet evidentiary rules. Therefore, the prosecution should not have been instituted pursuant to law. Kuan-jen Hou also admitted that he had not investigated ex officio during the Control Yuan's investigation. Such indictment is not a supportable basis for taxation. The Control Yuan even included it in the major human rights protection cases set forth in the Third Consolidated Report on Human Rights Protection.

 In 2007, the indictment and relevant transcripts in the criminal case were found unacceptable by three instances of courts with a final not-guilty decision rendered. The decision also concluded that there was no fraud, no tax evasion, no violation of the Tax Collection Act, and that the procurement by some disciples for other disciples did not involve profit-oriented sales and had nothing to do with the grandmaster and his wife. The decision also concluded that Tai Ji Men did not have any tax issue.

 In 2009, the Control Yuan concluded that there were obviously seven major legal violations by the NTB in its tax collection in the Tai Ji Men tax case, such as failure to thoroughly investigate and accurately assess taxes in fulfillment of its duty and to clarify the nature of the income in the case in the discharge of its responsibility.

 The innocent defendants who had been detained all received state compensation for wrongful detention in 2009. This further shows that the wrongful incrimination and falsehood in the indictment could not serve as the basis of taxation.

NTB's Refusal to Honor Resolution Adopted during the Executive Yuan's Interministerial Meeting

The NTB conducted an open survey based on a resolution adopted during an interministerial meeting organized by the Executive Yuan. The results proved once again that the honorariums were gifts, which is consistent with the finding in the criminal decision. Therefore, the original dispositions should have been set aside pursuant to law.

During its investigation in 2009, the Control Yuan listed seven major legal violations of the NTB and requested that this matter be dealt with fairly during its visit to the Executive Yuan in 2010 and 2011. As a result, the Executive Yuan conducted an interministerial meeting on December 9, 2011. During this meeting, it was resolved that criminal indictments cannot serve as a basis of taxation any more. In addition, the NTB of Taipei was requested to post a two-month notice to openly survey the nature of the honorariums paid by Tai Ji Men disciples to the grandmaster under the condition that "if the results of the survey indicate gifts, the unjust case will be terminated pursuant to law; and if respondents stated that the honorariums were tuitions, this matter will also be dealt with pursuant to law." According to the results of the open survey, all of the 7,401 responses indicated the honorariums were gifts with no response suggesting tuitions.

Before conducting this interministerial meeting, the Executive Yuan coordinated with relevant agencies to prepare for this meeting, as specifically discussed below:

On July 7, 2011, the Executive Yuan issued a letter to the Ministry of Finance, requesting that this matter be dealt with according to court decisions.

On November 3, 2011, former Finance Minister Sush-der Lee visited Secretary-General Chung-sen Lin of the Executive Yuan to discuss subsequent handling of this case.

On November 22, 2011, Secretary-General Chung-sen Lin invited the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the NTB of Taipei to attend a discussion meeting in which an open survey was proposed as a method to verify facts concerning tax collection. This was the pre-meeting for the December 9, 2011 meeting.

On November 25, 2011, the Ministry of Finance called a meeting to discuss how to handle the Tai Ji Men tax case. It was resolved that Article 12-1 of the Tax Collection Act, which requires a tax agency to assume the burden of proof and the duty of investigation, should be thoroughly followed. The NTB was requested to investigate the nature of the honorariums by way of an open survey.

On December 7, 2011, Chin-chien Chen, the Director-General of the NTB of Taipei at that time, informed Counsel Jui-chin Chiang and CPA Teh-ming Chen, both attorneys of the grandmaster and his wife, to visit the NTB of Taipei and requested the two attorneys to persuade the grandmaster and Tai Ji Men disciples to accept the investigation of the nature of the honorariums through the open survey. This shows that the NTB of Taipei had reached a consensus with agencies such as the Executive Yuan, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice before the interministerial meeting was conducted.

On December 9, 2011, the Executive Yuan conducted the interministerial meeting, in which representatives of the Tai Ji Men disciples and attorneys of the grandmaster and his wife fervently stated that no further investigation was required since the gift facts had been established by criminal courts and their decisions, much less a survey which would go through a lengthy two-month announcement. However, under the pressure from administrative agencies that urged repeatedly that the procedure could not be complete and the case could not be terminated without the NTB's assumption of the burden of proof and fulfillment of its investigation duty. At that, representatives of the grandmaster and his wife finally agreed to the conclusion and resolution.

On December 16, 2011, the NTB of Taipei conducted the 2074th Re-assessment Committee Meeting, accepting the resolution adopted by such interministerial meeting of the Executive Yuan. In the afternoon of the same day, the NTB of Taipei issued the Tsai-Pei-Kuo-Shui-Fa-2-Tzu No. 100249751 Circular to communicate that the circular would be posted in the NTB's website and its office bulletin boards for two months with the same material posted in domestic and overseas newspapers beginning with December 19, 2011.

The period of the open survey expired on February 16, 2012. However, since Tai Ji Men had overseas disciples, the cutoff date was postponed to February 19, 2012.

The open survey ended on February 19, 2011. The results of the survey showed that 7,401 respondents all indicated that the honorariums were gifts with no one suggesting tuitions, which is consistent with the gift conclusion in the third instance of criminal decision.

On February 29, 2012, when receiving a letter from the individuals concerned which inquired about the survey results, the NTB of Taipei replied via the Pei-Kuo-Shui-Fa-2-Tzu No. 1010220154 Circular, indicating: "If there is any further need to investigate facts, the Bureau will notify relevant individuals to give their statements in accordance with Article 39 of the Administrative Procedure Act."

The procedure and the legal basis for such interministerial meeting were comprehensive and sufficient. The results of the open survey clearly indicated gifts. Therefore, the NTB should have determined facts according to the conclusions of the interministerial meeting and the results of the open survey to terminate this case once and for all.

Rule of Law Underpinned by Government Credibility; Termination of the Unjust Case Urged by Scholars and Experts

Experts and scholars believe that the NTB should terminate the unjust Tai Ji Men tax case according to the results of the open survey by following the principle of good faith and evidentiary rules.

According to Tze-lung Chen, a law professor at National Taiwan University, after the interministerial meeting conducted by the Executive Yuan on December 9, 2011, the NTB conducted an open survey on the nature of the honorariums in compliance with the resolution adopted during the meeting. Since this survey was part of due process, the NTB certainly must be bound by it. According the syllogism of matters to be verified, evidence and inferences, matters to be verified refer to the elements that constitute this case, namely, whether the honorariums to the master were gifts or tuitions. The outcome of the 7,401 survey forms suggested gifts. This was clear evidence. A very clear conclusion could be drawn based on the connections between the evidence and the matters to be verified. All honorariums were gifts. There was no room for ambiguity.

According to Professor Ching-hsiu Chen of the Department of Law of Soochow University, it was agreed in the interministerial meeting at the Executive Yuan to deal with the Tai Ji Men tax case through an open survey whose results would serve as the basis for tax handling. This was lawful, just and in line with the principle of free proof and the spirit of ex officio investigation. This meeting achieved something like administrative contract or negotiation of tax cases. When the results of the open survey all indicated "gifts" with no one suggesting "tuitions," the evidence should have significant weight and is sufficient to conclude gifts, which go beyond the scope of income for taxation. This should be binding to the NTB as an administrative contract or a tax case negotiation.

According to Professor Chun-chieh Hwang, member of the Presidential Office Human Rights Consultative Committee and Distinguished Professor of Financial and Economic Law National Chung Cheng University, the December 9, 2011 meeting adopted a resolution to resolve the income tax disputes in the Tai Ji Men case. To address the main issue between the tax agency and taxpayer, namely, the investigation and determination of "nature of honorarium payment," which is the fundamental fact in this tax case, the parties entered into a settlement contract concerning the "finding of the fact." In addition, after such settlement contract was established, the survey was announced after the 2074th Re-assessment Committee Meeting of the original disposition agency on December 16, 2011. This shows that the original disposition agency accepted such settlement contract and started to perform the contract between the parties. Based on the principle of good faith and the principle of administrative self-restraint, the original disposition agency should be bound by such agreement, and "gift," which was obtained as a result of the open survey, should be used to determine the fundamental fact for this tax case. In addition, taxation by estimation should also be restricted.

Professor Chung-teh Liu of National Chengchih University: " The resolution adopted during the December 9, 2011 sought to resolve the main issue in the Tai Ji Men tax disputes between the parties, namely how to investigate and determine the 'nature of the honorarium payment,' which is the fundamental fact for this tax case...This did not involve substantive tax claims...and is a settlement contract between the tax agency and the taxpayer on the determination of facts. In addition, the parties reached a consensus concerning the investigation method. Therefore, under the principle of good faith and the principle of administrative self-constraint, the original disposition agency should certainly be bound by the agreement," and "since the administrative investigation conducted based on the consensus formed in said settlement contract was completed, and...the results of the investigation showed clearly that the honorariums were gifts, the agency handling the administrative appeal should rule that the dispositions at issue were illegal and end the case based on the settlement contract between the original disposition agency and the individuals subject to the disposition and the survey responses, all of which indicated the honorariums were gifts."

Professor Hwai-tzong Lee of the Department of Law of National Chung Hsing University, both parties decided how to investigate evidence through an administrative agreement at that time. This agreement is known as evidentiary contract, which is legally binding. Now that the evidence was found, the NTB should not have overturned the evidence again illegally. The administration is an integrated whole, and the decision and restraint by the predecessor administrative should not be denied simply because relevant officials have changed their positions. In this case, there is no tax evasion issue. But rather, the issue lies in the nature of the income, namely, gift or tuition. Since this is a matter of substantive determination, the principle of substantive taxation does not apply. In addition, since this case pertains to the issue of direct evidence, this has nothing to do with taxation by way of estimation.

According to Chih-kuang Wu, Professor and Vice Administrative Dean of the College of Law and Chairman of the Graduate Department of Law of Fu Jen Catholic University, Judicial Interpretation No. 613 provides that due to integrated administration, if administrative agencies have subordination relationship, the superior agency has the power to guide and direct the subordinate agency. The agreement reached on December 9, 2011 should be followed in order to honor the principle of administration pursuant to law, since the agreement is a binding public law agreement and an administrative contract.

According to Po-yen Hu, Assistant Professor of the Department of Law of Soochow University, the 2011 interministerial meeting conducted by the Executive Yuan should be regarded as a settlement contract under the Administrative Procedure Act. This meeting did not target the taxable amount but rather reached an agreement to ascertain if the honorariums were gifts through an open survey. The provisions of Article 136 concerning settlement contract under the Administrative Procedure Act are clear enough. The administrative court should reconsider this matter.

According to You-chen Su, Chairman of the Human Rights Protection Committee of the ROC Bar Association, Articles 135 and 136 of the Administrative Litigation Act confirm a very important case investigation procedure to determine the fundament fact of tax case. This settlement contract confirmed two objectives: the nature of the honorariums and the investigation method. Over 7,000 responses unambiguously proved the honorariums were gifts in nature.

The Ministry of Education, the highest central competent authority for cram schools, issued circulars three times during 1997 through 2000 and openly stated in the Legislative Yuan that Tai Ji Men was not a cram school. The Tsai-Pei-Kuo-Shui-Fa-Tzu No. 1010234797 Re-assessment Decision of August 3, 2012 from the NTB of Taipei and the Central-Kuo-Shui-Fa-2-Tzu No. 1020016445 Re-assessment Decision of November 27, 2013 from the NTB of the Central Area both admitted that Tai Ji Men was not a cram school. Since it was not a cram school, there was no cram school tuition at all. Ching-chang Yen, former Finance Minister and former Ambassador to the WTO, remarked: "The law seeks to do justice. Justice delayed for a long time without effective remedies is justice denied. We are astonished that justice has not been done in this case for over 20 years. The Tai Ji Men matter does not require any legal amendment. Now that the Supreme Administrative Court has set aside and remanded the decision on re-assessment to the NTB, the focus of this process is on the subject matter of the dispute. What is the legal characteristic of this? There is only one legal characteristic. If the income is cram school tuition, that would be personal income. If not, it would be honorariums provided by the disciples at their discretion. This matter cannot possibly have two characteristics. If it can, for your information, I would have to re-study for my law degree."

Termination of Endless Crucifixion and Trauma through Cancellation of Illegal Tax Dispositions

In 2013, international human rights experts visited Taiwan and reviewed the national human rights report in detail according to the practice of the United Nations. During the review meeting, they inquired about the handling status of the unjust Tai Ji Men case. The White Paper on Taxpayers' Rights in Taiwan, which summarized viewpoints and recommendations of the practitioners and the academia, included the Tai Ji Men tax case as the benchmark case. Local and foreign experts also pointed out that the Tai Ji Men case is an unjust human rights case and the Tax Law 228 Incident and the White Terror caused by a few bureaucrats who knowingly and willingly abused the law to an extent that their authority exceeded that of the Presidential Office and the five government branches. People of their sort should not be allowed to kidnap the government and the system any more.

The honorariums paid by Tai Ji Men disciples to the grandmaster are gifts from the perspectives of interpersonal relationship, reason and law. In addition, this case has dragged on for 20 years, which has exceeded the 5-year or 7-year statute of limitation for taxation. In the face of clear and indisputable evidence for gifts, the NTB should conclude the gift fact according to evidence and set aside its illegal tax dispositions in accordance with Article 117 of the Administrative Procedure Act. In comparison with the handling of another case involving workers whose rights were injured after their employer shut down the factory, cancelling all tax bills can put an end to the endless crucifixion and trauma to the people, society, constitutional democracy and this nation.

At this moment when international human rights experts are going to visit Taiwan to review the national human rights report again, the government is urged, out of its love of the people, to supervise the responsible agencies to terminate the unjust taxes pursuant to law to safeguard the legal regime and protect human rights.

Source: Tai Ji Men Qigong Academy