TAIWAN: Injustice is served: A wrong administrative decision against Tai Ji Men
The Tai Ji Men case might have been solved by the Taichung High Administrative Court on August 2. The court missed the opportunity.
by Massimo Introvigne
Bitter Winter (17.08.2024) – Readers of “Bitter Winter” are familiar with the Tai Ji Men case, a freedom of religion or belief and tax justice issue that is pending in Taiwan from the remote year 1996. Now, there was a golden opportunity to solve what has become an international embarrassment for Taiwan: a new President, a new government, a new court case, new arguments, the possibility of a pragmatic yet just solution. Unfortunately, the opportunity was missed. Injustice, not justice, was served by Taichung High Administrative Court on August 2, 2024.
A short summary of the Tai Ji Men case may be in order for those few readers unfamiliar with what is now a cause célèbre among international religious liberty scholars and activists. Tai Ji Men is an ancient menpai (similar to a school) of qigong, martial arts, and self-cultivation. When they join Tai Ji Men, and in other special occasions, dizi (disciples) express their gratitude to their Shifu (Grand Master) by giving him red envelopes including money. In the case of dozens of qigong and martial arts and religious groups that operate in Taiwan, it has always been recognized that the content of the red envelopes corresponds to a customary practice, should be considered as gifts, and is not taxable.
In 1996, Tai Ji Men with several other religious and spiritual movements became the victim of a politically motivated purge. It was accused of fraud and tax evasion. In 2007, the Supreme Court with a final decision declared Tai Ji Men defendants innocent of all criminal charges, including tax evasion. In the meantime, however, based on the ill-founded criminal prosecution, the National Taxation Bureau (NTB) had issued tax bills for the years 1991 to 1996 by claiming that the content of the red envelopes was not gift but a tuition fee for a “cram school,” i.e., a school imparting crash courses on different matters (normally in preparation of exams).
After the 2007 Supreme Court decision, the NTB tried to maintain the tax bills but eventually, after protracted litigation, had to correct to zero all of them except the one for the year 1992. In fact, the tax bills had been the subject matter of separate litigations and for the year 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court had rendered in 2006 a decision against Tai Ji Men that was technically final. The NTB argued that no different disposition was possible.
From the point of view of common sense, the NTB’s position was untenable. What happened with respect to the red envelopes in 1992 was in no way different from the other years. Several authorities in Taiwan had also clarified that Tai Ji Men was not a cram school, and there were no “tuition fees.” In democratic countries, normally a patently wrong decision can always be reconsidered and rectified, particularly when new facts emerge. In this case, the new fact was the Supreme Court decision of 2007, to which a further decision of 2018 by the Supreme Administrative Court reiterating that Tai Ji Men is not a cram school was later added.
Undaunted, the NTB maintained the tax bill for 1992, which was enforced in 2020 by confiscating, unsuccessfully auctioning off, and nationalizing land in Miaoli that Tai Ji Men considered sacred and intended for a self-cultivation and educational center. This generated widespread protests by Tai Ji Men and their supporters in Taiwan and the United States, where the movement is also active. It also created a serious problem of international image for Taiwan, which is part of the international community criticizing Mainland China for its violations of religious liberty and is placed in a difficult position when it is accused of not respecting freedom of religion and belief at home.
Tai Ji Men offered to the Taichung High Administrative Court the opportunity to solve the matter, by filing a new lawsuit where it asked for a refund of whatever might have been considered as payment for the fabricated 1992 tax bill.
Unfortunately, the Taichung judges ruled once again that the 2006 decision about the 1992 tax bill was final. They added insult to injury by suggesting that the tax bill for 1992 might have been based on different grounds than those for the other years. Not only was this argument false. It had been denied by the NTB itself. The NTB for the Central Area issued two letters in 2010, on June 23 and July 26, confirming that the tax bills for all years from 1991 to 1996 were based on the same underlying facts.
We can add that the Taichung High Administrative Court is notorious for siding with the government bureaucrats against the citizens, particularly in tax cases. For example, Judge Liu Xi-Xian who rendered the August 2 decision gave to tax bureaucrats in 2012 a winning streak of 56 consecutive cases he judged. He ruled against taxpayers in all of them. Other judges of the same courts such as Lin Chiu-Hua and Zhuang Jin-Chang have similar records.
It remains the possibility that the Supreme Administrative Court will rectify the injustice. Or that Taiwanese politics will find a solution for a case that is increasingly embarrassing for Taiwan’s image and international reputation.
Tai Ji Men protests in Taiwan.