In the program of which we publish a transcript, an expert suggested that Taiwan’s tax bureaucracy is dominated by graduates from National Chengchi University’s Department of Public Finance, while law graduates are under-represented.
by Bitter Winter
Article 5 of 5. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, and article 4.
An article already published in Bitter Winter on October 12th, 2024.
Host: Thank you, lawyer Tsai. I’m sure that after hearing this [see installment #4 of this series], our audience, even those who weren’t initially upset, must now feel a sense of anger. These public servants are supposed to serve the people and are paid by our tax dollars. So why is it that they fail to fulfill their promises and instead engage in actions that harm people’s rights, infringe on their property rights, and even deprive them of their livelihood? How can officials at the Ministry of Finance and the National Taxation Bureau so blatantly disregard the law, leading to widespread tax disasters? What is the root cause of such corruption within the Ministry of Finance and the National Taxation Bureau? Now, let’s hear from Ms. Zhong, who previously worked as an auditor at the National Taxation Bureau, to share her perspective.
Ms. Zhong: Thank you, host. Once, at a public event, I heard a senior figure in the accounting field openly mention that back in the 1980s, graduates from National Chengchi University’s Department of Public Finance, after passing an internal review, could directly start working at the Ministry of Finance. I was very surprised. How could this be possible? Isn’t it required to pass the national civil service exams to qualify for public sector positions?
This is a significant difference. For those of us who started from the grassroots level, it can take seven or eight years to rise from rank 5 to rank 6. However, these graduates could immediately start working at the Ministry of Finance right after graduation, which makes their career starting point vastly different from others. After hearing this, I quickly checked the Ministry of Finance’s official website, and indeed, over the past few decades, the Ministers of Finance, Directors of the Taxation Administration, and Directors of the National Taxation Bureau have predominantly been graduates from National Chengchi University’s Department of Public Finance. The proportion is extremely high.
Let’s have the staff display a table. From this table, we can see the promotion trajectory from the Directors of the National Taxation Bureau to higher positions in the Ministry of Finance, such as the Taxation Administration, Deputy Ministers, and Ministers. The table includes the names, educational backgrounds, and career histories of the Ministers of Finance, Directors of the Taxation Administration, and Directors of the five regional National Taxation Bureaus, covering the period from the 1980s and 1990s to the present. All of this information is publicly available on the Ministry of Finance’s official website.
What we notice is that only a few individuals graduated from departments like economics, accounting, or international trade, while over 90% are graduates of National Chengchi University’s Department of Public Finance or its Graduate Institute of Finance. There are almost no graduates from law departments or holders of law doctorates. In other words, for the past half-century, Taiwan’s fiscal policies and tax revenues have been largely controlled by this dominant group from the National Chengchi University’s Public Finance circle, whose primary focus is on maximizing fiscal revenue.
I distinctly remember that Professor Gee Keh-Chang once said that the Ministry of Finance and the National Taxation Bureau issue most administrative orders, particularly in the form of tax bills each year, such as income tax, corporate tax, business tax, land tax, property tax, and other tax-related bills or fines. Each of these tax bills and administrative orders relates to the property rights of individuals, which are a fundamental part of human rights. During the tax collection process, several legal principles must be followed, such as the principle of due process, the principle of proportionality, the principle of tax legality, and the principle of legal supremacy. These principles must be strictly adhered to and cannot be violated.
Most of these officials come from this university, particularly with a background in the taxation department at National Chengchi University (NCCU), and they have not received formal legal training at the university level. They are often unaware of the connection between taxation, property rights, and fundamental human rights. As a result, they lack understanding of evidence, reasoning principles, and the importance of due process. Furthermore, they are unfamiliar with the basic legal reasoning process that legal professionals follow, known as the three-line syllogism in legal methodology. The first step is the major premise, which refers to the legal provisions; the second step is the minor premise, referring to the facts of the case; and the third step is the legal conclusion—whether taxes should or should not be imposed.
When a case arises, the three-line syllogism should be applied. First, the facts must be thoroughly examined and supported by sufficient evidence. This process involves repeatedly interpreting and subsuming the facts within the legal provisions of the major premise. Only when the facts align with the legal requirements can a decision to tax be reached. Essentially, you must first use evidence to prove the facts before you can correctly apply the law.
In the case of Tai Ji Men, the Department of Education had already clearly stated that Qigong is a form of martial arts, and the teaching of Qigong is considered part of traditional cultural practices, meaning an organization teaching it cannot legally be classified as a cram school. The National Taxation Bureau, however, applied the law concerning private cram schools, which mandates proper accounting records, to tax Tai Ji Men. But for them to apply this law, they must first prove that Tai Ji Men is a cram school. Otherwise, it constitutes a misapplication of the law, which renders the administrative decision invalid from the outset.
The reason I strongly insist on this “three-line syllogism” is because, back when I worked in the Legal Department at the National Taxation Bureau reviewing cases, I had no idea what the three-line syllogism was, nor did I understand the concepts of major premise, minor premise, or legal effect. So, when I first encountered this syllogism, I realized that it is actually a basic piece of common knowledge—a rigorous logical reasoning process that should be applied when interpreting laws.
So, when we observe that many of Taiwan’s tax law scholars are PhD holders in law, there is a stark contrast in reality, where very few financial officials have a background in legal studies. This has created a huge disparity, which is likely a major reason Taiwan faces so many tax issues—ranging from flaws in the tax system to the long-standing problem of outdated or ill-founded tax bills. The Ministry of Finance is aware of these problems, but they are unwilling to actively confront them, unwilling to address the issues by amending laws or by ensuring human rights protections.
Could the root cause of Taiwan’s rampant tax disasters lie in the fact that these officials simply do not understand the law and don’t know how to properly apply it? Therefore, one solution proposed for improvement is to recommend that the legal department of the National Taxation Bureau—those responsible for handling cases related to tax evasion—should ideally be staffed with law school graduates to handle these cases appropriately.
When applying the law to the facts of a case, it is crucial to adhere to principles of evidence, logical reasoning, and due process. Therefore, when the Examination Yuan appoints civil servants, law graduates who are officially qualified as public servants should be assigned to the Ministry of Finance or the regional National Taxation Bureaus to handle legal affairs. This would likely lead to significant improvements in Taiwan’s tax system. That is my recommendation. Thank you.
Host: Thank you, Ms. Zhong, for your practical solutions and suggestions. We are also very grateful for the insights shared by our three guests today. I sincerely invite all viewers, especially the officials from the National Taxation Bureau, the Ministry of Finance, the judges from the Judicial Yuan, and even President Lai Ching-Te, to watch this episode of “Public Trial by All.” After watching, it will become clear that Taiwan has a long way to become a true democratic nation. Our tax and judicial systems still have significant improvements to make, and this requires the collective effort of the government and the people.
As we conclude the program, I invite our three panelists to share their closing thoughts in one minute. First, let’s welcome lawyer Tsai Fu-Chiang, the voluntary lawyer for Tai Ji Men.
Tsai Fu-Chiang: I would like to sincerely appeal to the judges of the administrative courts. According to the principle of separation of powers, the judiciary’s most important role is to oversee and correct administrative violations. When administrative actions are illegal, it is through judicial review that such unlawful decisions should be annulled or corrected. If the judiciary becomes a mere cover-up or clean-up crew for these illegal administrative actions, then the core function of the separation of powers is entirely undermined.
I believe this is the duty of a judge. Judges should act with conscience, and when carrying out judicial trials, they must uphold due process and the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the constitution as their guiding principles. As for notions like “national treasury doctrine” or “protecting state revenue,” those are nonsense, mere misleading rhetoric. The only guiding principle for judges should be due process; the law should be your sole standard in handling cases.
It is not the role of judges to increase the national treasury’s revenue. If you think your job is to boost the state’s income, then you might as well become a tax officer. Why be a judge if that’s your goal? This is a complete misplacement of responsibilities.
Yes, so we sincerely urge these administrative court judges to act with conscience when handling tax cases. The facts and evidence are already so clear. Over six years, the same facts were presented, and five years have already been corrected, recognizing that this is not a cram school and the tax amounts have been corrected to zero. The tax assessments issued based on the erroneous “cram school” classification are illegal tax impositions. If this doesn’t constitute unjust enrichment under public law, what else could it be?
If this still doesn’t lead to justice for the people, what will? Tai Ji Men had already compromised by seeking only the right to a tax refund, which was allowing the state to save face enough. This is the time when you, as a judge, should bring forth your sense of justice and conscience to deliver a lawful, reasonable, and fair ruling that convinces the public. How could you serve as a cover for the National Taxation Bureau, helping them hide the truth, find excuses, and block the people from exercising their rights and seeking redress? This is not the behavior of a nation governed by the rule of law.
These are my expectations and appeals to the judges. Thank you.
Host: Thank you, lawyer Tsai. We truly hope that all judicial personnel act in accordance with their duties. This ties into today’s theme: we hope that Taiwan’s judiciary serves as the last line of defense for justice, rather than becoming a tool for the state to bully its people. Next, we invite Ms. Zhong to speak.
Ms. Zhong: Lastly, I would like to point out that since August this year, the Executive Yuan and the Ministry of Justice have been conducting the pre-meeting review of the fourth National Report on the two international covenants on human rights. This international review, held every four years, involves substantial discussions between government ministries and civil society groups, including NGOs, to provide feedback on the initial draft of the national report and suggestions for improvement. The aim is to encourage government agencies to implement the spirit of the two covenants in safeguarding human rights.
Unfortunately, in this national report, we don’t see any action from the Ministry of Finance that aligns with the human rights protection outlined in the covenants. Next May, NGOs will submit their reports, and in March the following year, international experts will come to Taiwan for the fourth review. We hope that the Ministry of Finance will not submit a blank report again.
Host: Thank you to Ms. Zhong, our former tax auditor. Next, let’s invite Helen, a dizi of Tai Ji Men.
Helen: The people expect the government to genuinely serve them, to share in their hardships, and to truly protect human rights. The judiciary must be genuinely independent and not subject to interference by other authorities. The justice system should not be a tool to suppress the people, nor to oppress dissenting voices. It certainly should not be used to shield corrupt officials who abuse their power. This is what a true democracy, a state ruled by law, and a nation that respects human rights should look like. We sincerely hope the government actively pursues reform, and the people must jointly supervise and awaken as one. Only by working together for a better future will it be a blessing for the country! Thank you.
Host: Thank you, Helen. Today, we’ve invited a lawyer and a former tax auditor to examine Taiwan’s system from the perspectives of justice and tax law. In closing, we sincerely urge all government officials, including President Lai Ching-Te, to recognize how much we care about Taiwan’s reputation for democracy and rule of law on the international stage. International experts are preparing to visit Taiwan, so isn’t it time for our government departments to seriously address these issues and truly implement the two international human rights covenants, protecting the rights of the people? Today, we’ve also gained a better understanding of how the legal and tax systems affect each of us and all the viewers around us. None of us are bystanders in this. We invite everyone to continue following “Public Trial by All” to safeguard our rights. See you next week on “Public Trial by All.”