According to Taiwan media reports, 27 military doctors including Wang Zhihong, director of Taiwan's "Tri-Service General Hospital", were accused of "false donations and real tax evasion" in 2016 and were prosecuted for violating the tax collection law. In the first trial, 27 people were found not guilty. The second trial today upheld the innocence of two people, but changed the verdict to Wang Zhihong and 25 others, with sentences ranging from two months to one year.
The whole case stems from the fact that in 2016, the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office investigated what was rated as the largest suspected tax evasion case in the medical field, accusing Cai Zuoyong, the former dean of the National Defense Medical College and academician of the Academia Sinica. and others, are suspected of accepting donations from more than 200 doctors from 2005 to 2009 through the Siyuan Foundation and the Chenghan Foundation, and the foundation then "returns" 95% of the total donations to the donors in the form of subsidized research fees. Assisting with "fake donations, real tax evasion".
According to media reports, only Yu Zhicheng and Lin Xinlong were acquitted in the second trial, and 25 people were convicted, including Li Ruihua, Wang Zhihong, Xie Zongbao, Dai Mingzheng, Chen Jinshun, Lin Shihua, Peng Jiaxun, Chen Jiantong, Li Manggang, Ruan Chunrong, Chen Xizhou, Chen Dengwei, and Pan Ruyu , Zhan Dequan, Chen Zhengrong, Lu Qingxiang, Dai Nianzi, Wu Jiajun, Cai Jiansong, Chen Qiaohong, Wang Dingwei, Su Qingxiang, Zhang Zhengchang, Chen Liguang, Qiu Xianzhong, the sentences range from 2 months to 1 year in prison, and they can all be fined. Can be appealed.
Cai Zuoyong and other 225 people pleaded guilty and paid penalties, and were granted deferred prosecution by the Beijing Prosecutor's Office. Wang Zhihong was the director of the Army's Logistics Command Military Medical Division at the time. A total of 27 military doctors did not plead guilty and were prosecuted by the Beijing Prosecutor's Office.
The first instance of the Taipei District Court in June 2018 found that the amount of foundation subsidies received by 27 defendants was not 95% of the annual donations. The proportion of donations and subsidy amounts varied, and some defendants even donated more than the subsidy amount. Prosecutors The claim that all the defendants evaded taxes through false donations and false tax refunds by "actually only donating 5% but obtaining receipts for 100% of the amount" lacks basis.
The first-instance judgment mentioned that the records of the "Investigation Bureau" were flawed, and the foundation members did not testify that the foundation returned 95% of the donation amount to the original donor. There was insufficient evidence in the entire case, and the verdict was not guilty.
After the case was appealed, the High Court of Second Instance held that the statements of the CEO of the Yisiyuan Foundation, the CEO of the Chenghan Foundation, the accountant of the foundation, etc., as well as the information on how the donations were received by the foundation, determined that the foundation had provided the donors You can make donations in the name of donation, and you can submit research, papers, further education or academic and social welfare activities and other information to the foundation to apply for awards, and then the foundation will transfer the funds within 95% of the donation amount in the name of awards. Return to donors.
The second review pointed out that the foundation provides this model. As far as the donor is concerned, most of the money can be recovered in a short period of time. In addition, the benefits of tax deductibility are obviously much higher than the remaining money spent. Such The money seems to be flowing between the left and right hands of the donor. The donor has paid nothing, but can get the benefit of tax deduction for no reason. It is obviously not a free donation.
In addition, as far as the foundation is concerned, it actually only obtains a small part of about 5% of the donation amount, which obviously cannot be used for the purpose of promoting the public interest of the foundation. It has no substantial benefit to the foundation and is not consistent with The purpose of the donation is also not in line with the purpose of awarding aid as stipulated in the foundation's donation charter.
The collegial court of second instance held that such a model is not in line with the nature of donations, subsidies and other acts. It is obviously in the name of donation. The donation receipt issued by the foundation is false and the donor declares it as a deduction accordingly. Taxes constitute the crime of "tax evasion through unfair means."
The second instance considered that the 25 defendants’ tax evasion declarations in different years were carried out with separate intentions, and the time could be clearly separated, so they should be punished separately.
