The nature of "special fees" is different from that of "national secretarial fees". A "special fee" is a stipend for an official, the amount of which is determined by the local "committee". Half of the "special fees" are reimbursed with receipts, and are mostly administrative small payments; the other half can be collected directly with the official's signature, and can be donated at most in the form of charity donations to meet high moral requirements and have nothing to do with laws and regulations. Basic introduction Chinese name: Special Fee Also known as: Special Fee Source: "China Youth Daily": Official's Allowance: Taiwan *** Accounting Special Fee Subject Name, Source, Follow, According to Regulations, Academic Views, Events, Name Special Fee Also known as "special fees", it refers to administrative agencies, public schools, principals or vice-principals of public schools in Taiwan. It is understood that "special fees" are the principals and vice-principals of administrative agencies or public schools in Taiwan who, due to official needs, receive approval from the government. Official expenses and public relations expenses of the principal and vice-chancellor are expenditures according to regulations. The detailed expenditures include bouquets, souvenirs, elegiac couplets, gifts, etc. presented in the name of the principal and vice-chancellor. "Special expenses" refer to the official and public relations expenses of principals and vice principals of various administrative agencies or public schools in Taiwan due to official needs and approved by the government. The detailed expenses include bouquets, souvenirs, Elegy couplets, gifts, etc. In addition, although special funds are also known as "special fees" and some media regard the two as one, the name "special fees" has another meaning in law. The legal origins and norms of source special fees come from the annual "Budget Account Purpose Classification Definitions and Preparation Standards Table" in Taiwan's "Central Government General Budget Preparation Operation Manual" (such as the "2006 Budget Account Purpose Classification Definition and Standards" implemented in January 2006 "Compilation Standard Table"), as well as the "Expenditure Standards and Audit Operation Manual" reviewed and compiled by Taiwan's "Executive Yuan Accounting Office". In November 2006, Ma Ying-jeou, the mayor of Taipei City, Taiwan, was investigated and prosecuted by the Taiwan Procuratorate over a dispute over the expenditure of "special expenses". In this regard, the Taipei City Accounting and Accounting Office only said that one of the undertakers, Yu Wen, was involved in "administrative negligence." Yu Wen's guilty verdict also dealt a blow to the public power of the judicial system. "Confidential state expenses" are included in the public budget, amounting to NT$35 million per year. As long as the "Legislative Yuan" has reviewed the budget and takes a look at it, every expenditure item can be seen, and any expenditure must be Have necessary documents as per regulations. Special expenses are a very special expense account in Taiwanese accounting, and its legal basis involves a number of accounting regulations. In practice, most government accounting units in Taiwan review the expenditure standards for special expenses in accordance with the "Expenditure Standards and Audit Operation Manual" compiled by the "Accounting and Accounting Office of the Executive Yuan". Although this manual is not a practical regulation, it covers the "*** Procurement Law", "*** Procurement Law Detailed Rules", "Special Purpose Budget Account Classification Definition and Presentation Standards" and other contents. This manual is compiled based on accumulated practical experience in accounting, procurement and related regulations and systems. In fact, the central government, relevant ministries and commissions, and local governments under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China will refer to this manual for their accounting practices, including the management of accounting vouchers and accounting processing of special expenses. Since special fees have become a common practice, Interpretation No. 421 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of China treats special fees as part of the [fixed salary] paid by the national treasury to the executive head: The national treasury pays fixed salary. As for the items and amounts of remuneration, they are within the reasonable scope of the legislative power. The Legislature has passed the Central Government**** General Budget for 1986 which is not inconsistent with the Constitution with respect to annual, public and special expenses of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. In addition to laws and regulations related to procurement, the legal basis for special expenses is as follows: Taiwan's "Central Government" ***General Budget Operation Manual "Key Points for Processing Expenditure Vouchers", "Purpose Budget", Taiwan's "Central Government" ***General Budget Operation Manual "Classification Definitions and Arrangement Standards" and "Arrangement Standards". "Account Classification Definition and Calculation Standard Table" "Central Government Agencies' Account Classification and Implementation Standards Table for Various Purposes" "Budget Regulation Standards" "Central Government Agencies' Budget Execution Key Points" "Central Government Chiefs and Deputy Heads' Special Expenses Reimbursement Procedures" " Supplementary Provisions on the Reimbursement Procedures for Special Fees for Heads and Deputy Heads of Central Government Agencies" What is the legal nature of special fees from the perspective of academic circles? There are three different views in the academic community: actual reimbursement theory, large subsidy theory, and cost estimation theory.
Those who hold the "actual reimbursement theory" believe that although special funds are special allowances for the person in charge of the unit, the premise of the special funds is "the actual expenditure incurred by the person in charge of the unit", and the difference from other civil servant budgets is only whether the expenditure belongs to official business and whether there is Abuse of discretion. The only difference from other civil service budgets is whether the expenditures belong to official business, whether there is an abuse of discretion, and the state has not intervened excessively. Those who hold the "large subsidy theory" believe that due to the contingency, timeliness, liquidity and advance nature of its expenditures, the practice over the past decades has been that the budget will give one of the business expenses with the nature of a "large subsidy" to The head of the agency, if the head of the agency overspends, no increase will be made. If the head of the organization overspends, there is no increase in the budget, and there is no practice requiring the head of the organization to return the unused portion of the budget. People who adopt the "expenditure estimation" theory believe that write-off receipts do not need to record the details of individual expenditures and their respective uses, and there are no requirements for post-settlement and overpayment or reimbursement. In fact, it is an overall estimate of expenditures using a fixed amount. Incident In July 2006, the Democratic Progressive Party legislators reported former Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou for suspected illegal use of special funds. In November, the Taiwan High Prosecutor's Office investigated Ma Ying-jeou's special funds case. In February 2007, Ma Ying-jeou's special fee case was concluded. Ma Ying-jeou was accused of using his position to defraud property and subsequently resigned as chairman of the Kuomintang. On April 17, the case was heard for the second time. On August 14, the Taipei Court of First Instance pronounced Ma Ying-jeou not guilty. On December 28, the Taiwan High Court pronounced Ma Ying-jeou not guilty in the second instance. [On February 23, 2007, the prosecutor’s investigation concluded. According to the indictment, Ma Ying-jeou was accused of "taking advantage of his position to defraud property" and embezzled a total of more than NT$11.1762 million. Former Taipei City Government Secretary Yu Wen was suspected of embezzling NT$760,000 and was charged with corruption and forgery. In addition, prosecution of city officials such as Liao Li, Li Keqi, Sun Zhenni, Fang Huizhong, and Zhang Junlun has also been suspended. On April 3, the Taipei Court held its first hearing. As the "defendant", Ma Ying-jeou stated the purpose of his defense, including believing that the special expenses written off with receipts were not public funds, and that he did not "retract his confession" during the prosecutor's interrogation. On April 17, the prosecution and defense presented lists of evidence and witness testimony, forcing both sides to attack and defend. On May 8, the collegial bench of the Taipei Court ruled that, including the advisory opinion issued by the legal department, Ma Ying-jeou’s exclusive interview with China Television News on September 7 last year, the content of the parliamentary inquiry by Taipei City Councilor Guan Yansheng on September 18, and the content of Ma Ying-jeou’s office director Liao Li Wait for the witness's testimony to be capable of producing evidence. On May 22, the Taipei Court Collegiate Bench ruled that the prosecution and defense should summon 14 witnesses including former Deputy Comptroller of the Executive Yuan Zhang Zhechen. On June 5, Zhang Zhechen appeared in court, and the cross-examination between the prosecution and the defense was full of gunpowder. The prosecutor suspected that the witness, defendant, and lawyer had premeditated the case; the lawyer responded that a pre-trial system should be implemented, and it is necessary for both the prosecution and the defense to contact the witness to understand the witness's understanding of the facts testified. On July 3, the Taipei Court summoned Sun Zhenyi, Fang Huizhong, and Sun Lizhu, three former secretaries when Ma Ying-jeou was mayor, to appear in court to testify. On July 10, the Taipei Court summoned Liu Jingrong, Wu Licai and Zhao Xiaojing, three former cashiers of the Taipei Municipal Government Secretariat responsible for handling special fees. When Wu Licai responded to the lawyer's cross-examination, she mentioned that "the prosecutor's transcript did not fully record her statement." Therefore, the lawyer asked the collegial panel to review the CD of the prosecutor's interrogation. On July 19, the newspaper published excerpts of the prosecutor's interrogation transcript on a CD, triggering a controversy over "false transcripts" and causing the prosecution and defense to quarrel with each other outside the court. On July 23, the Taipei Court Collegiate Panel examined the CD in court. The presiding judge informed the court that the judgment would explain the dispute over Wu Libo's testimony transcript. On July 24, the Taipei court reminded relevant securities. It includes the testimony of twenty-nine prosecution witnesses and thirty-six items of non-testimonial evidence. On July 31, the Taipei Court concluded its debate. During the prosecutor's debate stage, the prosecutor added the crime of "official breach of trust" and hoped that the collegial panel would consider whether Ma Ying-jeou was involved in the "crime of official breach of trust" and increase his sentence to one-half. On August 14, the Taipei court acquitted Ma Ying-jeou. On August 30, the Taipei Prosecutor's Office published a 38-page, more than 20,000-word reason for protest, which was sent to the Taipei Court and transferred to Taiwan's "High Court" for protest.
The prosecutor listed 19 reasons for the protest, arguing that Ma Ying-jeou knew that the special funds were public funds but failed to spend them in accordance with regulations, which constituted the crime of breach of trust and was a serial offender and should be severely punished in accordance with the law. This is very different from the attitude of the prosecutor before the first trial of the Ma Ying-jeou special fee case, which hoped for a lighter sentence. On September 3, Taiwan's "High Court" completed the second-instance division of cases through computer lottery and formed a collegial panel to start the second-instance trial of Ma Ying-jeou's special expenses case. On October 12, Taiwan's "High Court" held a preliminary hearing and summoned Ma Ying-jeou to appear in court for the first time. On November 2, Taiwan's "High Court" held a substantive trial. In addition to summoning the defendant Ma Ying-jeou to appear in court, it also summoned special fee handler Liu Bi'e and Taipei City *** Accounting Department Director Shi Sumei to appear in court to testify. The prosecution and defense conducted interactive cross-examinations on the witnesses they claimed to summon, and fiercely attacked and defended them. On November 30, Taiwan's "High Court" held the final debate of the second instance, and Ma Ying-jeou appeared in court. The prosecutor finally argued that the special fees were public funds and should be used for public purposes. Ma Ying-jeou was suspected of fraudulently receiving more than 10 million yuan (NT$, the same below) in special fees; Ma Ying-jeou's defense lawyer stated that Ma Ying-jeou had no intention of corruption and had not committed a crime. After court debate, the collegial panel ordered that the verdict will be pronounced at 10 a.m. on December 28.