Former fung shui master Tony Chan is back in court in Hong Kong on Wednesday. After losing a high-profile court battle over the fortune of late tycoon Nina Wang, he has launched a judicial review to challenge tax bills amounting to US$43.5 million. With the stakes so high, Chan is using every legal avenue available to him, and then some, to get his hands on the fortune of the late Nina Wang, estimated to be worth some US$13 billion.
On Tuesday, it was reported that he even wrote to Hong Kong leader, Chief Executive Donald Tsang, calling for fair legal treatment. Having failed in his application to get his case heard at the Court of Appeal in April, Chan directly filed a notice in the Court of Final Appeal, the highest court in the territory. Now he is fighting not to pay taxes for the money Mrs Wang gave him for his fung shui services.
It had earlier been revealed in court that she paid HK$2 billion (US$256 million) in fees. He claimed it was "gifts of love" but the taxman is calling it income that's taxable. In his defence on Wednesday, he claimed never to have received any tax assessments.
"I never received the demand letters. I also want to take this opportunity to say a few words; I hope the Secretary for Justice and the Hong Kong government will quickly release their findings on forensic investigation relating to the will. I haven't done anything illegal relating to the will," said the former feng shui master.
Chan is currently out on bail, and under police investigation for a 2006 will that the courts found to be forged. Last week, he wrote to the Secretary for Justice and the Police Commissioner to demand that the police drop all action against him.
He complained that it's been more than a year since he was first arrested, but no specific charges have yet been laid. As to challenge against the hefty tax bill, Chan also said he had applied for an extension to raise objections, but the Tax Commissioner, he claims, wrongly rejected his application.
The counsel for the government defended its action, saying that Chan had not put forward any other grounds to support his case, and simply saying that he did not receive his tax bill was not good enough a defence. Justice Reyes has reserved judgment to a later date.