“It is a miracle of the law,” Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said of the case, after previously saying he had confidence that authorities would be able to collect back-taxes from Thaksin, despite doubts expressed about the case by the Revenue Department.

The tax case is both controversial and complicated, because previous court verdicts appeared contradictory, which could be explained by the fact that different groups have held power at different times when rulings were issued. There was also argument within the current government.

The point is whether a transaction involving 329.2 million shares of Shin Corp from Ample Rich Investments Ltd to Thaksin’s son Panthongtae and his daughter Pinthongta in 2006 is taxable.

In 2006, Thaksin’s tax adviser Suvarn Valaisathien defended the deal and said it should be tax-free.

But the Revenue Department wants Bt11.3 billion in tax paid by Thaksin’s children. The two appealed the case to the Central Tax Court.

Before the Central Tax Court gave a judgement, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders ruled that the 329 million shares belonged to Thaksin, so the court could seize assets from the former PM worth Bt46 billion. His children were only his nominees, it said.

Based on the Supreme Court ruling, the Central Tax Court ruled in 2010 that the Revenue Department could not collect tax from Thaksin’s children. The Department then dropped the matter.

Now, tax experts say three questions have arisen.

First, why didn’t the Revenue Department appeal the verdict of the Central Tax Court to the Supreme Court? It is typical practice among tax officials that if they lose a case in a lower court they appeal to the Supreme Court.

Second, why did the Department not seek tax from Thaksin right after the Central Tax Court ruling? One legal expert, who preferred not to be named, has said the reason for this was because the Central Tax Court did pave the way for the Department to collect tax from Thaksin.

Third, why did the Auditor General not take any action then? And why did the department only take action last year after the Criminal Court jailed senior tax officials in relation to this case?

“I don’t know where the Auditor General was then,” former finance minister Korn Chatikavanij said. Korn defended his own actions, saying he did ask the head of the Revenue Department to enforce the tax law strictly in regard to this matter.

Korn argued that the head of the Revenue Department has more power than he did as finance minister over whether to collect taxes from someone. The Revenue Code is written in a way so that politicians aren’t able to meddle in tax collection, so the law gives more authority to the director-general of the department, he said.

The other crucial point is whether the deadline for paying tax on this deal has passed. The government insists the statute of limitations is valid until the end of this month, but Thaksin’s camp claim it has expired.

The Auditor General has also launched tax investigations into 60 politicians, which might be seen as a fair move in that more than the Shinawatra family are being targeted.

Yet, a new question arises: Why doesn’t the Auditor General also carry out tax probes into key members of the Prayut Chan-o-cha administration?

And all of this leads to the ultimate question that many might consider relevant: Is the Auditor General’s move an action for tax justice or a witch-hunt against a political enemy?