Article 747Special Provisions on Fixed Assets Tax on Large-Scale Depreciable Assets Where a Designated City Has Been Designated
第七百四十七条（指定都市の指定があつた場合の大規模の償却資産に対する固定資産税の特例）
The provisions of Articles 349-4 and 349-5 and Articles 740 through the preceding Article do not apply to fixed assets tax imposed on large-scale depreciable assets located in a city designated pursuant to the provisions of Article 252-19, paragraph (1) of the Local Autonomy Act on or after January 2 and on or before April 1, limited to the fixed assets tax for the fiscal year that includes April 1 of the year that includes the day of that designation (hereinafter referred to as the "designated day"). In this case, acts done by the prefectural governor or a prefectural tax collection official before the designated day concerning that fixed assets tax pursuant to the provisions of Article 743, paragraph (1) or (2) or Article 745, and acts done by a person liable for tax toward the prefectural governor, are deemed to be acts done by the head of that city or a tax collection official and acts done toward the head of that city pursuant to the provisions of Chapter III, Section 2; a request for review of the determination or revision of the price, etc. of those depreciable assets made before the designated day is deemed to be an application for review under the provisions of Article 432, paragraph (1); and a decision on that request for review made before the designated day is deemed to be a decision on review under the provisions of Article 433, paragraph (1).
第三百四十九条の四、第三百四十九条の五及び第七百四十条から前条までの規定は、一月二日以後四月一日以前において地方自治法第二百五十二条の十九第一項の規定により指定された市に所在する大規模の償却資産に対して課する固定資産税については、当該指定された日（以下「指定日」という。）の属する年の四月一日の属する年度分の固定資産税に限り、適用しないものとする。この場合において、指定日前に当該固定資産税について第七百四十三条第一項若しくは第二項又は第七百四十五条の規定により道府県知事又は道府県の徴税吏員がした行為及び納税義務者が道府県知事に対してした行為は第三章第二節の規定により当該市の長又は徴税吏員がした行為及び当該市の長に対してした行為と、指定日前における当該償却資産の価格等の決定又は修正に対する審査請求は第四百三十二条第一項の規定による審査の申出と、指定日前における当該審査請求に対する裁決は第四百三十三条第一項の規定による審査の決定とみなす。
Read this with the articles around it
tax collection officialmachine translation
「徴税吏員」
A prefectural governor (道府県知事) or a prefectural employee the governor has delegated, or a mayor of a municipality (市町村長) or a municipal employee the mayor has delegated.
Defined inArticle 1, paragraph (1), item (iii)· applies throughout the law
large-scale depreciable assetsmachine translation
「大規模の償却資産」
Depreciable assets (償却資産) owned by one taxpayer in a municipality other than a city designated under Article 252-19, paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Act, whose total value for fixed assets tax (固定資産税) exceeds the amount the table in Article 349-4, paragraph 1 sets for a municipality of its population; the municipality's tax on them is levied on a base set by that table rather than on their full value.
Short name set inArticle 349-4, paragraph (1)
designated daymachine translation
「指定日」
In Article 747 and the provisions that follow, the date on which a city is designated under Article 252-19, paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Act (as a designated city (指定都市)), where the designation falls between 2 January and 1 April; for the fiscal year that includes 1 April of that year, Articles 349-4, 349-5 and 740 to 746 do not apply to fixed assets tax (固定資産税) on large-scale depreciable assets in the city.
Short name set inArticle 747, paragraph (1)
request for review
審査請求
A request to an administrative agency (行政庁) to review a disposition (処分) the person objects to, or, where the person applied for a disposition under a law or regulation and a reasonable time has passed with none made, the agency's failure to act (不作為) (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Articles 2 and 3). Unless an Act, or for a disposition based on a local ordinance (条例) that ordinance, provides otherwise, it is made to the agency that made the disposition or failed to act where that agency has no superior agency or is itself the competent minister (主任の大臣) or the head of certain agencies; where such a minister or head is the agency above it, to that minister or head; and otherwise to its highest superior agency (Article 4). Another Act can set rules of its own for it, naming another body to make it to or another route (Article 1, paragraph (2); Article 4): the Employees' Pension Insurance Act, for instance, has a request about a disposition (処分) of the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare (厚生労働大臣) on a person's status as insured, standard remuneration or insurance benefits, other than a decision on a request to correct the pension insurance register, made to a social insurance examiner (社会保険審査官), and disapplies most of the Administrative Complaint Review Act's rules for it (Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Articles 90, paragraph (1), and 91-2). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, a request about a disposition must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of it — or one month after learning of the decision, where a request for re-investigation (再調査の請求) was made first — and within a year of the disposition or that decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)). Making one does not by itself stop the disposition taking effect or being carried out, or the proceedings going on (Article 25, paragraph (1)), but the agency reviewing it can suspend them in whole or in part on the application of the person who made the request — and, where it made the disposition or is the agency above the one that did, of its own motion — and, once the person who made the request has applied, must where that is urgently needed to avoid serious harm, unless that would seriously affect the public welfare or the request appears to have no grounds (Article 25, paragraphs (2) to (4)). The agency reviewing it (審査庁) decides it by a determination (裁決): it dismisses a request that is unlawful, for instance one made too late, rejects one that is groundless, and, where one is well founded, revokes the disposition in whole or in part or changes it — though never to the disadvantage of the person who made the request, and an agency that neither made the disposition nor is above the agency that did cannot change it (Articles 45, paragraphs (1) and (2), 46, paragraph (1), and 48). Where the request is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the determination instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and orders it abolished in whole or in part or changed, or abolishes or changes it (Article 47). A well-founded request about a failure to act ends instead in a determination declaring the failure unlawful or unjust, and, where the agency finds a disposition should be made, an order to make it or the disposition itself (Article 49, paragraph (3)). Where revoking an unlawful or unjust disposition, or abolishing an unlawful or unjust de facto act, would seriously harm the public interest, the agency can reject the request while declaring in the determination that it is unlawful or unjust (Article 45, paragraph (3)). The determination takes effect when it is served on the person who made the request — or, where someone other than the disposition's addressee made it and the determination revokes or changes the disposition or deals with a de facto act, once it is served on the addressee too — and binds the agencies concerned (Articles 51, paragraph (1), and 52, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1 to 4, 18, 25, 45 to 49, 51, 52 and Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Arts. 90, 91-2 as a reference.