A request for reinvestigation must be filed by submitting a document stating the following matters:
再調査の請求は、次に掲げる事項を記載した書面を提出してしなければならない。
the details of the disposition to which the request for reinvestigation pertains;
再調査の請求に係る処分の内容
the date on which the person became aware that the disposition to which the request for reinvestigation pertains had been made (or, if the person received a notice concerning the disposition, the date on which the person received it);
再調査の請求に係る処分があつたことを知つた年月日（当該処分に係る通知を受けた場合には、その受けた年月日）
the object of and reasons for the request for reinvestigation;
再調査の請求の趣旨及び理由
the date of the request for reinvestigation.
再調査の請求の年月日
In addition to the matters prescribed in the preceding paragraph, the document referred to in that paragraph (hereinafter referred to as a "written request for reinvestigation") must, if the request for reinvestigation is filed after the expiry of the period prescribed in Article 77, paragraph (1) or (3) (Period for Filing Appeals), state the justifiable reason prescribed in the proviso to paragraph (1) or the proviso to paragraph (3) of that Article.
If a written request for reinvestigation violates the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs or Article 124 (Statement of Name, Domicile and Identification Number of Person Submitting Documents), the district director or other head of an administrative organ with which the request for reinvestigation has been filed (hereinafter referred to as the "reinvestigation authority") must set a reasonable period and require that the deficiency be corrected within that period. In this case, if the deficiency is minor, the reinvestigation authority may correct it ex officio.
When required to make the correction referred to in the preceding paragraph, a requester for reinvestigation may also make it by appearing at the tax office or other administrative organ to which the request for reinvestigation pertains, stating the matters to be corrected, and confirming a document in which an official of that administrative organ has recorded the content of the statement.
再調査の請求人は、前項の補正を求められた場合には、その再調査の請求に係る税務署その他の行政機関に出頭して補正すべき事項について陳述し、その陳述の内容を当該行政機関の職員が録取した書面を確認することによつても、これをすることができる。
In the case referred to in paragraph (3), if the requester for reinvestigation does not correct the deficiency within the period referred to in that paragraph, or if it is clear that the request for reinvestigation is unlawful and cannot be corrected, the reinvestigation authority may, without going through the review proceedings prescribed in Article 84, paragraphs (1) through (6) (Procedures for Determinations, etc.), dismiss the request for reinvestigation without prejudice by a determination under Article 83, paragraph (1) (Determinations).
第三項の場合において再調査の請求人が同項の期間内に不備を補正しないとき、又は再調査の請求が不適法であつて補正することができないことが明らかなときは、再調査審理庁は、第八十四条第一項から第六項まで（決定の手続等）に定める審理手続を経ないで、第八十三条第一項（決定）の規定に基づき、決定で、当該再調査の請求を却下することができる。
Read this with the articles around it
identification numbermachine translation
「番号」
An individual number (個人番号), assigned to each person with a resident record (住民票), or a corporate number (法人番号), assigned to a corporation or other organisation, as defined in the Act on the Use of Numbers to Identify a Specific Individual in Administrative Procedures.
Defined inArticle 74-7-2, paragraph (3), item (iv), (c)
written request for reinvestigationmachine translation
「再調査の請求書」
The document by which a request for reinvestigation (再調査の請求) is made under Article 81, stating the disposition challenged, when the requester learned of it, the purpose of and reasons for the request and its date — and, where it is made after the time limit, the justifiable reason for the delay.
Short name set inArticle 81, paragraph (2)
reinvestigation authoritymachine translation
「再調査審理庁」
The tax office director or other head of an agency to whom a request for reinvestigation (再調査の請求) has been made, and who examines it.
Short name set inArticle 81, paragraph (3)
district director
税務署長
The head of a tax office (税務署), the local office of the National Tax Agency that deals with taxpayers in its district (Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Finance, Article 24). It is the office a person usually deals with: an income tax return is filed with a district director (Income Tax Act, Article 120, paragraph (1)), and reassessments, determinations and the collection of national tax are done by the district director for the taxpayer's current place for tax payment (Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Articles 30 and 43). A person who objects to what a district director has decided can ask that director to look at it again (再調査の請求) or go straight to the National Tax Tribunal (Article 75, paragraph (1), item (i)) — unless the notice of the decision says officials of a Regional Taxation Bureau or of the National Tax Agency investigated, in which case it counts as the regional commissioner's decision, with the same choice, or as the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency's, which can only be challenged by a request for review to the Commissioner (Article 75, paragraph (2)).
Written by AI using Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Finance, Art. 24, Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Arts. 30, 43, 75 and Income Tax Act, Art. 120 as a reference.
request for re-investigation
再調査の請求
A request to the administrative agency (行政庁) that made a disposition (処分) to look into it again. A person who objects to the disposition can make one only where a request for review (審査請求) of it can be made to another agency and an Act provides that this request can be made, and not once the person has made a request for review of it (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 5, paragraph (1)). Another Act can set rules of its own for it (Article 1, paragraph (2)): the Act on General Rules for National Taxes, for instance, lets a person who objects to a disposition of a district director (税務署長) as a rule choose between a request for re-investigation to that director and a request for review to the President of the National Tax Tribunal (国税不服審判所長) (Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Article 75, paragraph (1), item (i)). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, it must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of the disposition and within a year of the disposition, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 54). A person who has made one cannot make a request for review until the agency has decided it, unless three months pass from the day after it was made — or, where the agency ordered a defect in it corrected, the day after the correction — without a decision, or there is another justifiable reason (Article 5, paragraph (2)); where it is still pending after those three months, the agency must tell the person in writing that they can make a request for review straight away (Article 57). The agency decides it by a decision (決定): 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; where it is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the decision instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and abolishes it in whole or in part or changes it (Articles 58 and 59). Unless the decision revokes the whole disposition or abolishes the whole of a de facto act, it must tell the person that a request for review can be made — after a dismissal, only where the dismissal was unlawful — to which agency and within what time (Article 60, paragraph (2)); that request for review must be made within one month of the day after the person learned of the decision and within a year of the decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1, 5, 18, 54, 57 to 60 and Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Art. 75 as a reference.