If a written request for review violates the provisions of Article 87 (Matters to Be Stated in a Written Request for Review, etc.) or Article 124 (Statement of Name, Domicile and Identification Number of Person Submitting Documents), the President of the National Tax Tribunal must set a reasonable period and require that the deficiency be corrected within that period. In this case, if the deficiency is minor, the President of the National Tax Tribunal may correct it ex officio.
When required to make the correction referred to in the preceding paragraph, the requester for review may also make it by appearing at the National Tax Tribunal, stating the matters to be corrected, and confirming a document in which an official of the National Tax Tribunal has recorded the content of the statement.
審査請求人は、前項の補正を求められた場合には、国税不服審判所に出頭して補正すべき事項について陳述し、その陳述の内容を国税不服審判所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。
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 reviewmachine translation
「審査請求書」
The document by which a request for review (審査請求) is made under Article 87, stating the disposition challenged, when the requester learned of it, the purpose of and reasons for the request and its date, together with the further details the Article requires in particular cases.
Short name set inArticle 87, paragraph (2)· applies only in this subsection
National Tax Tribunal
国税不服審判所
The body within the National Tax Agency that decides requests for review (審査請求) of tax decisions (Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Finance, Article 22; Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Article 78, paragraph (1)). A person who objects to a decision of a district director or a regional commissioner can bring it here directly, without first asking the office to look at it again (Article 75, paragraph (1), item (i)); a decision the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency made, or is deemed to have made because the Agency's officials investigated, is reviewed by the Commissioner instead (Article 75, paragraph (1), item (ii), and paragraph (2)). Its decision binds the tax offices (Article 102, paragraph (1)), and a court action to overturn a tax decision can normally be brought only after the Tribunal has decided, or three months have passed without a decision (Article 115, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Finance, Art. 22 and Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Arts. 75, 78, 102, 115 as a reference.
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.