If the requester for reinvestigation or an intervenor (meaning an intervenor prescribed in Article 109, paragraph (3) (Intervenors); the same applies hereinafter in this Subsection and the following Subsection) so petitions, the reinvestigation authority must give the person who made the petition (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner" in this Article) an opportunity to state an opinion orally on the case concerning the request for reinvestigation; provided, however, that this does not apply if it is found to be difficult to give that opportunity because of the whereabouts of the petitioner or other circumstances.
The statement of opinion under the main clause of the preceding paragraph (hereinafter referred to as an "oral statement of opinion" in this Article) is to be made by the reinvestigation authority designating the date and place and summoning the requester for reinvestigation and the intervenors.
At an oral statement of opinion, the petitioner may appear together with an assistant, with the permission of the reinvestigation authority.
If it finds it necessary, the reinvestigation authority may have an official of its administrative organ hear an oral statement of opinion.
At an oral statement of opinion, the reinvestigation authority or the official referred to in the preceding paragraph may restrict a statement made by the petitioner if it extends to matters unrelated to the case or is otherwise inappropriate.
The requester for reinvestigation or an intervenor may submit documentary evidence or articles of evidence. In this case, if the reinvestigation authority has set a reasonable period within which the documentary evidence or articles of evidence is to be submitted, it must be submitted within that period.
A determination on a request for reinvestigation must be made by means of a written determination on reinvestigation that states the main text and the reasons and bears the name and seal of the reinvestigation authority.
再調査の請求についての決定は、主文及び理由を記載し、再調査審理庁が記名押印した再調査決定書によりしなければならない。
If a determination on a request for reinvestigation upholds all or part of the disposition to which the request for reinvestigation pertains, the reasons referred to in the preceding paragraph must make clear the reasons for which the upheld disposition is justified.
再調査の請求についての決定で当該再調査の請求に係る処分の全部又は一部を維持する場合における前項に規定する理由においては、その維持される処分を正当とする理由が明らかにされていなければならない。
The reinvestigation authority must state in the written determination on reinvestigation referred to in paragraph (7) (excluding one for a determination revoking the whole of the disposition to which the request for reinvestigation pertains) that a request for review may be filed with the President of the National Tax Tribunal concerning the disposition to which the request for reinvestigation pertains (or, for a determination of dismissal without prejudice, that a request for review may be filed only if that determination of dismissal without prejudice is unlawful), as well as the period for requesting reconsideration, and thereby inform the recipient of these.
A determination on a request for reinvestigation takes effect when a certified copy of the written determination on reinvestigation is served on the requester for reinvestigation (or, for a determination under paragraph (3) of the preceding Article in the case where the request for reinvestigation was filed by a person other than the person to whom the disposition was addressed, on the requester for reinvestigation and the person to whom the disposition was addressed).
再調査の請求についての決定は、再調査の請求人（当該再調査の請求が処分の相手方以外の者のしたものである場合における前条第三項の規定による決定にあつては、再調査の請求人及び処分の相手方）に再調査決定書の謄本が送達された時に、その効力を生ずる。
The reinvestigation authority must send a certified copy of the written determination on reinvestigation to the intervenors.
When it has made a determination on a request for reinvestigation, the reinvestigation authority must promptly return the documentary evidence or articles of evidence submitted under paragraph (6) to the persons who submitted it.
Read this with the articles around it
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)
intervenormachine translation
「参加人」
A person other than the appellant who has an interest in the disposition under appeal and takes part in the appeal (不服申立て) under Article 109, either with the permission of the reviewing authority or at its request.
Defined inArticle 84, paragraph (1)· applies only in this subsection and in Chapter 8, Section 1, Subsection 3
petitionermachine translation
「申立人」
In Article 84, the person requesting reinvestigation, or an intervenor, who has asked to state their opinion orally.
Short name set inArticle 84, paragraph (1)· applies only in this article
oral statement of opinionmachine translation
「口頭意見陳述」
A statement of opinion on the case made orally, at their request, by the person requesting reinvestigation (再調査の請求) or an intervenor (参加人) under Article 84, on a date and at a place the reinvestigation authority (再調査審理庁) sets, with both of them called to attend.
Short name set inArticle 84, paragraph (2)· applies only in this article
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.
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.