When the President of the National Tax Tribunal has accepted a written request for review, the President of the National Tax Tribunal is to set a reasonable period and have the head of the administrative organ concerned with the disposition that is the subject of the request for review (or, for a disposition prescribed in Article 75, paragraph (2) (limited to the part concerning item (i)) (Request for Reinvestigation of a Disposition Based on an Investigation by Officials of a Regional Taxation Bureau), the relevant regional commissioner; hereinafter referred to as the "agency that made the original disposition") submit a written answer, except where the request for review is dismissed without prejudice under Article 92 (Decision of Dismissal without Prejudice Made without Going through Review Proceedings). In this case, the President of the National Tax Tribunal is to send the accepted written request for review to the agency that made the original disposition.
The written answer referred to in the preceding paragraph must state the assertions of the agency that made the original disposition in response to the object of and reasons for the request for review.
When a written answer has been submitted by the agency that made the original disposition, the President of the National Tax Tribunal must send it to the requester for review and the intervenors.
Read this with the articles around it
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
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
agency that made the original dispositionmachine translation
「原処分庁」
The head of the administrative agency that made the disposition challenged in a request for review (審査請求) to the National Tax Tribunal — or, for a disposition treated as the regional commissioner's because a Regional Taxation Bureau's officials investigated it, that regional commissioner — whom the Tribunal's President has submit a written answer.
Short name set inArticle 93, paragraph (1)
regional commissioner
国税局長
The head of a regional taxation bureau (国税局), the National Tax Agency's regional office, which oversees the tax offices of its region (Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Finance, Articles 23 and 24). Collection can be taken over from a district director (Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Article 43, paragraph (3)), and a person who objects to what a regional commissioner has decided can ask the commissioner 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)).
Written by AI using Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Finance, Arts. 23, 24 and Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Arts. 43, 75 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.
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.