When it is necessary for conducting the examination, the presiding tribunal judge may, upon petition by a party to the proceedings or ex officio, take the following actions:
担当審判官は、審理を行うため必要があるときは、審理関係人の申立てにより、又は職権で、次に掲げる行為をすることができる。
questioning the requester for review or the agency that made the original disposition (referred to as the "requester for review, etc." in paragraph (4)), or a related person or other witness;
requiring the owner, possessor or custodian of the books and documents or other articles of a person prescribed in the preceding item to submit those articles within a reasonable period set for that purpose, or retaining articles submitted by those persons;
前号に規定する者の帳簿書類その他の物件につき、その所有者、所持者若しくは保管者に対し、相当の期間を定めて、当該物件の提出を求め、又はこれらの者が提出した物件を留め置くこと。
inspecting the books and documents or other articles of a person prescribed in item (i);
第一号に規定する者の帳簿書類その他の物件を検査すること。
having an expert witness give an expert opinion.
鑑定人に鑑定させること。
A National Tax Tribunal judge, an assistant National Tax Tribunal judge or any other official of the National Tax Tribunal may, upon commission by or under the orders of the presiding tribunal judge, take the actions listed in item (i) or (iii) of the preceding paragraph.
When taking the actions listed in paragraph (1), items (i) and (iii), a National Tax Tribunal judge, an assistant National Tax Tribunal judge or any other official of the National Tax Tribunal must carry a certificate of identification and present it upon request by a person concerned.
If, because a requester for review, etc. (including a person having a special relationship with the requester for review that is specified by Cabinet Order) fails, without a justifiable reason, to respond to questioning, a request for submission or an inspection under paragraph (1), items (i) through (iii) or paragraph (2), it has become extremely difficult to clarify the basis for all or part of the assertions of the requester for review, etc., the President of the National Tax Tribunal may decline to adopt the assertions of the requester for review, etc. relating to that part.
国税不服審判所長は、審査請求人等（審査請求人と特殊な関係がある者で政令で定めるものを含む。）が、正当な理由がなく、第一項第一号から第三号まで又は第二項の規定による質問、提出要求又は検査に応じないため審査請求人等の主張の全部又は一部についてその基礎を明らかにすることが著しく困難になつた場合には、その部分に係る審査請求人等の主張を採用しないことができる。
The authority of the relevant officials prescribed in paragraph (1) or (2) must not be construed as being granted for the purpose of criminal investigation.
Read this with the articles around it
parties to the proceedingsmachine translation
「審理関係人」
The parties to the examination of a request for review (審査請求): the requester, any intervenor (参加人) and the agency that made the original disposition (原処分庁).
Short name set inArticle 92-2, paragraph (1)
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)
requester for review, etc.machine translation
「審査請求人等」
In Article 97, the person who has requested review (審査請求) of a tax disposition together with the agency that made the original disposition (原処分庁), either of whom the presiding tribunal judge (担当審判官) may question; if one of them refuses without justifiable reason, the President of the National Tax Tribunal (国税不服審判所長) may decline to adopt the parts of the requester's case that can no longer be shown.
Short name set inArticle 97, paragraph (1), item (i)· applies only in this provision and in Article 97, paragraph (4)
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.