Article 99Decisions Based on an Interpretation Different from the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency's Interpretation of Laws and Regulations, etc.
第九十九条（国税庁長官の法令の解釈と異なる解釈等による裁決）
When making a decision based on an interpretation different from the interpretation of laws and regulations indicated in a circular issued by the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency, or making a decision that is found to be an important precedent for the interpretation of laws and regulations in making dispositions concerning other national taxes, the President of the National Tax Tribunal must notify the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency of the President's opinion in advance.
国税不服審判所長は、国税庁長官が発した通達に示されている法令の解釈と異なる解釈により裁決をするとき、又は他の国税に係る処分を行う際における法令の解釈の重要な先例となると認められる裁決をするときは、あらかじめその意見を国税庁長官に通知しなければならない。
In the case where notice under the preceding paragraph has been given, the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency must consult the National Tax Council on the opinion jointly with the President of the National Tax Tribunal, except where the opinion of the President of the National Tax Tribunal upholds the assertions of the requester for review and the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency finds that opinion to be reasonable.
国税庁長官は、前項の通知があつた場合において、国税不服審判所長の意見が審査請求人の主張を認容するものであり、かつ、国税庁長官が当該意見を相当と認める場合を除き、国税不服審判所長と共同して当該意見について国税審議会に諮問しなければならない。
If the President of the National Tax Tribunal has consulted the National Tax Council jointly with the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the President of the National Tax Tribunal must make the decision based on the resolution of the National Tax Council.
国税不服審判所長は、前項の規定により国税庁長官と共同して国税審議会に諮問した場合には、当該国税審議会の議決に基づいて裁決をしなければならない。
Read this with the articles around it
national taxmachine translation
「国税」
A tax imposed by the national government, other than customs duty, tonnage tax, special tonnage tax, the forest environment tax and the special corporate business tax.
Defined inArticle 2, paragraph (1), item (i)· applies throughout the law
Commissioner of the National Tax Agency
国税庁長官
The head of the National Tax Agency (国税庁), the agency within the Ministry of Finance that assesses and collects national taxes (Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Finance, Articles 18 and 19). The Commissioner issues circulars (通達) setting out how the tax laws are read, and the National Tax Tribunal must tell the Commissioner beforehand when it will decide a case on a different reading (Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Article 99, paragraph (1)). An objection to a decision the Commissioner made is a request for review to the Commissioner (Article 75, paragraph (1), item (ii)).
Written by AI using Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Finance, Arts. 18, 19 and Act on General Rules for National Taxes, Arts. 75, 99 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.