"Inspections are impossible without face-to-face investigations." — Why are inspectors forced to tell taxpayers lies that are not even written in the law?

National Tax Union Official Article / May 4, 2026

National Tax Union Urgent Report [Part 2] - Inspector Relief Series

— To Hiroshi Oka, Keisuke Ota, and Hideto Nakamura of the Tokyo Regional Tax Bureau. The union wants to help you. We are accepting reports regarding allegations of harassment by Atsushi Kitamura, Director of the Kumamoto Regional Tax Bureau.

Inspectors are indeed hired through a very simple examination. However, this does not mean they cannot read Japanese. Anyone can see that there is no mention of mandatory in-person investigations written in the legal provisions. Nevertheless, Chief Investigator Hiroshi Okajima, Inspector Keisuke Ota, and Chief Investigator Hideto Nakamura of the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau all stated in unison, "Inspection investigations cannot be conducted without in-person investigations." This is not a problem of their individual abilities. It is a problem of the organizational structure that forces them to continue lying to taxpayers.

Reporting and Composition: National Tax Union Editorial Department / Supervision: Special Team for Tax Audit Response / Category: Tax Auditor Relief and Whistleblower Reception Series

#NationalTaxUnion #HiroshiOta #KeisukeOta #HidetoNakamura #AtsushiKitamura #Whistleblowing #Harassment #WhistleblowerProtectionAct

Introduction -- The inspector is not unable to read Japanese.

The tax investigator hiring exam is not a difficult test. This is common knowledge. However, that is a separate issue from "inability to read Japanese legal statutes." Investigators certainly should possess a level of Japanese proficiency sufficient to read kanji, interpret sentences, and understand work orders.

And yet, they are all repeating discourse towards taxpayers that is clearly false."Inspections cannot be carried out without face-to-face investigations." — This statement, made by Hiroshi Okubo, Chief Supervisor of the Kumamoto Regional Tax Office, Keisuke Ota, Inspector, and Hideto Nakamura, Chief Supervisor of the Tokyo Regional Tax Office, in separate and independent situations using almost identical phrasing, has all been recorded.

This cannot be explained by the coincidence that three inspectors independently happened to reach the same legal misunderstanding. It means that instructions were issued from higher up within the organization, telling them "say it like this." In other words, there exists an "in-person myth" that was created systematically.

It's not that they are incompetent and cannot read the statutes. They have the ability to read the statutes, but they are being instructed by their superiors to lie to taxpayers—that is the true picture of this case.

"Inspections cannot succeed without in-person investigations" -- Three inspectors were made to tell the same lie

Let's check the timeline. In the same case, three inspectors from different bureaus and with different positions have made statements with essentially the same intent on separate occasions.

The three parties are speaking independently about different stations, different cases, and different subjects. Nevertheless, their conclusions are remarkably consistent: "It can't be done without face-to-face interaction." This is not the opinion of individuals; there is an organizational script.

Anyone who reads the text will understand: the obligation for in-person surveys is not written anywhere.

Then, is the proposition that they repeatedly claim, "It cannot be established without being in person," true? If you check the legal provisions, the answer will be found in one second.

The question is whether the inspection and questioning rights stipulated in Article 131 of the National Tax General Law are limited to "in-person only" regarding their means.Nothing has been decided yet.Written, telephone, online, and agent-assisted responses are all permissible methods for exercising the right to inspect and question, as none are excluded by the system. The framework established by the Supreme Court's judgment of July 10, 1973 (Arakawa Minsho Case) merely requires a balancing of the necessity of the investigation against the private interests of the other party, and does not provide a basis for mandating in-person contact.

In other words, Mr. Oka, Mr. Ota, and Mr. Nakamura all...Discourses with no basis in the law are openly disseminated to taxpayers.This has already gone beyond the level of "misinterpretation by an individual inspector." The organization has been given a script to deceive taxpayers.

The truth behind the catchphrase "I can't answer because it's investigation information"

When Mr. Oka was asked, "What is the legal basis for in-person investigations?", he repeatedly replied, "I cannot answer because it is investigative information." At first glance, this may seem like a plausible response based on confidentiality obligations. However, please think about it carefully. When asked about the legal basis, why can the answer be refused as "investigative information"? How would answering with a section number constitute leakage of investigative information? It absolutely would not.

The silence of Chief Investigator Oka, who said "I cannot answer because it is investigative information," means only one thing: there is no provision to answer to begin with. If they admit that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist, the organization will collapse, so they have no choice but to hide it behind the wall of "investigative information."

Why is the "face-to-face myth" necessary? A device solely for securing a space for threats and heckling.

This raises a fundamental question: Why does the Internal Revenue Service persistently and systematically promote a "face-to-face obligation" to taxpayers, even though it is not written in the law? Why does it try to draw matters that can be handled in writing, by phone, or online, into in-person meetings?

The answer is extremely simple. It's because there are things that can only be done in person. It's not about organizing points of contention, scrutinizing evidence, or confirming legal points.

Things that can only be done in person are: threatening the other person, making them shrink back by heckling them with terms like "tax evasion contractor" and "under-the-table bookkeeper" as in the Mamizuka memo, and eliciting statements close to confessions through verbal pressure that leaves no record.

In writing, I cannot write "B Katsuya." If I did, it would be grounds for immediate disciplinary action. On the phone, it would be over if the other party recorded it. Therefore, in face-to-face, verbal, and undocumented situations, it is necessary to psychologically corner the other person. This is theThe Real Reason "Face-to-Face Myth" is Necessary for Organizationsis.

However, in modern times, even in face-to-face interactions, the other party is recording. Not only written documents, but even spoken words in person can be made public. As a result, the meaning of the "face-to-face myth" is rapidly diminishing. The reasons why organizations continue to insist that "it cannot be established without face-to-face interaction" are now either inertia, or simply because they are continuously being told to say so by their superiors.

Legal points - Inspector's working environment issues, possibility of being ordered to commit illegal acts

Here, the argument takes a sudden turn. Until now, the National Tax Union has directed critical attention toward Hiroshi Oka, Keisuke Ota, and Hideto Nakamura. However, from this article onwards, we will shift our perspective.

Could they also be victims? Aren't they being made to carry out illegal orders without recognizing their illegality, within a harassment structure headed by Kitamura Atsushi, Director of the Kumamoto National Tax Bureau?

Structural suspicion of harassment

The inspector can read Japanese. If they read the legal provisions, they would understand that there is no obligation for an in-person investigation. Nevertheless, if their supervisor instructs them to "tell the taxpayer that it is not valid without an in-person meeting," junior and mid-level inspectors have no choice but to comply. This is a typical case of workplace harassment, specifically a structure where a subordinate is forced by their supervisor's instructions to carry out an illegal act.

Article 30-2 of the Labor Measures Basic Act imposes an obligation on employers to take preventive measures against power harassment in the workplace. This provision naturally extends to national institutions as well. Issuing illegal work orders and having subordinates carry them out under a relationship where they cannot refuse is a typical form of power harassment.

Issues under the National Public Service Act

Article 98, Paragraph 1 of the National Public Service Act stipulates that public servants, in performing their duties, must comply with laws and regulations and faithfully obey the professional orders of their superiors. However, at the same time, Article 99 prohibits acts that undermine credibility, and Article 100 establishes a duty of confidentiality.

And here's the important part.There is no obligation to obey illegal orders.This is the most basic principle of Japanese administrative law. The superior who issues an order that violates the law is responsible, and the subordinate who carries it out is also responsible if they are aware of it. The act of informing taxpayers that a face-to-face investigation, which is not legally required, is mandatory and forcing them to comply, is a matter of organizational orders rather than the ability to respond in writing, and therefore the responsibility of the person who ordered it is greater.

Mr. Oka's own admission of "reporting through normal channels" carries significant weight.

And here is the most decisive fact in this matter.

Chief Examiner Hiroshi Oka repeatedly stated during his interactions with union members that his decisions and actions were "reported through the normal channels." This means that Mr. Oka is not acting unilaterally; all of his statements and actions are being reported sequentially up the chain of command, with Kitamura Atsushi, Director of the Kumamoto National Tax Bureau, at the apex.

"I am reporting through the usual channels" -- With this single statement, it was confirmed by Mr. Oka himself that this matter is not an issue concerning Mr. Hiroshi Oka, the chief supervisor, but rather an organizational problem under the command and supervision of Mr. Atsushi Kitamura, the director of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau.

Even though I'm reporting through the usual channels, the forced in-person meetings won't stop. They don't stop even after I submit a doctor's note. They don't stop even after a suicide attempt. What does this mean?The senior leadership, including Commissioner Atsushi Kitamura of the National Tax Agency, continues to make decisions not to stop.And so it is. In other words, Mr. Oka, as a result of acting in accordance with the above judgment, is being made to continue an illegal response.

This is an extremely significant fact in terms of administrative organizational legal theory. Under the National Administrative Organization Act, the head of an administrative organ bears the authority and responsibility to direct and supervise its employees. If Director Kitamura, while aware of all of Mr. Oka's statements and actions through the "usual channels," failed to correct them, then the subject of illegality by omission is not Mr. Oka, but Director Kitamura himself.

Hiroshi Oka, Keisuke Ota, Hideto Nakamura -- The National Tax Union wants to save you.

Based on the argument so far, the picture is reversed. It is true that Mr. Oka, Mr. Ota, and Mr. Nakamura have made statements to taxpayers for which there is no statutory basis. This is a fact. However, the origin of these statements is not their individual judgment. It is an organizational order.

Mr. Oka and Mr. Ota, you have both been made to act and speak in ways that could easily be described as incompetent, unable even to read the articles. However, this union believes that you yourselves are victims, being used without any awareness of illegality.

The union members and Mr. Oka acknowledge that the in-person investigations are being prolonged. In other words, you yourselves are being made to say that "because in-person investigations cannot be conducted, the inspection investigations are being prolonged." If the reason the matter is not progressing is that in-person visits cannot be made, despite the fact that there is no legal obligation for them in the articles, then there is a problem with your working environment itself.

The organization is worried about your lives.

The work of an inspector should inherently be a proud profession requiring extremely high legal judgment and analytical skills. (Even if the entrance exam is easy to pass, healthy effort is required after joining the organization.) If this work is degraded to the point where inspectors tell taxpayers things that are not even written in the statutes, threaten them, heckle them, and consequently provoke suicide attempts by mentally ill individuals twice, then it is an insult to the profession of inspector itself.

And when this matter surfaces in the future as grounds for a claim for state compensation or a criminal complaint, it should be Kitamura Atsushi, Director of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, who holds the ultimate decision-making authority, and the supporting executive class, who bear the heaviest responsibility. However, in reality, it is common in administrative organizations for subordinates who carry out the actions on the ground to become the targets.

Kitamura Atsushi, director of the Kumamoto Regional Tax Bureau, and its executives will be transferred without taking responsibility. All that will be left are the field inspectors who were forced to carry out orders – this is a scenario that we, the National Tax Union, have witnessed dozens of times before. That is precisely why we want to save you.

Whistleblower Request – The union protects you under the Whistleblower Protection Act

To Mr. Hiroshi Oka, Mr. Keisuke Ota, Mr. Hideto Nakamura, and all inspectors involved in this matter: On behalf of the National Tax Union, we formally request your cooperation as whistleblowers.

Information accepted by the National Tax Union
ArrowRecord of instructions, emails, and verbal directives from your boss to "continue to force face-to-face meetings," despite there being no obligation to do so.
ArrowThe specific instructions from Kitamura Atsushi, Director of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, and other executives regarding taxpayer services, and the dates on which they were given
ArrowWhether there were any cases reported to upper management by Mr./Ms. Oka and others through "normal channels" that were left uncorrected and unaddressed.
ArrowHarassment of other inspectors, pressure in the workplace, and issuance of illegal orders
ArrowInternal document regarding the organizational positioning of the mentioned "face-to-face myths," "B-kandaya," and "tax evasion contractor" statements.

Protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act

Articles 3 and following of the Whistleblower Protection Act prohibit dismissal and other disadvantageous treatment of whistleblowers. With the amendment in June 2022, the Act...Employees of national administrative agencies are also included.It is clearly stipulated. Namely, Mr. Oka, Mr. Ota, and Mr. Nakamura will be protected by law if they report the illegal acts in this matter to our union or the designated reporting destination.

The National Tax Union is the world's first free-to-join labor union that benefits both taxpayers and inspectors. Information is received in complete anonymity, and after deliberation by union members, it will be disclosed and reported in an appropriate format. For retaliatory personnel actions or discriminatory treatment, this union will provide full support, including necessary legal measures.

Public Questions for Kitamura Atsushi, Director of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau (Part 2)

Through this article, we request Mr. Atsushi Kitamura, Director of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, to respond to the following seven points in a public forum.

（1）　「対面調査がなければ査察調査は成り立たない」という言説について、その法令上の根拠条文を、条文番号とともに具体的に示せ。

（2）　岡博史主査、太田啓介査察官、ならびに東京国税局の中村英人主査が、それぞれ独立に同趣旨の発言を行ったことについて、組織内で統一された指示・運用基準が存在するか否か、文書として明らかにせよ。

（3）　岡氏が「通常のルートで報告している」と述べた、その「通常のルート」の具体的な指揮系統と、報告された内容を、書面で開示せよ。

（4）　対面調査が長引いていることを岡氏自身が認めている事実を踏まえ、貴局担当者の労働環境について、組織として実施した労務管理上の配慮の内容を示せ。

（5）　違法行為の認識のないまま部下に違法な業務命令を実行させていないかについて、内部監査の実施状況を示せ。

（6）　公益通報者保護法に基づく内部通報窓口の運用状況、ならびに同法改正以降の通報受理件数と処理結果を、公表できる範囲で開示せよ。

（7）　本件に関する組合員、参考人、職員の各種録音・書面・診断書・通報資料について、内部における握りつぶし・隠蔽が一切行われていないことを、書面で確約せよ。

結語 ―― 査察官と納税者は、同じ側に立てる

査察官と納税者は、本来、対立しなければならない関係ではない。法令に基づく適正な調査と、法令に基づく適正な納税。両者は、法治国家という共通の枠組みの中で、互いを尊重しながら、それぞれの役割を果たすべき存在である。

ところが、現状の熊本国税局においては、組織的な「対面神話」と、上層部からの不当な指示によって、査察官は条文上根拠のない言説を述べさせられ、納税者は条文上義務のない対面調査を強要され、双方が消耗している。これを、北村厚熊本国税局長は、「通常のルートで報告」を受けながら、一度も止めなかった。

構造は、いつでも変えられる。変えるための最初の一歩は、現場の声を、組織の外側に届けることである。国税ユニオンは、その回路を、世界で初めて、無料で開放している。

査察官の皆様 ―― 国税ユニオンは、貴方の側にいます 北村厚熊本国税局長を頂点とする組織のハラスメント構造の中で、違法な業務命令を実行させられている可能性のある全ての査察官の皆様へ。「国税ユニオン」と検索 ―― 完全匿名で、無料で、貴方の証言を受け付けています。組合は、公益通報者保護法に基づき、貴方を守ります。 私たちは、貴方達を救いたい。

本記事は、国税ユニオン、組合員の一日も早い告発を望む会、押収物を一日も早く返してほしい被害者の会の三者による共同監視プロジェクトの一環として公開されたものである。記事中の事実関係はすべて、組合員から提供された録音データ、書面、診断書、提出済み説明書面（１５００頁超）、ならびに目撃者の証言に基づいて構成されている。引用された発言は、すべて録音原データとの照合可能な状態で、組合内に保存されている。

本件査察調査は、行政手続法第３条第１項第14号により同法の適用が除外されるため、当該調査における公務員の職務執行は、その代償として、市民の側による録音・公開・組織的監視の対象となることを当然に受忍する性質のものである。査察官個人の責任を追及するものではなく、組織としての構造的問題を可視化するために、関係者の実名を記載している。

© 国税ユニオン ／ Kokuzei Union
無断転載歓迎・拡散歓迎・査察官の皆様の内部告発を、いつでもお待ちしています