Our union formally raises concerns regarding the handling of a certain case by the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau.
The issue is simple. The National Tax Agency thoroughly implements a "staff member system" where field staff handle all in-person audits instead of the head (the Director-General) taking the lead. Furthermore, these staff members are frequently transferred. I will explain step by step what this combination is currently producing.
Clarification of facts
To the best of our union's knowledge, the following facts exist regarding this matter.
- Director-General Shimasaki stated that the seized items "could not be found."
- Lead Investigator Nobuhiro Kawaguchi made a remark to the effect of, "If you want the seized items back, come in for an in-person investigation."
- These two individuals leaked false information related to prosecutorial information through tax accountant Mamizuka.
- And the person directing this series of movements was Kitamura, Director-General of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau.
From here, we will enter into the legal discussion.
Issue 1: Under the National Government Organization Act and the General Rule of National Taxes Act, responsibility lies with the organization.
The National Tax Agency is an administrative organization. The exercise of authority and responsibility of administrative organizations belong to the organization rather than to individuals (refer to the intent of the National Government Organization Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the General Law on National Taxes).
No matter how many times the person in charge changes,
- Even if the supervisor is going to be transferred,
- Even if the director is transferring out,
The current Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau continues to bear full accountability for the actions taken by that organization in the past. This is legal common sense and is not open to debate.
The person in charge at that time is no longer here.
I was transferred, so I am not aware of that.
——Such responses are legally untenable in the face of continuous organizational responsibility.
Issue 2: Obligation to store seized items (applying mutatis mutandis Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provisions related to the National Tax Criminal Offense Control Law)
Regarding the seized items, the authorities have a strict obligation to store them safely. The statement "they cannot be found" is in itself extremely serious.
The loss or unknown whereabouts of seized items
- Violation of due process (Article 31 of the Constitution)
- Infringement of property rights (Article 29 of the same)
- illegal evaluation under Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the State Redress Act
- And in some cases, fulfillment of the statutory requirements for destruction of public property (Article 258 of the Penal Code) or abuse of authority (Article 193 of the Penal Code)
This is an event that could pose a problem. This is not something that can be brushed off with "it cannot be found." From the moment of seizure, the authorities bear an indefinite burden of accountability regarding the whereabouts and condition of the item.
Furthermore, the statement "If you want the seized items back, come in for an in-person investigation" can be construed as using the return of seized items as leverage to compel attendance at an investigation. This is a statement that can be directly challenged from the standpoint of due process. The return of seized items should naturally be carried out once the requirements are met, and it is not something that should be bartered in exchange for agreeing to an investigation on a separate matter.
Issue 3: Breach of confidentiality and leakage of prosecutorial information (Article 100 of the National Public Service Act, Article 126 of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes)
The act of leaking information related to the public prosecutor's office to a third party via a tax accountant
- Violation of Article 100, Paragraph 1 of the National Public Service Act (Duty of Confidentiality)
- Violation of Article 126 of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes (Confidentiality Obligation of National Tax Officials)
- If the content is false, it constitutes defamation (Article 230 of the Penal Code) or damage to credit (Article 233 of the same code).
- If one uses their official position, it constitutes abuse of authority (Article 193 of the same Act).
This is an act that may fall under each of the constituent requirements. This cannot be dismissed merely as an individual staff member's problem. The responsibility of those higher up in the chain of command is naturally called into question. Since Mr. Oka repeatedly replied that he reported everything to Bureau Director Kitamura, it is clear that Bureau Director Kitamura was in command, and the full responsibility extends all the way to the Bureau Director.
Issue 4: Since both parties are under suspicion of illegality, immunity through "reassignment" is legally impossible.
Here is the theoretical core of this statement.
First, please face the reality of the current situation. In this matter, the suspicion of illegality arises not only on the taxpayer's side, but also on the authorities' side.
I will specifically list the suspicions arising on the authorities' side.
(1) Leakage of false prosecutorial information
The act of leaking information through a certified public tax accountant to related parties to the effect that "the prosecution says it will arrest," even though the prosecution has not indicated a policy to arrest. This is
- Violation of Article 100, Paragraph 1 of the National Public Service Act (Duty of Confidentiality)
- Violation of Article 126 of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes (Confidentiality Obligation of National Tax Officials)
- Meeting the constitutive requirements of Article 230 (Defamation) and Article 233 (Damage to Credit) of the Penal Code
- satisfaction of the elements of Article 193 of the Penal Code (Abuse of Authority by Public Officers)
- Depending on the content, it may be evaluated as similar to Article 156 of the Penal Code (Creation of False Official Documents) or Article 157 (Untrue Entries in Original Notarial Deeds).
is an act that causes
(2) Loss of seized items
The statement that the seized items cannot be found is a violation of the storage obligation itself.
- evaluation of unlawfulness under Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the State Redress Act
- fulfillment of the elements of Article 258 of the Penal Code (Destruction of Public Documents, etc.)
- procedural defect under the Code of Criminal Procedure (violation of the obligation to return seized items)
- Violation of due process (Article 31 of the Constitution)
- Violation of property rights (Article 29 of the Constitution)
(3) Non-exercise of the right to inspection and question and the evaluation of "tax evasion offenders"
The act of treating taxpayers as "tax evasion criminals" and mentally cornering many of them without properly exercising the authority to question and inspect under the Act on General Rules for National Taxes (Article 74-2 and subsequent articles)—that is, without even hearing the facts from the parties involved. This is
- Violation of due process (Article 31 of the Constitution)
- Violation of the presumption of innocence (pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)
- Infringement of personality rights (Article 13 of the Constitution)
- evaluation of unlawfulness under Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the State Redress Act
None of these are personal matters; they are the targets of illegal evaluations conducted as an organization.
Here is the core of legal theory.
Given that suspicions of illegality have arisen on the authorities' side, the authorities are placed in the exact same legal status as the taxpayer.
It is a shared status of having been accused.
And as for how those under suspicion are treated, the authorities have demonstrated through their own actions—namely,
The accused person remains accountable for past matters due to the organization's continuity.
This is the logic that authorities have applied to taxpayers.
- Even if the company's representative changes, as long as there is corporate continuity, the current management team is accountable for past tax payments.
- Even in the event of a business succession, the successor assumes accountability for past matters concerning the inherited business.
- Even in the event of an M&A, the post-merger company assumes accountability for past matters concerning the acquired company.
The authorities have applied this logic to taxpayers without exception.
In that case, the exact same logic must apply to the authorities themselves.
This is not merely a metaphor, but a legal-theoretical necessity. Here is why.
Reason 1: Equality under the law (Article 14 of the Constitution)
The same legal theory must be applied symmetrically to both the accusing side and the accused side. If the authorities do not apply the logic of "succession of liability through organizational continuity" that they used against taxpayers to themselves, it is an application that shakes the foundation of the rule of law—namely, that those who enforce the law exempt only themselves from its application. Equality under the law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution extends to the operations of administrative agencies themselves.
Reason 2: The principle of estoppel (doctrine of good faith and fair dealing / analogy to Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code)
The authorities have taken the stance toward taxpayers that "liability remains even after a transfer or succession due to organizational continuity," and have conducted taxation and audits based on this principle. Nevertheless, the moment the same logic is turned against them and they say, "We don't know because personnel have been transferred," it means they are abandoning the legal theory they themselves adopted only when it becomes inconvenient for them, which is impermissible under the principle of good faith. This is not merely a principle of civil law, but also an established legal doctrine of estoppel under administrative law.
Reason 3: Administrative organizational responsibility belongs to the organization, not to individuals (National Government Organization Act, Article 1 of the State Redress Act)
In the first place, the exercise of authority and responsibility by administrative agencies is not personal. Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the State Redress Act stipulates that the State or a public entity shall assume responsibility for damages caused "while a public official is engaged in the performance of their duties." The organization, not the individual in charge, is the entity liable. The interpretation that an organization's responsibility disappears simply because the person in charge has been transferred is legally impossible.
Reason 4: The suspect's status does not change due to a transfer.
This point deserves special emphasis. The accused person is evaluated based on their status at the time of the act in question. Subsequent transfers, job changes, or retirement do not alter the evaluation of actions taken at the time. This is a common principle in criminal, administrative, and civil liability alike.
Authorities have applied this very principle to taxpayers: pursuing current management and current corporate entities on the grounds of "actions in past business years"—this is the basic structure of tax audits and investigations.
Therefore, officials involved on the authority's side remain subject to responsibility evaluation for actions taken as a member of the authority at the time, regardless of subsequent transfers or retirements. Whether Director Kitamura transfers, Director-General Shimazaki moves away, or Mr. Kawaguchi changes departments, the evaluation of responsibility based on the status at the time of the action is fixed forever.
Reason 5: The organization cannot abandon the logic for its own defense.
The response "I've been transferred, so please tell the new person in charge" functions as organizational self-defense logic, given that it is made as an organization. However, this logic is an internal matter regarding who is in charge within the organization and holds no validity externally. The organization bears responsibility externally as a single entity, and the responsibility to the outside world cannot change on the grounds of internal personnel changes.
Therefore, the conclusion is this.
Now that suspicion of illegality has also fallen on the authorities, they cannot structurally escape the logic of "liability succession through organizational continuity" that they have applied to taxpayers.
Attempting to escape it would mean a quadruple jurisprudential collapse: a violation of equality under the law, a violation of estoppel, a denial of institutional liability under the State Redress Act, and self-denial of the legal theory one adopted oneself.
A transfer is merely an HR event. It is not a ground that alters where legal liability lies. This applies with complete symmetry to both the taxpayer and the authorities.
Director-General Atsushi Kitamura, Director-General Takeshi Shimazaki, Mr. Nobuhiro Kawaguchi, and all other concerned parties—your accountability, regardless of where you are reassigned or whether you retire, will continue to be pursued based on your positions at the time of the actions, along with the continuity of the organization.
This is merely a faithful mirror image of the logic you yourselves have used against taxpayers.
Issue 5: "MARUSA" is inherently a service available to all citizens
Our union interprets "Marusa" like this:
Full refund service.
Overcollection, mis-taxation, illegal dispositions, unjust investigations—originally, every taxpayer has the right to recover in full anything that does not rightfully belong to them. These are rights explicitly guaranteed by current laws, such as the Administrative Complaint Review Act, the Administrative Case Litigation Act, the State Redress Act, and requests for rectification (Article 23 of the General Rules for National Taxes Act).
However, in reality, the "person-in-charge system" and "job transfers" have been used as a shield to block taxpayers' inquiries.
The key to overcoming this wall is the statement by Hideto Nakamura of the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau. Specifically, his remark that "anyone, even 250,000 people, can undergo an in-person audit"—this statement is extremely important as the authorities themselves explicitly confirmed that the door to in-person audits is institutionally open.
In other words, the person-in-charge system is merely an operational practice adopted by the authorities, and taxpayers' right to request an in-person meeting is not institutionally barred. Our union will use this statement as the basis for the rights of all taxpayers.
Issue 6: Indefinitely prolonged audit investigations mean an indefinite right of prosecution for taxpayers as well.
Under current Japanese laws and regulations, there is no statutory deadline for inspection audits. The authorities have used this as a shield in their administration.
However, this structure works in the exact same symmetrical way for the taxpayers.
- If the investigation is indefinite, the verification and pursuit of taxpayers are also indefinite.
- Even if the person in charge changes, everyone can be tracked through the continuity of organizational responsibility.
- Even if the director changes, the responsibility of the command and control structure at that time remains with the organization.
- The moment they are told the seized items "cannot be found," the organization will be indefinitely required to account for this failure of custody.
We don't want the IRS side to lose people just over some transfers.
Given the statement that the seized items were lost, we can pursue this by expanding it across the entire organization, involving new bureau chiefs, directors-general, and handlers with every personnel transfer, tracing both the continuity of the items and the chain of custody. When one person is transferred, the same responsibility is passed on to their successor. When that successor is transferred, it is passed on to the next person, and so on.
Isn't this precisely the true nature of the "motivation" that the National Tax Agency executives were talking about? Since the authorities have shown their "motivation," our union will respond with a corresponding level of "motivation."
Our Union's Declaration
- 1. Regarding Atsushi Kitamura, Director-General of the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, down to Tsuyoshi Shimazaki, Supervising Officer, Nobuhiro Kawaguchi, and all other related parties, regardless of whether they have been transferred or retired, we will hold them accountable indefinitely for their actions at the time, based on the principle of continuity of organizational responsibility.
- 2. Regarding the location, storage status, and presence or absence of loss of the seized items, we request a formal written response.
- 3. Regarding the background of communication via Tax Accountant Mamizuka, from the perspective of breach of confidentiality and leakage of false information, we demand a formal investigation and response.
- If the authorities maintain the "person-in-charge system," we explicitly confirm, based on the principle of equality under the law, that "changes of representatives, business successions, and M&As" on the taxpayer side should similarly be treated with continuity of organizational responsibility.
- 5. Based on the remarks of Mr. Hideto Nakamura of the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau, our union will widely publicize as a taxpayer right that the door is systematically open to all taxpayers who desire a face-to-face audit.
- 6. All union members of our union sincerely welcome and look forward to the audits and investigations that will continue for all eternity.
The initiative in this war of attrition no longer lies with the authorities, but with the taxpayers.
Director-General Tsuyoshi Shimazaki and Chief Examiner Nobuhiro Kawaguchi, you cannot escape responsibility even if you are transferred. To embody the phrase "Inspection and investigation are built on trust," let us pursue the truth for eternity. All union members are awaiting your contact.
