Rigorous terminology and accountability regarding the angel tax system
In a criminal case, words are not merely expression.
The choice of a single term can greatly influence public perception and affect the formation of impressions regarding suspects and defendants.
That is precisely why the words used by public institutions are required to be legally and socially accurate.
General meaning of the term "kickback" announced to the press club by the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office
Generally, "kickback" often refers to the act of returning profits from the original recipient to the commissioner or intermediary as a reward for a contract or transaction.
Even in dictionaries and general usage, it is often explained in contexts such as "gratuity," "rebate," "kickback," or "slush fund," and is a term that evokes the covert return of profits.
Therefore, when the expression "kickback" is used, many citizens
- slush fund
- secret profit provision
- bribery-like transfer of money
- opaque money laundering
have such an impression.
In other words, this word itself carries a strong social evaluation.
Meanwhile, in this case, there was no under-the-table money exchange at all, and publicly disclosed share acquisitions and reinvestments are being described as kickbacks.
In other words, this matter
- performed based on the contract,
- acquiring stock as consideration,
- becoming a shareholder through procedures under the Companies Act,
- Subsequent funds are allocated to business operations or investments.
In cases where such a form is used, whether it is appropriate to generally describe even such transactions using the term "kickback" requires careful consideration.
Why did the Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office spread the expression "kickback" to the press club?
Of course, in individual cases, the substance may be recognized as an illegal profit kickback.
However, even in that case, what is important is not the word "kickback" itself, but the specific reason why it is legally evaluated as such.
Laws are judged by their "provisions," not by their "impressions."
In tax criminal cases, what ultimately becomes the issue is
What law was violated?
Which tax requirements were not met?
Which act was false?
Which facts are used to establish intent?
is.
It looks like a kickback.
It looks like the system was abused.
An evaluation like that alone does not establish criminal liability.
In a nation governed by rule of law, illegality must be demonstrated by statutory provisions and evidence.
What is written in the Angel Tax System?
The Angel Tax Credit is a policy tax system created to promote startup investment.
The system sets forth various application requirements, such as eligible companies, investment timing, and share acquisition requirements.
On the other hand, at least as far as can be seen from the system's published materials,
I cannot find a general prohibition stating that "investment funds that have qualified for the angel tax incentive must not be reinvested."
That is precisely why, if a specific case is deemed to be contrary to the purpose of the system,
- Based on which laws and regulations?
- Which institutional requirements are missing?
- What facts negate the application of the system?
I am required to explain these in concrete terms.
What the name "Angel" means
The name of this system is the "Angel Tax System."
An "angel investor" originally refers to an investor who takes risks to provide funding to startups and supports their growth.
The purpose of the system is to promote the provision of funding for new challenges.
Therefore, users of the system
satisfying the institutional requirements set by the government,
Perform the necessary verification procedures and
Now that the system has been applied to us,
It is quite conceivable to understand that subsequent business developments and reinvestments are also legal, unless clearly prohibited by law.
That is precisely why, if it is later judged to be "system abuse," the administration has the responsibility to carefully explain the legal basis for that assessment.
What should be questioned is accountability
Just as taxpayers who use a system are accountable, the administration that designs and operates the system and, when necessary, brings criminal charges is also accountable.
Assuming that you determined a certain transaction to be contrary to the purpose of the system,
- On which laws and regulations, notifications, or judicial precedents is that decision based?
- How is consistency with administrative confirmation and system operation organized?
- Why that case is evaluated not merely as a tax interpretation issue, but as criminal fraud.
These are important issues that should be explained to society.
In a state governed by rule of law, it is "abused because it's illegal."
The original order is extremely simple.
There is a law.
There is a violation of the law.
It is proven by evidence.
As a result, it is evaluated as illegal.
It must be in this order.
Not "it's illegal because it's abuse," but
It is evaluated as misuse because it is illegal.
In that sense, in discussions surrounding institutions, concrete legal grounds are much more important than striking expressions.
The angel tax system is a policy-based tax system established by the national government.
If an action taken by utilizing that system is later evaluated as "abuse of the system," what society should demand is not impressionistic arguments.
It is a specific and verifiable explanation of which laws and regulations it is based on, which facts it is founded upon, and how that conclusion was reached.
