Criminal cases are not a system for finding guilt based on impressions or a sense of discomfort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I think it's an abuse, I think it's unnatural, it seems to go against the purpose of the system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If that alone can make someone a criminal, a nation under the rule of law cannot exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the debate surrounding the angel tax system, there is a point that is the most important yet almost never discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In which law and article is the regulation stating that funds that have received the application of the angel tax system must not be reinvested located, exactly?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shouldn't both the administration and investigative agencies first cite the statutory provisions and explain them in response to this question?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The purpose of the system and illegality are not the same<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The law stipulates prohibitions by law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The tax system is the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If such a rule as \"investment funds utilizing the angel tax incentive must not be reinvested\" exists, the laws, cabinet orders, ministerial ordinances, circulars, or judicial precedents serving as the basis for it should be presented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the other hand, looking at the current system, while the angel tax incentive sets requirements such as the target companies for investment and the timing of investment, there is no explicit provision that uniformly prohibits \"reinvesting funds raised through equity investment.\" Details of the system are published by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course, depending on the individual case, it would be different if there are circumstances such as fictitiousness, concealment, or others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, even in that case, what needs to be proved is the specific sham or concealment, not just the fact that it was \"reinvested.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It runs counter to the purpose of the system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Government agencies and investigative authorities sometimes use this term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, in criminal cases, an abstract evaluation of \"contrary to the purpose of the system\" is not sufficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What law was violated?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Which tax requirements are not met?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Which act was false?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At what point did the intent form?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Only when these are explained specifically does it become a legal argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the conclusion that it is an \"abuse\" is put first, and the reasoning is merely at the level of \"it somehow feels different from the purpose of the system,\" that is not a legal evaluation, but merely impressionism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In criminal cases, a confession is one of the important pieces of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, a confession alone does not constitute a violation of the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, even if a person states, \"I was thinking of using the system to reduce my taxes,\" if the use of that system itself is legally permitted, that statement alone does not constitute a crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What matters is \"what was done\" and whether that act was illegal in light of laws and regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That is precisely why, in tax criminal cases, it is necessary to carefully examine not only the presence or absence of intent, but also the tax requirements, systemic requirements, administrative interpretations, and their relationship with laws and regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if there is an intention to save on taxes, legally recognized acts do not constitute a crime on that basis alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If questions have arisen regarding the system, shouldn't the first point to check be the following?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How did the administration in charge of the system explain it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Was there a prior inquiry made to the administration?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How were administrative procedures such as confirmation documents handled?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Are there any explicit provisions or interpretations indicating that the act is prohibited by the system?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Were the perceptions and background sufficiently confirmed through interviews with the persons involved?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If these are not exhausted and only the conclusion of \"abuse of the system\" takes precedence, that may end up being an evaluation based on hindsight rather than a legal evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"It is illegal because it is unnatural.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tax saving because it is abused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It's a crime because taxes were reduced as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such an idea is incompatible with the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The original order is reversed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First comes the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are specific facts that violate that law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is proved that the violation was intentional or fraudulent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result, criminal liability will be pursued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If we skip this sequence and jump to a conclusion based solely on the impression of \"system abuse,\" any tax policy will run the risk of being judged later as a \"violation of intent.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The angel tax system is a tax policy created by the government to promote startup investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That is precisely why, if questions arise regarding its operation, accountability must be demanded not only of the taxpayers, but simultaneously of the administration in charge of the system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you call it an \"abuse of the system,\" please first provide the legal basis for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you say it's illegal, I'd like you to show which article it violates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you are going to say that there was intent, I would like you to first clarify the illegality that serves as the premise for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a nation governed by rule of law, the most important thing is not \"thinking something is bad.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To specifically indicate which law was violated and to prove the fact of that violation with evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That principle remains unchanged, whether it concerns tax policy or tax litigation.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u30a8\u30f3\u30b8\u30a7\u30eb\u7a0e\u5236\u3092\u3081\u3050\u308b\u6a2a\u6d5c\u5730\u691c\u306e\u635c\u67fb\u3067\u6700\u3082\u6b20\u3051\u3066\u3044\u308b\u306e\u306f\u300c\u6cd5\u7684\u6839\u62e0\u300d\u306e\u8aac\u660e\u3067\u306f\u306a\u3044\u304b \u5211\u4e8b\u4e8b\u4ef6\u306f\u3001\u5370\u8c61\u3084\u9055\u548c\u611f […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":183,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"swell_btn_cv_data":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-374","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-kensatsu"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=374"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":388,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374\/revisions\/388"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/183"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalunion-grp.org\/okami\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}