GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES

GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES
Peer Review Report Combined: Phase 1 + Phase 2, incorporating Phase 2 ratings

JAPAN
Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes Peer Reviews: Japan 2013
COMBINED: PHASE 1 + PHASE 2, INCORPORATING PHASE 2 RATINGS
November 2013 (reflecting the legal and regulatory framework as at July 2011)
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD or of the governments of its member countries or those of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Please cite this publication as: OECD (2013), Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes Peer Reviews: Japan 2013: Combined: Phase 1 + Phase 2, incorporating Phase 2 ratings, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205765-en
ISBN 978-92-64-20575-8 (print) ISBN 978-92-64-20576-5 (PDF)
Series: Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes Peer Reviews ISSN 2219-4681 (print) ISSN 2219-469X (online)
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
OECD 2013
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre franais dexploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
Table of Contents
About the Global Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Information and methodology used for the peer review of Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Overview of Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Recent developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Compliance with the Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A. Availability of information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1. Ownership and identity information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2. Accounting records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3. Banking information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 25 58 65
B. Access to information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 B.1. Competent Authoritys ability to obtain and provide information . . . . . . . . 70 B.2. Notification requirements and rights and safeguards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 C. Exchanging information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1. Exchange-of-information mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2. Exchange-of-information mechanisms with all relevant partners . . . . . . . . C.3. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.4. Rights and safeguards of taxpayers and third parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.5. Timeliness of responses to requests for information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 82 91 93 94 96
PEER REVIEW REPORT COMBINED PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 REPORT JAPAN OECD 2013
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Determinations and Factors Underlying Recommendations . . .101 Annex 1: Jurisdictions Response to the Review Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 Annex 2: List of all Exchange-of-Information Mechanisms in Force . . . . . . . 107 Annex 3: List of all Laws, Regulations and Other Relevant Material . . . . . . .110 Annex 4: People interviewed during on-site visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
ABOUT THE GLOBAL FORUM 5
About the Global Forum

The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes is the multilateral framework within which work in the area of tax transparency and exchange of information is carried out by over 120 jurisdictions which participate in the Global Forum on an equal footing. The Global Forum is charged with in-depth monitoring and peer review of the implementation of the international standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. These standards are primarily reflected in the 2002 OECD Model Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters and its commentary, and in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and its commentary as updated in 2004, which has been incorporated in the UN Model Tax Convention. The standards provide for international exchange on request of foreseeably relevant information for the administration or enforcement of the domestic tax laws of a requesting party. Fishing expeditions are not authorised but all foreseeably relevant information must be provided, including bank information and information held by fiduciaries, regardless of the existence of a domestic tax interest or the application of a dual criminality standard. All members of the Global Forum, as well as jurisdictions identified by the Global Forum as relevant to its work, are being reviewed. This process is undertaken in two phases. Phase 1 reviews assess the quality of jurisdictions legal and regulatory framework for the exchange of information, while Phase 2 reviews look at the practical implementation of that framework. Some Global Forum members are undergoing combined Phase 1 plus Phase 2 reviews. The Global Forum has also put in place a process for supplementary reports to follow-up on recommendations, as well as for the ongoing monitoring of jurisdictions following the conclusion of a review. The ultimate goal is to help jurisdictions to effectively implement the international standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. All review reports are published once approved by the Global Forum and they thus represent agreed Global Forum reports. For more information on the work of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, and for copies of the published review reports, please refer to www.oecd.org/tax/transparency and www.eoi-tax.org.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
Executive Summary
1. This report summarises the legal and regulatory framework for transparency and exchange of information in Japan as well as the practical implementation of that framework. The international standard, which is set out in the Global Forums Terms of Reference to Monitor and Review Progress Towards Transparency and Exchange of Information, is concerned with the availability of relevant information within a jurisdiction, the competent authoritys ability to gain timely access to that information, and whether that information can be effectively exchanged with the jurisdictions exchange of information partners. 2. Japan fully endorses the implementation of the international standards for transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. Japan has been an active member of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes since its creation. As one of the worlds largest economies, Japan has a long history in negotiating tax treaties leading to an extensive network of bilateral agreements that provide for exchange of information in tax matters. Japan has 65 exchange of information partners covered by 54 agreements (50 double taxation conventions (DTCs) and 4 tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs)), 47 of which are in force. The large majority of Japans agreements are consistent with the international standard. Japan actively seeks to expand its exchange of information network and is currently engaged in additional negotiations to conclude agreements to the standard. Japans agreements cover its major trading partners and Japan has not refused to enter into an exchange of information agreement with any Global Forum member seeking to do so. 3. Japans legal and regulatory framework for transparency and exchange of information is in place. Japan relies primarily on a centralised system of registration, business record keeping requirements and statutory tax filing requirements to ensure the maintenance of information on the ownership of relevant entities and arrangements. Bearer shares cannot be issued in Japan. Legal entities and arrangements are obliged to maintain a full range of accounting records, including underlying documentation, for a minimum of five years. Financial institutions are obliged to maintain information
8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
on all account holders and related financial and transactional information. Additionally, there are a variety of penalties under Japans laws to ensure that information required to be maintained is, in fact, maintained. Japans competent authority receives a number of requests each year relating to the ownership of relevant legal entities and arrangements, accounting records, and bank information. Input received from Japans peers notes that Japan has been able to respond to all such requests. 4. Japans tax authorities have the necessary powers to obtain bank, ownership, identity, and accounting information and have enforcement measures to compel the production of such information. The ability of Japans tax authorities to obtain information for exchange of information purposes is derived from its general access powers under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act, coupled with the authority provided by the relevant exchange of information agreements. No bank secrecy or corporate secrecy provisions exist in Japan that limit the ability of Japans competent authority to respond to an international request for information. Similarly, the rights and safeguards that apply to persons in Japan do not restrict the scope of information that Japans tax authorities can obtain. 5. Japans competent authority (in practice, the National Tax Agencys Director of the International Operations Division), when requested by a foreign counterpart, can retrieve information with the assistance of officials within Regional Taxation Bureaus and Tax Offices, which have the necessary powers under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act to access information from taxpayers and third parties. Japans National Tax Agency also has officials in offices around the world who facilitate exchange of information with its key trading partners. Further, with the aim of identifying and curbing international tax avoidance, Japan participates in the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre (JITSIC) along with Australia, Canada, the Peoples Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 6. Input received from Japans peers indicates, however, that in many cases Japan does not respond to requests for information within 90 days. Japans domestic procedures for handling exchange of information requests, in particular the lack of internal timelines for responding to requests, appear to inhibit expedient response times. In addition, Japans competent authority does not systematically provide requesting jurisdictions with a status update when requests cannot be responded to within 90 days. It is therefore recommended that Japan ensure that its authorities set appropriate internal deadlines to be able to respond to exchange of information requests in a timely manner, by providing the information requested within 90 days of receipt of the request, or if it has been unable to do so, to provide a status update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
7. In general, the responses the assessment team received to the peer questionnaire from Japans exchange of information partners suggest that Japans practices in terms of exchange of information are to a high standard. Japan has been able to respond to the vast majority of requests it receives in a thorough and comprehensive manner. 8. Japan has been assigned a rating1 for each of the 10 essential elements as well as an overall rating. The ratings for the essential elements are based on the analysis in the text of the report, taking into account the Phase 1 determinations and any recommendations made in respect of Japans legal and regulatory framework and the effectiveness of its exchange of information in practice. On this basis, Japan has been assigned the following ratings: Compliant for elements A.1, A.2, A.3, B.1, B.2, C.1, C.2, C.3 and C.4, and Largely Compliant for element C.5. In view of the ratings for each of the essential elements taken in their entirety, the overall rating for Japan is Compliant.
1..
This report reflects the legal and regulatory framework as at the date indicated on page 1 of this publication. Any material changes to the circumstances affecting the ratings may be included in Annex 1 to this report.
INTRODUCTION 11
Introduction
Information and methodology used for the peer review of Japan

9. The assessment of the legal and regulatory framework of Japan and the practical implementation and effectiveness of this framework was based on the international standards for transparency and exchange of information as described in the Global Forums Terms of Reference to Monitor and Review Progress Towards Transparency and Exchange of Information, and was prepared using the Global Forums Methodology for Peer Reviews and Non-Member Reviews. The assessment was based on the laws, regulations, and exchange of information mechanisms in force or effect as at July 2011, other information, explanations and materials supplied by Japan during the on-site visit that took place on 23-27 May 2011, and information supplied by partner jurisdictions. During the on-site visit, the assessment team met with officials and representatives of relevant Japan government agencies, including the Ministry of Finance, National Tax Agency, Regional Taxation Bureau, Tax Office, Ministry of Justice, Legal Affairs Bureau, and National Police Agency (see Annex 4). 10. The Terms of Reference break down the standards of transparency and exchange of information into 10 essential elements and 31 enumerated aspects under three broad categories: (A) availability of information; (B) access to information; and (C) exchanging information. This review assesses Japans legal and regulatory framework and the implementation and effectiveness of this framework against these elements and each of the enumerated aspects. In respect of each essential element a determination is made regarding Japans legal and regulatory framework that either: (i) the element is in place, (ii) the element is in place but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement, or (iii) the element is not in place. These determinations are accompanied by recommendations for improvement where relevant. In addition, to reflect the Phase 2 component, recommendations are made concerning Japans practical application of each of the essential elements and a rating of either: (i) compliant, (ii) largely compliant, (iii) partially compliant, or (iv) non-compliant is assigned to each
12 INTRODUCTION
element. An overall rating is also assigned to reflect Japans overall level of compliance with the standards. 11. The assessment was conducted by a team which consisted of three assessors and a representative of the Global Forum Secretariat: Ms. Helen Ritchie of HM Revenue and Customs of the United Kingdom; Ms. Elizabeth Gillam of HM Treasury of the United Kingdom; Ms. Elizabeth Leite of the Secretariat of Federal Revenue of Brazil; and Mr. Stewart Brant from the Global Forum Secretariat. 12. The ratings assigned in this report were adopted by the Global Forum in November 2013 as part of a comparative exercise designed to ensure the consistency of the results. An expert team of assessors was selected to propose ratings for a representative subset of 50 jurisdictions. Consequently, the assessment teams that carried out the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reviews were not involved in the assignment of ratings. These ratings have been compared with the ratings assigned to other jurisdictions for each of the essential elements to ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach. The assignment of ratings was also conducted at a different time from those reviews, and the circumstances may have changed in the meantime. Readers should consult Annex 1 for information on changes that have occurred.
Overview of Japan
13. Japan is a chain of islands located in Eastern Asia at the east of the Korean Peninsula. It is mainly constituted of four islands Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu and the archipelago of Ryukyu covering an area of more than 377 000 square kilometres, divided into 47 prefectures. Tokyo is the capital city and the political, economic and administrative centre. There are 47 prefectures and approximately 1 720 municipalities (cities, town, villages) in Japan. 14. As at September 2010, the population of Japan was approximately 128 million.2 Japanese represent 98.4% of the population. The official language of Japan is Japanese. The writing system is made up of kanji, or Chinese characters (there are approximately 3 000 in daily use), and two syllabaries, hiragana and katakana, each composed of 46 kana, which are phonetic symbols. 15. Japan is an industrialised country. After three decades of strong growth, the Japanese economy saw a major slowdown starting in the 1990s. Japan remains a major economic power and is one of the worlds strongest economies. Japans gross domestic product (GDP, current prices) was
2.
2010 figures, Statistics Japan, www.stat.go.jp/english/.
INTRODUCTION 13
approximately 475 trillion Japanese yen (JPY)3 (EUR 4.1 trillion) and the real GDP growth rate was 2.4% in 2009. The Japanese economy is dominated by services (74.9%) and industry (23.8%); agriculture represents 1.4%. Japans major trading partners are (in order) the Peoples Republic of China; the United States; Hong Kong, China; the Republic of Korea; Singapore; Saudi Arabia; Indonesia; Germany and Australia. Japans currency is the Japanese Yen (JPY) (JPY 115 = EUR 1 as at 28 March 2011).4 16. Japan is a member of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC), Group of Eight (G8), Group of Twenty (G20), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the United Nations (UN). Japan is a founding member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and a member of the Global Forum since its beginning.
General information on legal system and the taxation system

17. Japan is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government. The symbol of state is the Emperor and the head of the government is the Prime Minister, elected by the legislature (the Diet). Japans representative democracy is made up of executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch is the Cabinet (Naikaku) which is comprised of the Prime Minister and 14-17 Ministers of State, appointed by the Prime Minister. The legislative branch, the Diet (Kokkai), consists of the House of Representatives (Lower House, 480 seats) and the House of Councillors (Upper House, 242 seats). There is universal adult suffrage from 20 years of age. The judicial branch is made up of 438 summary courts, at least one district court and family court in each prefecture, 8 high courts and the Supreme Court. All of these courts (excluding family courts) can hear tax cases. Judgements of the Supreme Court are legally binding on the lower courts. 18. The Constitution of Japan dated 3 November 1946 states a principle of separation of powers: powers of legislation, administration and judiciary respectively exercised by the Diet, the Cabinet and the Supreme Court (Arts.41, 65, 76). The legal system is based on the civil law system and was influenced by the German and French civil law systems. However, after World War II, the United States heavily influenced the Japanese system resulting in introduction of, for example, the principle of judicial review.
3. IFS International Financial Statistics, International Monetary Fund, accessed 18 May 2011: www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx ?sy=2010&ey=2012&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=158&s=NG DP&grp=0&a=&pr1.x=46&pr1.y=5. www.xe.com/.
4.
14 INTRODUCTION
19. The National Diet is the sole lawmaking body in Japan. Draft bills may, however, come from government agencies and are submitted to the Diet through the Cabinet for discussion and vote. The following is the hierarchy of laws in Japan: Constitution; treaties; Acts and laws; cabinet orders; ministry ordinances; and ministry notifications. 20. Laws, cabinet orders, ministry ordinances, and ministry notifications have the status of law and are considered judicial criteria. Laws and Acts are approved by the Diet. In order to implement the provisions of a law, the Cabinet can enact Cabinet Orders (Constitution Art.73(6)). In addition, each Minister can enact Ministerial Ordinances and Ministerial Notifications in order to implement laws and Cabinet Orders. Rules and administrative guidance or guidelines (Tsuutatsu) do not have the status of law. The Commissioner of Japans National Tax Agency issues rules and guidelines to officials of the National Tax Agency and its local subordinate bureaus, providing a uniform interpretation and application of laws and ordinances. These rules and guidelines, unlike laws and regulations, do not bind judicial decisions, but provide guidelines for officials of the National Tax Agency in relation to the implementation of tax laws. Final interpretation of laws and ordinances lies with the courts. 21. Treaties with foreign jurisdictions are concluded by the Cabinet but require the approval of the Diet (Constitution Article 73(3)). Treaties are given the full force and effect of law in Japan and must be faithfully observed. International agreements, such as double taxation conventions (DTCs) and taxation information exchange agreements (TIEAs) override domestic laws in the case of conflict.
The tax system

22. The administration of Japans tax system is under the general jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance, consisting of the Ministers Secretariat, Budget Bureau, Tax Bureau, Customs and Tariff Bureau, Financial Bureau, and International Bureau. In addition to these internal bureaus, the Ministry has, as its operational agency, the National Tax Agency. 23. The Tax Bureau is responsible for inter alia research and planning concerning the tax system, international tax treaty matters, licensed tax accountant system and the drafting of tax laws. The Tax Bureau consists of the Co-ordination Division, Research Division, Income Tax and Property Tax Policy Division, Indirect Tax Policy Division, Corporation Tax Policy Division and International Tax Policy Division. In particular, the International Tax Policy Division is in charge of researching, planning, and drafting international tax treaties and laws and regulations of taxation on incomes of nonresidents and foreign corporations and systems of foreign tax credit.
INTRODUCTION 15
24. The National Tax Agency, established on 1 June 1949, is responsible for the enforcement of tax laws and deals with tax administration in general. The National Tax Agency is headed by the Commissioner and consists of the Commissioners Secretariat and three Departments with 715 officials, several affiliated organs with 811 officials, 11 Regional Taxation Bureaus, the Okinawa Regional Taxation Office, and 524 Tax Offices with 54 735 officials (as of the end of March 2011). In general, the functions of the National Tax Agency are to propose plans to execute tax administration, issue directives to Regional Taxation Bureaus, and supervise and direct Regional Taxation Bureaus and Tax Offices. 25. Regional Taxation Bureaus5 are responsible for the assessment and collection of national taxes within their jurisdiction. Each Bureau directs and supervises, under the superintendence of the National Tax Agency, Tax Offices situated in its jurisdiction. In addition, the Bureau directly handles the assessment and collection of taxes for certain taxpayers. Tax Offices are responsible for the assessment and collection of national taxes under the direction and supervision of the Regional Taxation Bureaus. Tax Offices are located in principal cities all over Japan. Every tax office deals with all types of national taxes. 26. The current tax system in Japan is divided into two parts: taxes imposed by the national government (national taxes) and taxes imposed by local governments, which are prefectures and municipalities (local taxes). The major national taxes are: income tax: a direct tax levied on the net income of the individual; corporation tax: a direct tax levied on the net income of a corporation; consumption tax: an indirect tax levied on transactions of goods and services in general; inheritance tax and gift tax: taxes imposed on the recipient of inherited properties, gifts, or bequests; gasoline tax: an indirect tax levied on gasoline shipped from refineries or withdrawn from bonded areas; and liquor tax: an indirect tax levied on domestic liquor shipped from manufacturing premises and on imported liquor withdrawn from bonded areas.
5.
In general, the Regional Taxation Bureau is composed of five departments: a Management and Co-ordination Department; the First Taxation Department; the Second Taxation Department, the Revenue Management and Collection Department; and the Large Enterprise Examination and Criminal Investigation Bureaus. Their activities are in general similar to those of the National Tax Agency.
16 INTRODUCTION
27. Article 30 of the Japanese Constitution states that [t]he people shall be liable to taxation as provided by law, declaring the duty of the people to pay tax. In addition, Article 84 states [n]o new taxes shall be levied or existing taxes modified except by law or under such conditions as law may prescribe, laying down the principle that no taxes can be imposed on the people except by law. 28. Article 94 of the Japanese Constitution states that [l]ocal public entities shall have the right to manage their property, affairs, and administration and to enact their own regulations within the law and Article 233 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that [l]ocal public entities can assess and collect local taxes as provided by law. Under these provisions, local public entities are given the right to assess and collect local taxes; thus the Local Tax Act (1950) was enacted. Unlike national tax laws (e.g. Corporation Tax Act, Income Tax Act), the Local Tax Act does not directly mandate that residents pay taxes. It only confirms the right of local public entities to assess and collect taxes within a framework prescribed by law. The regulations enacted by each local public entity mandate that residents pay local taxes. 29. Some local taxes have the same tax base as that of national taxes and are paid by the same taxpayers as for national taxes. In order to simplify the filing procedures for taxpayers, co-ordination is maintained between the national tax authorities and local tax authorities in the aspects of the tax system and execution of tax administration. For example, taxpayers who file an income tax return are not required to file the same for enterprise tax or inhabitants tax, both of which are local taxes. 30. The Income Tax Act defines three types of individual tax residency: resident, non-resident, and non-permanent resident. Residents are taxed on worldwide income and non-residents are taxed only on their Japanese source income. Non-permanent residents are taxed on their Japanese source income and their non-Japanese source income to the extent that it is paid in or remitted to Japan. Resident is defined in Article 2 of the Income Tax Act as a person who has an address in Japan or who has until the time of determination of residency status spent continuously one year or more in Japan. The term address is interpreted according to Article 22 of the Japans Civil Code as a base to carry on ones life. Non-permanent resident is a subcategory of Japanese resident; an individual who does not have Japanese nationality and, within the past ten years, spent a total of five years or less resident in Japan. A non-resident is an individual who is neither resident nor a non-permanent resident. 31. As regards corporate taxation in Japan, profits are taxed at the corporate level and may be taxed again in the hands of shareholders when they are distributed. However, a certain amount of tax credit is provided at the individual taxpayer level. Domestic companies are subject to corporation
INTRODUCTION 17
tax on their worldwide income (Corporation Tax Act Art.4(1)). A domestic corporation is defined as a corporation having its head office or principal place of business in Japan. Such entities include stock companies (kabushiki kaisha), limited liability companies (godo kaisha), general partnership companies (gomei kaisha) and limited partnership companies (goshi kaisha). The effective tax rate (national and local) on a domestic corporation is approximately 40%. Companies are subject to corporation tax (national income tax), busi32. ness tax (local tax) and prefectural and municipal inhabitant taxes (local tax). A size-based business tax is also payable by a company with capital exceeding JPY 100 million (EUR 870 000). Capital gains are treated as ordinary income and subject to income tax, and as such there is no separate capital gains tax. 33. Foreign companies operating through branches or any other permanent establishments are subject to corporation tax on Japanese-source income, with such tax generally being imposed through withholding taxation imposed at source on a gross basis at the time of payment (interest and dividends). A foreign corporation is defined as any corporation which is not a domestic corporation, meaning a foreign company that does not have its head office or principal place of business in Japan. 34. Corporation tax is paid under a self-assessment system. A corporation must file a corporation tax return, together with a balance sheet, a statement of profit and loss and other materials, to the tax authorities, in principle, within two months of the end of each business year, and must pay tax as reported on the return. If taxpayers fail to file correct returns, Japans tax authorities reassess returns through a procedure of reassessment or determination. In addition, local inhabitants tax and enterprise tax are levied by local authorities on corporations, based on their corporate income, etc. 35. Consumption tax is a sales-based tax that is similar in nature to a value-added tax. It is levied on the supply of goods and services in Japan. The tax rate is 5%, comprising 4% national consumption tax and 1% local consumption tax. 36. The Act on General Rules for National Taxes contains provisions for matters that are common and fundamental to all aspects of taxation in Japan. Articles dealing with procedural matters, such as the determination of the tax amount, payment of taxes (Chapters II, III), postponement of tax payment, pledges for taxes, refunds (Chapters I, IV, V), and tax disputes (Chapter VIII) make up the majority of this Act, but general provisions on additional taxes, on limitation of the period of assessment and collecting, and on other areas are also included.
18 INTRODUCTION
37. Japans national revenue (revised budget for general account revenues) in fiscal year 2010 was JPY 96 728 billion (EUR 841.1 billion), of which JPY 39 643 billion (EUR 344.7 billion) was from taxes and stamp revenues. Income tax, corporation tax and consumption tax account for approximately 80% of tax revenues.
International exchange of information for tax purposes

38. Japans framework relevant to exchange of information for tax purposes is presided over by Japans Ministry of Finance. Administration of the exchange of information under Japans treaty network is the responsibility of Japans competent authority, being the Minister of Finance or an authorised representative of the Minister. The Director of the International Operations Division of the National Tax Agency is authorised to act as competent authority and, in practice, is responsible for managing and responding to all of Japans exchange of information requests. 39. Japan has an extensive network of bilateral agreements that provide for exchange of information in tax matters, and is currently engaged in additional negotiations as well as renegotiations of its older treaties. Japan has 65 exchange of information partners covered by 54 agreements (50 double tax conventions (DTCs) and 4 tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs)), 47 of which are in force. 40. Japan is exchanging information both through specific requests and on automatic or spontaneous basis on more than 200 000 cases a year. Japans National Tax Agency dispatches its officials around the world as long-term visitors for facilitating exchange of information with its key foreign partners. Further, with the aim of identifying and curbing international tax avoidance, Japan participates in the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre (JITSIC).
Overview of the financial sector and relevant professions

41. Japan is one of the major financial centres in the world. The financial sector consists mainly of commercial banks, with JPY 847 trillion (EUR 7.36 trillion) assets in total.
Number of institutions (January 2011) 1 602 202 Total assets (non-consolidated) (trillion JPY) 847 (as of December 2010)
Type of institution Banks (total) Commercial banks*
INTRODUCTION 19
Type of institution Shinkin banks (co-operative regional financial institutions) Labour banks 14 Credit co-operatives 159 Agricultural co-operatives 762 (as of September 2010) Fishery co-operatives 190 (as of September 2010) Norinchukin bank 1 (co-operative bank) Shokochukin bank 1 (national bank) Insurance companies** 97 (47 life insurance companies, 50 non-life insurance companies) 337 Securities Companies (Type I Financial Instruments Business Operators )*** Trust companies**** 58 (44 of them are trust banks) * ** *** ****
Number of institutions (January 2011) 273
Total assets (non-consolidated) (trillion JPY) 155 (as of March 2010) 22 (as of March 2010) 22 (as of March 2010) 156 (as of March 2009) 4 (as of March 2009) 68 (as of March 2010) 12 (as of March 2010) 349 (as of September 2010)
107.4 (as of December 2010)
306 (as of March 2010) (Trust banks account for 99.99% of this amount)
Includes Japan Post Bank. Includes Japan Post Insurance. Defined by the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. Trust banks are included in both commercial banks and trust companies.
42. It is noted that Japan Post, which was the largest deposit taking institution in the world, was split into five companies and privatised as the Japan Post Group in October 2007. Banking business is run by Japan Post Bank with total assets of JPY 193 trillion (EUR 1.68 trillion) and insurance business run by Japan Post Insurance with total assets of JPY 96 trillion (EUR 0.84 trillion) as of March 2011. 43. Japan has seven Financial Instruments Exchanges, which include Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE), Osaka Securities Exchange (OSE), Nagoya Stock Exchange (NSE), Fukuoka Stock Exchange (FSE), Sapporo Securities Exchange (SSE), Tokyo Financial Exchange (TFX), and TOKYO AIM (AIM). 44. The Financial Services Agency is in charge of ensuring the stability of Japans financial system and protecting depositors, insurance policyholders, securities investors and any other equivalent to these persons. Its main responsibilities are:
20 INTRODUCTION
designing and planning the financial system; inspecting and supervising private financial institutions such as banks, securities companies trust companies, and insurance companies as well as market-related entities such as securities exchanges, and certified public accountants, auditing firms; establishing transaction rules in the securities markets; setting corporate accounting standards and other matters concerning corporate finance; and monitoring the compliance with securities market rules.
Japan has one free-trade zone, the Okinawa Special Free Trade Zone, 45. established in 1999 in the Okinawa Prefecture, to promote industry and trade in this region. The zone is regulated by the Department of Okinawa Affairs in the Cabinet Office. Japan also has two free ports, Nagasaki and Niigata. Customs authorities allow the bonding of warehousing and processing facilities adjacent to these ports on a case-by-case basis. Companies operating in Japans free-trade zone and free ports are subject to the Companies Act and Corporation Tax Act. 46. Attorneys, judicial scriveners and administrative scriveners (gyoseishoshi lawyers) are among the specialists who can be consulted on the establishment of companies and branch offices in Japan. These specialists can be asked to prepare various documents on a clients behalf (e.g. documentation related to the establishment of Japanese branch offices and Japanese corporations, transfers of location, changes of executives, changes of business purposes, increases in capital, organisational changes, mergers and dissolution). Commercial registration applications for submission to the Legal Affairs Bureau are the exclusive province of judicial scriveners and attorneys. 47. Certified public accountants and tax accountants are specialists providing accounting and tax support to companies operating in Japan. Both have qualifications recognised by law, and only persons with these qualifications may engage in legally stipulated monopoly businesses. Certified public accountants6 have a monopoly on the performance of audits under the Certified Public Accountants Act, while tax accountants (including certified public accountants registered as certified public tax accountants) have
6.
The mission of certified public accountants is to ensure the fair business activities of companies and the protection of investors and creditors by securing the credibility of financial statements and other related financial information from their independent standpoint as auditing and accounting professionals (Certified Public Accountants Act Art.1).
INTRODUCTION 21
a monopoly on tax agent services, preparation of tax documentation and tax consultations under the Certified Public Tax Accountants Act. 48. Certified public tax accountants (CPTAs) (zeirishi) are professional specialists on taxes, whose roles are to help taxpayers properly file tax returns and pay taxes. The Certified Public Tax Accountants Act provides their public mission: [b]ased on their independent and fair standpoint, they shall respond to person with a tax obligation trust in line with the principles of the self-assessment system and achieve proper tax compliance as provided for in the Tax Law (Article 1). As of March 2010, 71 606 persons are registered as CPTAs, and 1 949 professional tax firms are established. Japans National Tax Agency is the supervisory authority for CPTAs.
Recent developments
49. Japan signed one TIEA (Bermuda) and nine DTCs (Belgium (protocol); Hong Kong; Kuwait; Luxembourg (protocol); Malaysia (protocol); Netherlands (protocol); Saudi Arabia; Singapore (protocol); Switzerland (protocol)) in 2010. Japan signed TIEAs with three jurisdictions in the first half of 2011 (The Bahamas; the Cayman Islands; the Isle of Man).
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 23
Compliance with the Standards
A. Availability of information
Overview
50. Effective exchange of information requires the availability of reliable information. In particular, it requires information on the identity of owners and other stakeholders as well as information on the transactions carried out by entities and other organisational structures. Such information may be kept for tax, regulatory, commercial or other reasons. If such information is not kept or the information is not maintained for a reasonable period of time, a jurisdictions competent authority7 may not be able to obtain and provide it when requested. This section of the report describes and assesses Japans legal and regulatory framework for availability of information. It also assesses the implementation and effectiveness of this framework. 51. The legal and regulatory framework for the maintenance of ownership and identity information is in place in Japan. Information received from partner jurisdictions with an exchange of information relationship with Japan, as well as quantitative and qualitative information received from Japan, indicates that Japan actively exchanges bank, ownership and identity information and accounting records. Based on peer input received, it is clear that Japans competent authority has been able to provide such information for all types of legal entities and arrangements in response to specific requests for exchange of information.
7. The term competent authority means the person or government authority designated by a jurisdiction as being competent to exchange information pursuant to a double tax convention or tax information exchange.
24 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

52. The main business structures used in Japan are companies (stock companies and membership companies), limited partnerships (LLPs and investment LPSs), and business trusts. Japan relies primarily on a centralised system of company registration, corporate record keeping requirements and statutory tax filing requirements to ensure the maintenance of information on the legal ownership of companies. All companies in Japan are subject to the Companies Act and Corporation Tax Act. Bearer shares cannot be issued in Japan. 53. Foreign companies conducting continuous transactions (i.e. more than marketing or information gathering activities) in Japan are obliged to register with the Legal Affairs Bureau (the registrar) and are subject to the same tax filing requirements as domestic companies under the Corporation Tax Act as regards Japanese-source income. At least one representative of the foreign company must reside in Japan. Foreign companies are obliged to file with the tax authorities the names and addresses of the foreign companys three largest shareholder groups (consisting of one shareholder and its family). Additionally, foreign companies need to maintain shareholder information in order to comply with Japans controlled foreign company rules, corporate inversion rules, and transfer pricing rules. 54. Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and investment limited partnerships (Investment LPSs) are obliged to register the names and addresses of all partners of LLPs and the general partners of Investment LPSs with the Legal Affairs Bureau. LLPs and Investment LPSs are further obliged to maintain written partnership contracts that contain the names and addresses of all partners (including the limited partners of a Investment LPS). Partners in general partnerships established under Japans Civil Code (NKs), LLPs and LPSs are obliged to maintain contractual agreements pursuant to the record-keeping requirements under the Income Tax Act and Corporation Tax Act. The partners are also subject to tax reporting requirements when they distribute partnership profit and loss and are obliged to file the names and addresses of partners receiving distributions with the tax authorities. As NK contracts are not statutorily required to be in writing, it is recommended that Japan monitor the availability of ownership and identity information for NKs, in particular any exchange of information requests that cannot be satisfied because the information is not maintained. 55. Japanese law requires the maintenance of information that identifies the settlors, trustees, and beneficiaries of trusts. Japanese trusts are generally considered as vehicles for commercial dealings and administered by trust companies. Trustees of Japanese and foreign trusts, excluding trustees of collective investment trusts, defined retirement and pension trusts, and trusts taxable as corporations, are obliged to provide the names and addresses of the trustees, settlors and beneficiaries of the trust to the tax authorities on
an annual basis. Trustees are subject to record-keeping requirements under Japans AML legislation, which requires the maintenance of ownership information on the settlors and beneficiaries. 56. Japanese law requires the maintenance of information that identifies the founders and members of the foundation council and beneficiaries of foundations established under its laws. The General Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations Act (GIAGIF Act) requires foundations to register the names of the foundation councillors, directors, and auditors with the Legal Affairs Bureau. The GIAGIF Act requires the maintenance of accounting books and financial statements. The accounting books identify beneficiaries (if any) who have received payments from the foundation or association. 57. Relevant legal entities and arrangements carrying on business in Japan are obliged to maintain a full range of accounting records, including underlying documentation, for a minimum of five years. Financial institutions operating in Japan are obliged to maintain information on all accountholders and related financial and transactional information. 58. In order for Japans self-assessment tax system to work, a high degree of taxpayer compliance is necessary. It was explained to the assessment team that Japan has a strong compliance culture, in particular as regards compliance with Japans statutory tax filing and reporting obligations. The National Tax Agency reports to have few difficulties with respect to issues regarding the availability of ownership and identity information, both for domestic tax cases and for international assistance in tax matters. Additionally, there are a variety of penalties under Japans laws to ensure that information required to be maintained is, in fact, maintained. The penalties appear to be proportionate and dissuasive enough to ensure compliance. Most of Japans laws provide a range of penalties, including small to large monetary fines depending on the level of infraction, and imprisonment in egregious cases.
A.1. Ownership and identity information

Jurisdictions should ensure that ownership and identity information for all relevant entities and arrangements is available to their competent authorities.
59. Japans Legal Affairs Bureau, under the Ministry of Justice, is responsible for handling matters concerning the registration of companies, real estate, family registration, nationality, deposit, notarisation, judicial scriveners, and the drafting of bills concerning basic civil laws, such as the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Companies Act, the Commercial Registration Act, as well as amendments and abolition thereof. As of 1 April

2011, there were 441 Legal Affairs Bureau registry offices (including branch offices) located in major cities throughout Japan. Online application for commercial registration is available. In order to use this system, the user must obtain a digital certification of the users digital signature. Information maintained by the Legal Affairs Bureau is electronically 60. stored and centrally managed in various registries which it is responsible for maintaining. All Japanese companies and foreign corporations conducting continuous transactions (i.e. more than marketing or other representative office type activities) in Japan are obliged to register with the Legal Affairs Bureau. The registers contain information identifying the legal persons directors, senior managers and legal owners (in most instances). Information maintained by the Legal Affairs Bureau is often the subject of international exchange of information requests. Japans National Tax Agency can effectively access information maintained by the Legal Affairs Bureau. 61. Additionally, Japans National Tax Agency maintains its own electronic information system, called the KSK system (Kokuzei Sogo Kanri or Comprehensive Tax Administrative System), which links all Regional Taxation Bureaus and Tax Offices, was introduced to handle a variety of different administrative tasks. The National Tax Agency currently collects over 300 million information returns each year, and information and data on tax returns are managed in the KSK system. The entry of tax returns, disclosure statements, tax payment records, and a variety of information enables the centralisation of the administration of taxes in Japan. Analysed data is used in tax examination and collection of delinquent tax. 62. The KSK system accumulates data input about tax returns and tax payment records and also systematically combines the data, which enables central management of national tax claims and liabilities. Information regarding tax returns and records of taxation may be extracted from this system by way of directed queries, including by personnel in Japans competent authority for international exchange of information, the National Tax Agencys Director of the International Operations Division. Japans competent authority reports that during the past three years ending on 31 December 2009, approximately 20% of requests from foreign jurisdictions have been responded to by providing information maintained in the KSK system. 63. Japans tax officials are able to access information maintained by the Legal Affairs Bureau as well as within the KSK system for ownership and identity information on various types of legal entities and arrangements. Japans officials report to have few difficulties with respect to issues regarding the availability of ownership and identity information, both for domestic tax cases and for providing exchange of information assistance.
Companies (ToR 8 A.1.1) Types of companies

64. The Companies Act (2005) provides general rules for the formation, organisation, operation and management of companies in Japan. Article 2 of the Companies Act defines company as any stock company (kabushiki kaisha), general partnership company (gomei kaisha), limited partnership company (goshi kaisha) or limited liability company (godo kaisha). Stock companies can be public or private companies. Membership of a general partnership company comprises one or more unlimited liability members. Membership of a limited partnership company comprises one or more limited liability members as well as one or more unlimited liability members. Membership of a limited liability company comprises one or more limited liability members. General partnership companies, limited partnership companies and limited liability companies are referred to as membership companies (Art.575(1)). 65. A number of categories of companies of a specialised nature also exist in Japan. These are subject to the Corporation Tax Act, but also receive special legislative treatment in other enactments, as follows: mutual companies (insurance businesses) are subject to the Insurance Business Act; specific purpose companies (tokutei mokuteki kaisha)9 are subject to the Act on Securitization of Assets; and investment corporations10 are subject to the Act on Investment Trusts and Investment Corporations. These companies are more closely regulated by the government than companies formed under the Companies Act. 66. Article 2 of the Companies Act defines foreign company as any legal person incorporated under the law of a foreign jurisdiction or such other foreign organisation that is of the same kind as, or similar to, a domestic company.
8. 9. Terms of Reference to Monitor and Review Progress Towards Transparency and Exchange of Information. Tokutei mokuteki kaisha (TMK) is treated as a domestic corporation for Japanese tax purposes. A TMK is a special corporation that is used solely for liquidation of assets and functions simply as conduit. Tax laws allows the deduction as expense of dividends paid by the TMK provided certain criteria are met, including distribution of more than 90% of the TMKs profits each fiscal year. This allows a de facto pass through treatment to apply to the TMK for tax purposes. Investment corporations are used as a collective investment vehicle to invest funds in securities and real estate. Investment corporations can be subject to pay-through taxation like a TMK provided certain criteria are met, including distribution of more than 90% of its profits each fiscal year. An investment corporation is treated as a domestic corporation for Japanese tax purposes.
10.
Ownership information on domestic companies Registration of companies

67. The Legal Affairs Bureau of Japans Ministry of Justice is responsible for handling matters concerning the registration of companies.11 All Japanese companies incorporated under the Companies Act are obliged to register their incorporation documents at the location of its head office with the competent branch of the Legal Affairs Bureau (Companies Act Arts.49, 579). Mutual companies, specific purpose companies, and investment corporations are also obliged to register their incorporation documents with the competent branch of the Legal Affairs Bureau (Insurance Business Law Art.30-13; Act on Securitization of Assets Art.23; Act on Investment Trusts and Investment Corporations Art.74). 68. Company registration requirements apply to all Japanese companies, regardless of whether they are owned by non-residents, or whether the company carries on business activities within Japan or offshore. 69. Registration of incorporation for stock companies is completed by registering inter alia the following: the companys purpose; trade name; location of head office; total number of authorised shares and details of the shares it issues; and names and addresses of the directors (Companies Act Arts.27, 911(3)). Articles of incorporation are not effective unless they are certified by a notary public (Art.30). 70. Registration of incorporation for membership companies (general partnership companies, limited partnership companies and limited liability companies) is completed by registering the following: the companys purpose; trade name; address of the head office and branch offices; and names and domiciles of the partners (and if the partner representing a membership company is a legal person, the name and domicile of the person who is to perform the duties of such partner) (Companies Act Arts.912, 913, 914). After registration documents are accepted by the Legal Affairs Bureau, 71. companies must apply for an issuance of the company registration and the certificate of seal registration at the same location of the Legal Affairs Bureau. Generally, a judicial scrivener12 completes the registration procedure. The
11. Japans Legal Affairs Bureau also maintains a register of immovable property (real estate) which contains information on the condition of property, including ownership and the rights involved.
1. 12. Judicial scriveners provide various services, including representation in procedures related to registration or deposit administration; preparation of documents or electromagnetic records to be submitted to a court, public prosecutor or Legal Affairs Bureau; and services relating
certificate of seal registration must ordinarily be presented whenever opening a bank account, filing notifications with administrative authorities, purchasing assets for which name registration is required (real estate, securities, vehicles, telephone lines, etc.), and concluding agreements with business partners. 72. All changes to information registered with the Legal Affairs Bureau (e.g. amount of share capital, board members, names and domiciles of partners) must be promptly reported by providing notification to the Legal Affairs Bureau within two weeks of the change (Companies Act Arts.909, 915). Any persons can obtain the extract of registered matters pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the Commercial Registration Act. 73. The Legal Affairs Bureau maintains information in the commercial registry for an indefinite duration and application documents for five years. When a company is liquidated, the Legal Affairs Bureau maintains registered information on the liquidated company for a period of twenty years (Commercial Registration Ordinance Art.34). In addition, a liquidator is obliged to maintain the books of the liquidating company as well as any material data regarding the business and liquidation of that company for a period of ten years (Companies Act Art.508).
Stock companies share registries

74. Stock companies are obliged to prepare and maintain a shareholder registry (Companies Act Art.121). Matters recorded in a stock companys shareholder registry include: the names and addresses of shareholders; number of shares held by the shareholders; date when the shareholder acquired the shares; and, where the stock company is a company issuing share certificates, the serial numbers of share certificates representing the shares (Art.121). Stock companies are obliged to keep their shareholder registry at their head offices in Japan or, where there is an administrator of the shareholder registry, at the administrators business office (Art.125(1)). Shareholders and creditors may make requests at any time for the inspection or copying of the registry (Art.125(2)). Membership companies are not obliged to maintain share registries, however, they would need to have this information available in order to comply with the obligation to file and update this information with the Legal Affairs Bureau. 75. The names and addresses of the shareholders of publicly listed stock companies are maintained electronically in a transfer account held in Japans Securities Depository Centre, and also by financial institutions such as trust banks and securities companies. to minor court lawsuit representation. As of 31 December 2011, there were 20 275 judicial scriveners and 415 judicial scrivener corporations in Japan.
Tax law
76. Article 2 of the Corporation Tax Act defines domestic corporation as a corporation having its head office or principal place of business in Japan. The effective place of management is not relevant in this regard. Domestic corporations are liable for tax on worldwide income. Corporation tax is paid under the self-assessment system. All domestic companies must file a corporation tax return, with accounting records and other materials, to the tax authorities, in principle, within two months of the end of each business year and must pay tax as reported on the return (Art.74). If a company fails to file correct returns, tax authorities reassess them. Local inhabitants tax and enterprise tax are levied by local authorities on companies based on corporate income. 77. Companies are obliged to file Form Appendix 2 with their corporate tax return, which includes information on the names, addresses, voting rights and ownership interest of the companys three largest shareholder groups which consist of one shareholder and its family (Corporation Tax Act Arts.74, 145; Ministry of Finance Ordinance Appendix 2). Such information is checked through Tax Office audits and other means to allow the tax authorities to determine whether a stock company is a family company (douzoku kaisha)13 and also for determining the correct application of Japans transfer pricing rules, controlled foreign corporation rules, and corporate inversion rules. Under Japans tax system, the percentages of shareholdings may have an effect on tax obligations. 78. Additionally, when a Japanese company is newly established in Japan in accordance with the Companies Act, a tax notification pertaining to the start-up must be submitted to the tax authorities on or within two months of the date of establishment (Corporation Tax Act Art.148). Tax notifications specify the place for tax payment, the object of the business, and the date of establishment (Art.148). Article 63 of Japans Ministry of Finance Ordinance specifies additional documents that must accompany the tax notification, which include a copy of the articles of incorporation, a copy of the registration of establishment, and a certified copy of the shareholder registry. The registration of establishment includes the name, address, and date of establishment of the company and the name and address of the companys representatives. Tax notifications are maintained by the National Tax Agency for an indefinite duration.
13.
A family company (douzoku kaisha) is a company in which three or less shareholders maintain certain special relations prescribed by Cabinet Order and hold more than 50% of the total number or amount of issued stock or investments of the company (Corporation Tax Act Art.2(10)).
Ownership information on foreign companies 14

79. A foreign company (gaikoku kaisha) is defined in Article 2 of the Companies Act as any legal person incorporated under the law of a foreign country or such other foreign organisation that is of the same kind as, or similar to, a domestic company. Foreign companies can operate in Japan by establishing a representative office, branch office, or a subsidiary company. 80. Representative offices are established as locations for carrying out preparatory and supplemental tasks aimed at enabling foreign companies to engage in full-scale business operations in Japan. Representative offices may conduct market surveys and collect information, but they are not permitted to engage in sales activities. A representative office cannot ordinarily open bank accounts or lease real estate in its own name, so agreements for such purposes must be signed by the head office of the foreign company or the representative at the representative office in an individual capacity. The establishment of representative offices does not require registration under the Companies Act and no tax notifications are required (as they are not subject to corporate tax). However, representative offices established by foreign banks, insurance companies, securities companies, or other financial institutions are exceptions; prior notification must be provided to the Financial Services Agency for such representative offices (as stipulated in the Banking Act, Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and other laws). Foreign companies wishing to engage in business operations in Japan 81. must establish a branch office or a subsidiary company. A Japanese branch office is a business location that provides services in Japan for the foreign parent company, and ordinarily is not expected to engage in independent decision-making. A branch office does not have its own legal corporate status, but instead is deemed to be encompassed within the corporate status of the foreign company. Generally, the foreign company is ultimately responsible for all debts and credits generated by the activities of its Japanese branch office. A Japanese branch office, however, may open bank accounts and lease real estate in its own name. Branch offices must register with Japans Legal Affairs Bureau and provide a tax notification to the tax authorities. 82. A foreign company establishing a subsidiary company in Japan must choose to establish the subsidiary company as a stock company (kabushiki kaisha), limited liability company (godo kaisha), or similar entity stipulated by Japans Companies Act. Both general partnership companies (gomei kaisha)
14. According to the Terms of Reference, where a company or body corporate incorporated in one jurisdiction has a sufficient nexus to another jurisdiction including being resident there for tax purposes (for example by reason of having its place of effective management or administration there), that other jurisdiction will also have the responsibility of ensuring that ownership information is available.

and limited partnership companies (goshi kaisha) are granted corporate status under the Companies Act, but Japans Legal Affairs Bureau reports that they are rarely chosen in practice because equity participants bear unlimited rather than limited liability. Subsidiary companies must also register with Japans Legal Affairs Bureau and provide a tax notification to the tax authorities.
Registration of foreign companies

83. The Companies Act requires a foreign company that intends to carry out transactions continuously in Japan (i.e. more than marketing or other representative office type activities) to register with the competent branch of the Legal Affairs Bureau (Arts.817, 818, 933). Such companies are obliged to have one or more representatives domiciled in Japan (Art.817). The items to be listed in the registration are determined in accordance with the same kind of company or the most similar kind of domestic company in Japan (Art.933). Article 821 of the Companies Act provides that a foreign company that has its head office in Japan or whose main purpose is to conduct business in Japan may not carry out transactions continuously in Japan. Such companies are obliged to incorporate as Japanese companies under the Companies Act. 84. Branch offices of foreign companies must register in accordance with the registration requirements for domestic Japanese companies of most similar form to that of the foreign company (i.e. as either a stock company, general partnership company, limited partnership company or limited liability company) (Companies Act Art.933(2)). In order to select the most similar form of Japanese company and to determine the information to be registered, reference must be made to the foreign companys articles of incorporation, establishment certificate, registration certificate, and other such documentation. Once the details of the branch office to be registered (e.g. the address of the branch office, the representative in Japan, the date of establishment of the branch office) are determined, the information that must be registered can be ascertained. Document(s) certifying the information to be registered must be submitted when applying for registration of the establishment of a branch office, and the certified document(s) must be issued by the competent authorities in the home jurisdiction of the foreign company. 85. Branch offices registering as membership companies are obliged to register the same information as required to be registered by domestic membership companies (Companies Act Art.933). Accordingly, branch offices are obliged to register inter alia the names and domiciles of their partners (and, if the partner representing a membership company is a legal person, the name and domicile of the person who is to perform the duties of such partner) with the Legal Affairs Bureau (Companies Act Arts.912, 913, 914). Branch offices are considered permanent establishments for Japanese tax purposes.
86. Subsidiary companies are established through registration with the Legal Affairs Bureau. The application date for registration is the date of establishment, and the company may carry out business operations from that date (Companies Act Art.49). Subsidiary companies are obliged to register the same information required to be registered for domestic companies. As such, subsidiary companies incorporated as Japanese membership companies are obliged to register inter alia the names and domiciles of their partners (Companies Act Arts.912, 913, 914). 87. A branch office or subsidiary company registered as a stock company is not obliged to register the names and addresses of its shareholders (Companies Act Arts.27, 911(3)). Branch offices and subsidiary companies are obliged to ensure that information registered with the Legal Affairs Bureau is current. Applications for registration of changes to registered information must be submitted to the Legal Affairs Bureau within two weeks of the changes for subsidiary companies, and within three weeks of the changes for branch offices (Companies Act Arts.909, 933). Once registration of establishment has been completed for a Japanese 88. branch office or a subsidiary company, a certificate of registered company information15 must be obtained from the Legal Affairs Bureau.
Tax law
89. A foreign corporation operating through a branch office or any other permanent establishment is only subject to taxation on Japanese-source income, with such tax generally being imposed through withholding taxation imposed at source on a gross basis at the time of payment. Article 2 of the Corporation Tax Act defines foreign corporation as any corporation which is not a domestic corporation, meaning a foreign company that does not have its head office or principal place of business in Japan. In general, foreign companies with Japanese-source income must file a corporation tax return, together with a balance sheet, a statement of profit and loss and other materials, to the tax authorities within two months of the end of each business year and must pay tax as reported on the return (Arts.141(i), 145). 90. Foreign companies with a branch office in Japan (i.e. a permanent establishment) are obliged to file Form Appendix 2 with their corporate tax
15. The certificate on registered company information is a document officially certifying a companys registered information. It must ordinarily be presented whenever opening a bank account, filing notifications with administrative authorities, purchasing assets for which name registration is required (real estate, securities, vehicles, telephone lines, etc.), and concluding important agreements with business partners.

return, which includes information on the names, addresses, voting rights, and ownership interest of the companys three largest shareholders (Corporation Tax Act Arts.74, 145; Ministry of Finance Ordinance Appendix 2). Accordingly, limited information is available in Japan regarding the ownership structure of foreign incorporated companies operating through a branch that is registered as either a stock company or membership company. 91. Additionally, branch offices of foreign companies need to maintain information about their shareholders to comply with Japans CFC rules, corporate inversion rules and transfer pricing rules for tax assessment of the foreign companies: a company of which over 50% of its shares is held by residents and its related non-residents through a foreign company in a low tax jurisdiction must file a tax return with Form Appendix 17(3) Table 1 (the same form is required to be used for applying the corporate inversion rules); and a company which made transactions with its foreign affiliated person must file a tax return with Form 17(4). A foreign affiliated person is defined as a foreign corporation that has a relationship with the said company whereby either company holds, directly or indirectly, shares or capital contributions that account for 50% or more of shares of or capital contributions of the other company. Form Appendix 17(4) includes the name and address of the foreign affiliated person and the capital ties between the foreign affiliated person and domestic company. The form does not require ownership information but such companies must maintain ownership information in order to correctly file tax returns.
When a branch office of a foreign corporation is newly established in 92. Japan in accordance with the Companies Act, a tax notification pertaining to the start-up must be submitted to the tax authorities within two months from establishment (Corporation Tax Act Art.149). Tax notifications must also be submitted when a foreign corporation generates income subject to corporate tax in Japan without establishing a branch office or when carrying out business activities through locations or parties meeting certain conditions instead of opening a branch office.16 The tax notification must set out:
16. Circumstances where a foreign corporation carrying out activities in Japan without establishing a branch office is required to submit a tax notification include: when construction, installation, assembly or other works, or control and supervision of such works extends for a period of more than one year; and when engaging in business through: parties having and frequently exercising the authority to conclude business agreements on behalf of that foreign corporation; or parties storing assets on behalf of that foreign corporation in a volume/
the place of tax payment and the name of person in charge of management or administration of business performed or assets in Japan; the object and the kind of the business being performed in Japan, or the kind and the existing place of the assets in Japan; and the date of starting business or the scheduled start of business in Japan, or the date of possessing the assets in Japan.
93. Sections 64 and 65 of the Ministry of Finance Ordinance specify additional documents that must be submitted in the tax notification when a foreign company has a permanent establishment in Japan. Such documents include: the balance sheet as of the time when that foreign company has a permanent establishment in Japan; Japanese translation of the articles of incorporation; and documents stating the address of the permanent establishment in Japan. Tax notifications are maintained by the tax authorities for an indefinite duration. 94. Japans National Tax Agency reports that it has not experienced difficulties in obtaining ownership information of foreign incorporated companies having a permanent establishment in Japan for domestic tax purposes or for responding to international exchange of information requests as a result of the information not being maintained. Input received from Japans peers confirms this.
Ownership information held by directors and officers

95. Directors and officers of Japanese companies are not statutorily required to maintain ownership information in respect of the company. These requirements lie on the company. One or more representatives of a foreign company that intends to carry out transactions continuously in Japan must be domiciled in Japan (Companies Act Art.817). There is no similar express legal requirement for domestic companies. Japans authorities report, however, that as a matter of course domestic companies shall have one or more representatives who are domiciled in Japan.
Ownership information held by service providers

96. Independent legal professionals and accountants, including judicial scriveners, certified public accountants, and certified public tax accountants (CPTAs) are subject to Japans anti-money laundering (AML) legislation. As such, they are obliged to maintain certain information on their clients.
quantity corresponding to the ordinary requirements of customers and delivering those assets in response to customers requests (Corporation Tax Act Art.149).

97. The Act on the Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds (PTCPA), Japans current AML legislation, covers a range of financial institutions17 and designated professions and businesses (specified business operators). In particular, Article 2 of the PTCPA lists the following specified business operators: financial institutions; real estate agents and professionals; postal service providers; legal professionals and accountants: lawyers, judicial scriveners, certified administrative procedures specialists, certified public accountants, and CPTAs; and trust companies.18
98. The PTCPA contains various provisions relating to customer identification (Arts.4, 5), record keeping (Arts.6, 7), the role and powers of Japans Financial Intelligent Unit (Arts.3, 11, 12, 14), and sanctions (Arts. 23 et seq). The PTCPA is implemented by the Cabinet Order for Enforcement of the PTCPA (the Order) and the Ordinance for enforcement of the PTCPA (the Ordinance). Article 4 of the PTCPA requires specified business operators (exclud99. ing attorneys19) to verify customer identification data (i.e. name and domicile) and date of birth or name and location of the head/main office20 respectively
17. Article 1(2) of the PTCPA includes inter alia the following financial institutions in the definition of specified business operator: banks; shinkin banks; insurance companies; securities companies; moneylenders; futures commission merchants; financial leasing companies; credit card companies; and money and currency exchangers. Trust companies are licensed and supervised by Japans Financial Services Agency (FSA)/Local Financial Bureau. Article 8 of PTCPA provides that customer due diligence of attorneys shall be prescribed by the rules of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations in line with such cases as accountants and CPTAs. Financial institutions are required to verify the name and location of the head or main office of a legal person using either a certificate of registered matters seal registration certificate or any other document issued by a public agency which includes this information (PTCPA Article 4(1); Ordinance Article 4(ii), (a) (b)). The certificate of registered matters contains additional information on a companys date of establishment, lines of business, capital, number of shares issued (and rules concerning transfer of shares) as well as the name, address, and date of nomination of the companys director. The seal registration certificate, which registers a companys seal, contains additional information including the
18. 19. 20.
for natural and legal persons prior to establishing business relationships. In addition, Article 4(2) provides that where the natural person who is actually conducting the transaction is not the customer concerned, the specified business operator is obliged, in addition to identifying the customer concerned, to identify the natural person who is actually conducting the specified transaction. Specified business operators are also obliged to perform customer due diligence on the representative agent acting on behalf of a legal person. In addition, there are specific instances in which identification of beneficial ownership is called for under the Order. For example, financial institutions (which include trust companies) are required to conduct customer due diligence on both the settlor and beneficiary of a trust and on the beneficiary of an insurance contract (Order Arts.5, 8(1)(i)(c), (d), (g)). 100. Upon conducting customer identification, specified business operators are obligated to prepare records and maintain these for seven years from the day on which the business relationship was terminated (PTCPA Art.6). The following records are required to be maintained (Ordinance Art.10(1)): name and other matters sufficient for identifying the person for whom identification was conducted; name of the person who conducted the customer identification and name of the person who prepared the customer identification records; the date and time the customer identification document was presented in cases where the customer identification was conducted face-to-face; the type of transaction for which customer identification was conducted; the method by which customer identification was conducted; the title of the customer identification documents, or copies thereof, the mark or number attached thereto, sufficient for identifying the document or copy thereof; and the account number for searching transaction records.
101. Failure to conduct customer due diligence or maintain records as required by the PTCPA is an offence. The administrative authorities can order specified business operators who commit the offence to take remedial actions (Art.16). Where the specified business operators commit an offense to the order, they are subject to imprisonment with work for not more than two years or a fine of not more than JPY 3 million (EUR 26 086), or both (Art.23).
companys seal registration number, the name and date of birth of the companys president or principal officer as well as seal of the Regional Legal Affairs Bureau (i.e. the local office of the Ministry of Justice) responsible for the registration.

102. Practicing attorneys must register with the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) through the local bar association of which they are a member. Article 8 of the PTCPA delegates authority for customer identification rulemaking to the JFBA. JFBA implemented this obligation by adopting the Regulation Relating to Identification of Clients and Record-Keeping. The Regulation, which came into force in July 2007, requires practicing attorneys to identify and verify the identification data of their clients (when the client is a natural person, by his/her name, address and date of birth, and when the customer is a legal person, by its name and location of head office or main office), based on documents prepared by the government or other authorities, when administering a clients account at a financial institution or other assets in excess of JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) in connection with handling legal matters. In particular, customer identification is required in the following situations: buying and selling of real estate; investing for the purpose of establishing or managing a company, or contributing similar funds; establishment of a legal person or a similar entity; conclusion of a trust contract; or buying and selling of a company.
103. The JFBA Rules require attorneys to keep copies of customer identification documents for five years after the completion of transaction (Regulation Relating to Identification of Clients and Record-Keeping Art.3). Attorneys are subject to supervision for compliance with these obligations by the JFBA, which can take disciplinary actions for non-compliance, such as reprimand, suspension of business for not more than two years, order for withdrawal from the association, or expulsion. 104. Japans Financial Intelligence Unit reports that financial institutions and specified business operators in Japan are aware of their obligations under the PTCPA. Japans authorities have indicated that the strong compliance culture in Japan helps to ensure that obligations under the PTCPA are followed. Each of the respective Japanese authorities which regulate different service provider professions in Japan has oversight authority under the PTCPA (e.g. to the National Tax Agency as regards CPTAs).
Ownership information held by nominees

105. Japanese law does not recognise the concept of nominee ownership found in many common law jurisdictions, and this activity is not prohibited. While shareholders can transfer their economic benefits derived from the dividends on a contractual basis, companies are required to pay such dividends
to legal owners. Shareholders must register their own names in order to exercise voting rights or to receive dividends. To date, Japanese authorities have no experience with nominees. 106. Although the concept of nominee shareholding is not recognised in Japan, Japans AML legislation establishes an obligation regarding the identification of customers by specified business operators. Specified business operators who are likely involved in providing nominee services which are specified transactions (attorneys21, accountants, and CPTAs) are obliged under the PTCPA to conduct customer due diligence and are thus obliged to identify any customer for whom they act as nominees.22 107. Article 228 of the Income Tax Act provides that a person who receives the payment of interest or a dividend in relation to operations as a registered person on behalf of another person (e.g. intermediary) shall file an annual report with the tax authorities noting inter alia the names and addresses of the parties concerned and particulars concerning the payments made (dates, amounts, and source). 108. Moreover, Japans tax authorities have powers to request information from any Japanese resident, whether this relates to Japanese taxes or foreign taxes, to respond to an international request for information (as further described under Part B) and these could be used to obtain information from a person believed to be acting as a nominee. 109. The input received from Japans peers does not indicate that Japan has not responded to an international exchange of information request as a result of information not being maintained by nominee shareholders.
21. 22.
Article 8 of PTCPA provides that customer due diligence of attorneys shall be prescribed by the rules of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations in line with such cases as accountants and CPTAs. Article 4(2) of the PTCPA provides that where the natural person who is actually in charge of conducting the specified transaction with the specified business operator is not the customer concerned (e.g. where a company representative carries out a specified transaction with a specified business operator on behalf of the company), the specified business operator is obliged, in addition to conducting customer identification of the customer concerned, to conduct customer identification of the natural person who is actually in charge of conducting the specified transaction. Upon conducting customer identification, specified business operators are obligated to immediately prepare records and maintain these for seven years from the day on which the business relationship is terminated (PTCPA Art.6).
Bearer shares (ToR A.1.2)

110. Japanese law does not allow the issuance of bearer shares. 111. The ability to issue bearer shares was prohibited in 1990, with the amendment of Japans Commercial Code. The rules governing the transfer of shares in the Companies Act require the name and address of any person who acquires shares to be recorded in the companys shareholder registry. A stock company must prepare a shareholder register that records the names, addresses and other details of shareholders (Companies Act Art.121). The rules governing the transfer of shares are set out in Article 130 of the Companies Act: transfer of shares shall not be perfected against the stock company and other third parties unless the name and address of the person who acquires those shares is stated or recorded in the shareholder registry. Article 216 of the Companies Act requires stock companies that issue share certificates to state on the share certificates the name of the company and the number of shares represented by the certificate. The identification of the shareholder is not required on the certificate, but their name must be written in the shareholder registry pursuant to the provisions of Article 121 of the Companies Act. 112. Article 296 of the Companies Act provides that stock companies are obliged to hold an annual shareholders meeting. Any stock company that has bearer shares in circulation (issued prior to 1991) must give public notice prior to the shareholders meeting (former Commercial Code Art.232 (applicable to bearer shares). 23 Failure to give public notice by a company with bearer shares in circulation is an offence and subjects the director to a non-penal fine (former Commercial Code Art.498). Japans officials report that from 1991 to 2011 three stock companies made public notice in the official gazette. Japans officials also report that these three stock companies have since converted their bearer shares into registered shares (as stated in the companies articles of incorporation). Furthermore, there is no indication that ownership and identity information on bearer shareholders is an issue in Japan based on input received from Japans peers.
Partnerships (ToR A.1.3) Types of partnerships

113. Japanese law provides for the creation of four types of partnerships: civil code partnerships (nini kumiai, or NK); silent partnerships (tokumei kumiai, or TK); limited liability partnerships (yugen-sekinin jigyo kumiai,
23. The former Commercial Code is still legally valid and applies to bearer shares based on Article 12 of the supplementary provisions in the Act for Partial Revision of the Commercial Code (1990).
or LLP); and investment limited partnerships (toushi jigyou yugen sekinin kumiai or investment LPS). As at April 2010, approximately 4 000 LLPs and 2 200 investment LPSs were registered with Japans Legal Affairs Bureau. It is not known how many NKs and TKs exist in Japan due to their contractual nature. All types of partnerships in Japan do not have distinct legal personalities and are treated as pass-through arrangements for tax purposes. Therefore, partners are taxed on the bases of the profits or losses allocated to them under the partnership agreement. Partners, except for partners of a NK or TK, generally have limited liability for the partnerships liabilities.
NKs, civil code partnerships

114. A NK is defined in Article 667(1) of Japans Civil Code by reference to a partnership contract. Article 667(1) provides that a partnership contract shall become effective when each of the parties promises to engage in joint business by making a contribution. Partners of a NK conduct the partnership business jointly (Art.670) and share in the profits and losses in proportion to their respective contribution unless otherwise agreed among the partners (Art.674). Each of the partners have unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership in proportion to his or her respective contribution unless otherwise agreed among the partners (Art.675) and each own a portion of the partnership assets (Art.668). NKs themselves cannot conduct business in their own names, do not have any legal status and cannot hold real estate or own assets. Because NKs are not required to be registered, it is not possible to know the exact number of NK arrangements in Japan.
TKs, silent partnerships

115. A TK is a silent partnership arrangement provided for under Chapter IV of Part II of the Commercial Code. The silent partner(s) in the TK contribute funds under the TK agreement for the operation of a specific business carried on by an operator and in return is able to participate in the profits from the operation (Art.535). In entering into a TK arrangement, the TK silent partner(s) cannot participate in the management or operation of the business (Art.536(3)). This arrangement can be characterised as a contract, and like a contract, its existence is typically not disclosed to the public. TKs do not have any legal status and cannot hold real estate or own assets. They have no income or credits for tax purposes, do not carry on business and cannot be compared to a limited partnership. Therefore, these arrangements are not under the scope of the Global Forums Terms of Reference. TKs are, however, obliged to submit to the tax authorities distribution records which include the names and addresses of the silent partners (Income Tax Act Art.225(1)).
LLPs, limited liability partnerships

116. The Limited Liability Partnership Act, which came into force in 2005, governs LLPs. An LLP is formed when two or more individuals or corporations conclude a limited liability partnership agreement, pay the investment specified in the agreement, and register the entity with the Legal Affairs Bureau (Arts.3, 4, 57). All partners of an LLP have limited liability for the obligations of the LLP to the extent of their capital contribution in the LLP (Art.15) and must participate in the management of the LLP business (Art.13). At least one of the partners of an LLP must be an individual resident in Japan or a Japanese domestic company (e.g. a company with its head office or principal office in Japan) (Art.3(2)). LLPs are obliged to register with the Legal Affairs Bureau within two weeks from when the partnership agreement takes effect (Art.57).
LPSs, investment limited partnership

117. The Limited Partnership Act for Investment governs investment LPSs. An investment LPS is a formed by general partners who have unlimited liability and limited partners whose liability is limited to their capital investment (Art.9). General partners are responsible for managing the partnerships business (Art.7). Investment LPSs may only carry out specific business activities (e.g. acquisition and holding of shares and other specified investment activities) (Art.3). Investment LPSs are obliged to register with the Legal Affairs Bureau within two weeks from when the partnership agreement takes effect (Art.17).
Ownership information on partnerships Registration of partnerships

118. The Legal Affairs Bureau maintains publicly available registers of LLPs and investment LPSs (Limited Liability Partnership Act Art.57; Limited Partnership Act for Investment Art.17). There is no registration requirements for NKs. 119. LLPs are obliged to register with the competent branch of the Legal Affairs Bureau within two weeks from when the partnership agreement takes effect at the location of the LLPs principal office and within three weeks at the location of its secondary offices (if any) the following information (Limited Liability Partnership Act Art.57): the name, location of the office, and businesses of the LLP;
the names, or corporate names, and the addresses of the partners (if a partner is a legal person, the name and address of a person who is to perform the duties of the partner); and the duration of the existence of the partnership.
120. LLPs are further obliged to notify the Legal Affairs Bureau of any change in any of the matters, including any change of partners, maintained by the Registrar within two weeks in the district in which the principal office is located and within three weeks in the districts in which the secondary offices are located (Limited Liability Partnership Act Art.58). 121. Investment LPSs are obliged to register with the competent branch of the Legal Affairs Bureau within two weeks from when the partnership agreement takes effect at the location of its principal office and within three weeks at its secondary offices (if any) the following information (Limited Partnership Act for Investment Art.17): the name, location of the office, and businesses of the partnership; the names and addresses of the general partners; the date on which the partnership agreement takes effect; and the duration of the existence of the partnership.
122. Investment LPSs are further obliged to notify the Legal Affairs Bureau of any change in any of the above matters, including any change of general partners, maintained by the Registrar within two weeks in the district in which the principal office is located and within three weeks in the districts in which the secondary offices are located (Limited Partnership Act for Investment Art.18). The initial application for registration of an investment LPS must be accompanied by a copy of the partnership contract, which contains the names and addresses of all of the partners and classification of general partner and limited partner for each of the partners (Arts.3(2), 27). 123. The Legal Affairs Bureau maintains information in the registry of LLPs and investment LPSs for an indefinite duration and application documents for five years. When a LLP or investment LPS is liquidated, the Legal Affairs Bureau maintains registered information on the liquidated partnership for a period of twenty years (Commercial Registration Ordinance Art.34).
Tax law
124. Partnerships in Japan do not file tax returns or pay tax as they do not have distinct legal personalities and are treated as a pass-through arrangements for Japanese tax purposes. Partnership arrangements are in principle treated as

an aggregate of partners and of investors. Therefore, partners are taxed on the basis of the profits or losses allocated to them under the partnership agreement. Corporate or individual members of a partnership must recognise the income or loss arising to them under their partnership contract as the income or loss accrues. Whether or not income has been distributed from the partnership is not relevant to the timing of partnership income. The nature of the income generated by a partnerships activities will generally be retained in the hands of an individual partner, and taxed accordingly. Partners are subject to tax under the general provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Corporation Tax Act. 125. Under the Income Tax Act, parties distributing partnership profits to foreign partners (i.e. non-residents or foreign corporations) are obliged to submit information returns (and withholding returns in certain circumstances) to the Tax Office which includes the names, addresses, and distribution details of persons receiving a distribution from the partnership (Income Tax Act Art.225). Such returns identify the names and addresses of the foreign partners and other particulars concerning the distribution amounts and the partnerships total profit/losses. Japans tax authorities maintain information contained in information and withholding tax returns for an indefinite period. Japans National Tax Agency reports that Tax Offices routinely conduct examinations of parties having such obligations to ensure the fulfilment of their obligations. 126. Individual and corporate partners of an NK that has Japanese-source income/loss are obliged to maintain records corresponding to the income/loss reported on their respective individual or corporate tax returns for a period of seven (or five) years. Such records include contractual agreements, including written NK-partnership contracts (Income Tax Law Tax Law Enforcement Ordinance Arts.102, 103; Corporation Tax Law Tax Law Enforcement Ordinance Arts.66, 67). The Civil Code is, however, silent on the obligation for NK-partnership contracts to be in writing. Japans National Tax Agency reports that it is, however, the normal practice for NK contracts to be in writing and that they identify the NK partners in an identifiable way. This is to ensure proper distributions of allocable NK-partnership profits/losses are made pursuant to the NK-partnership contract. 127. A standard written NK partnership contract was provided to the assessment team. The contract contains provisions regarding the rights and duties of the partners, including provision of the names, addresses, percentage ownership interests and allocation rights of the partners. The standard NK partnership contract also contains provisions regarding the maintenance of financial statements (balance sheet, profit and loss accounts, transaction records). It is recommended, however, that Japans National Tax Agency monitor the availability of ownership and identity information for NKs, in particular any exchange of information requests that cannot be satisfied because the information is not maintained.
Information held by service providers

128. Specified business operators covered by the PTCPA are required to undertake customer due diligence when establishing a relationship with a partner acting on behalf of a partnership (see paragraphs 93-101).
Information held by the partnership or partners

129. There is no explicit requirement in Japans Civil Code for a NK to maintain information on the identity of its partners. However, knowledge of the identity of the partners is likely given the joint and several liability that rests on the partners of a NK. Furthermore, a NK must know who its partners are in order to make partnership distributions and to fulfil its statutory tax disclosure obligations (i.e. when a distribution is made to a non-resident partner) under the Income Tax Act. Each of the partners of a NK have the right to inspect the condition of the business and property of the NK regardless of whether they have a right to manage the business of the NK (Civil Code, Article 673). Accounting record-retention requirements under the Income Tax Act and Corporation Tax Act also requires the maintenance of a NK contract (for written contracts) which in practice identifies the names and addresses of the NK partners. 130. The partners of LLPs and investment LPSs are obliged to make a written partnership contract that contains the names and addresses of the partners (Limited Liability Partnership Act, Article 4; Limited Partnership Act for Investment, Article 3). LLPs and investment LPSs are obliged to update and maintain the partnership contract at their principal office in Japan as long as the partnership exists. After liquidation, core information of the partnership contract is retained in the competent branch of Legal Affairs Bureau (see para.122).
Trusts (ToR A.1.4)

131. The concept of a trust exists under Japanese law. It differs from the equivalent common law concept, most notably because there is no concept of equitable ownership and thus no separation of the legal and equitable ownership of trust assets in Japan. Trusts in Japan are primarily governed by the Trust Act, which sets out the basic private law rules. Japans Ministry of Justice is the supervising authority of the Trust Act. The Trust Business Act regulates trust business in Japan. It is a specific law under the umbrella of the Trust Act as it sets out special rules concerning various parties involved in a trust business, including the trustees obligations and responsibilities. Japans Financial Services Agency is the supervising authority of the Trust Business Act. Japanese trusts are generally vehicles for commercial dealings and are administered by trust companies.

132. Article 2 of the Trust Act provides that a trust is formed by way of a trust agreement between a settlor and a trustee, a settlors will or a settlors declaration of trust (being evidenced by a notarised deed), whereby the trustee manages the trust properties in accordance with the objective of the trust by managing or disposing of the properties and performing any other acts necessary to achieve the trusts purpose. Trustees of Japanese trusts are the sole owners of trust assets and the true counterparty in any transactions conducted in the name of the trust. Trustees, however, may not acquire any proprietorial interest in the trust assets (Art.31) or benefit from the trust assets (Art.8). 133. The Trust Act stipulates special provisions for the following types of commercial trusts: trusts with certificates of beneficial interest (Art.185); limited liability trusts (Art.216); limited liability trusts with certificates of beneficial interest (Art.248); and trusts with no provisions on the beneficiary (Art.258). In addition, the following types of trusts can be formed by other laws other than the Trust Law in Japan: specific purpose trusts (Act on Securitization of Assets); investment trusts (Act on Investment Trusts and Investment Corporations); and charitable trusts (Act on Charitable Trust). 134. The only limitations on who can act as a trustee in Japan is that trusts cannot be formed with a minor, adult ward, or person under curatorship serving as a trustee (Trust Act Art.7). There are no prohibitions for a resident of Japan to act as a trustee in relation to a trust formed under foreign law. There are license and registration qualifications under the Trust Business Act on persons carrying out trust business (i.e. trust companies) (Arts.3, 4, 7, 8, 53, 54).
Fiduciary duties of trustees

135. Trustees in Japan owe certain statutorily prescribed fiduciary duties to beneficiaries under the Trust Act and Trust Business Act, including the duty of loyalty, the duty to segregate trust assets, and the restriction on selfdealing (Trust Act Arts.30-33, Trust Business Act Arts.28-29). Trustees of Japanese trusts are required to administer trust assets in accordance with the underlying trust agreement. In addition, trustees are obliged, upon request from any beneficiary, to report on the status of trust administration as well as the status of property that belongs to trust property (Trust Act Art.36). Article 28 of the Trust Business Act obliges trust companies to carry out trust business with due care of a prudent manager in accordance with the main purpose of the trust. 136. The Trust Act also requires trustees to prepare an annual balance sheet, profit and loss statement, trust account ledger, and general ledger reflecting the financial status of trust assets and report such matters to the
beneficiaries (Art.37). Interested persons can inspect and copy these documents and records (Art.38). Any trustee who fails to perform the obligation to prepare these documents, or has made false statements or records, is subject to a non-penal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Art.270). 137. Identity information on the trustees, settlors and beneficiaries of trusts in Japan should be available in Japan from any trustee properly performing its statutorily prescribed fiduciary duties (i.e. it would be difficult for a trustee to properly conduct its duties without knowing the identity of the settlor and the beneficiaries).
Trust business
138. Trusts in Japan are typically formed by trust companies. Trust companies are regulated under the Trust Business Act. Trust business is defined as the business of accepting trusts and includes provision of services to form or create a trust, acting as a trustee or arranging for any person to act as trustee, and provision of trust administration services (Trust Business Act Art.2(1)). Resident trustees and resident administrators of foreign trusts are subject to the Trust Business Act if they conduct a trust business in Japan. A person who administers a foreign trust, but who is not a trustee, would normally do so as part of a trust business or as an income-earning activity. 139. The Trust Business Act provides that no persons other than business corporations licensed by the Prime Minister may conduct a trust business (Art.3). The power to license and register trust companies has been delegated from the Prime Minister to either Japans Financial Services Agency or Local Finance Bureaus under the Ministry of Finance (Art.87). 140. Trust companies can be banks, other financial institutions, nonfinancial institutions, or general incorporated companies that are licensed to conduct a trust business under the Trust Business Act. As of March 2010, there were 44 banks operating as trust companies with JPY 847 trillion (EUR 7.4 trillion) in trust assets and non-financial trust companies with trust assets of JPY 115 billion (EUR 1 billion). The Trust Act allows persons to undertake self-trusts as prescribed 141. by Article 3(iii) of the Trust Act, i.e. by way of writing on notarised deeds or other documents matters necessary for specifying said purpose and property and other matters prescribed by ordinances of the Ministry of Justice or by way of recording said matters on an electromagnetic medium. In the case of self trusts, the trustee is either the corporate settlor itself or a related person of the corporate settlor and part of the beneficiary rights to the trust is owned by a related person of the corporate settlor. A person who forms a self-trust is obliged to register under the Trust Business Act if the trust has more than

50 beneficiaries (Trust Business Act Art.50(2); Ordinance for Enforcement of the Trust Business Act Art.15(2)). 142. When a trust company accepts a trust under a trust agreement, it is obliged to maintain and deliver contract documents specifying inter alia the following matters to the settlor of the trust without delay (Trust Business Act, Article 26): the year, month, and day of conclusion of the trust agreement; the name of the settlor and the trade name of the trustee; matters concerning the beneficiaries (e.g. names and addresses); and the purpose and matters concerning the trust (including matters concerning the method of management or disposition of trust property).
143. Trust companies are also obliged to prepare a report on the status of trust property for each accounting period (which cannot exceed one year) and deliver it to the beneficiaries of the trust property (Trust Business Act Art.27(1)). Failure to deliver information regarding trust particulars to the beneficiaries, or delivering false information to the beneficiaries, is an offense and subjects the representatives of a trust company to imprisonment with work for not more than six months, a fine of not more than JPY 500 000 (EUR 4 348), or both (Art.96(vii) and (viii)). 144. Trust companies and persons who form self-trusts are both included as specified business operators under Japans PTCPA and are therefore subject to AML obligations, including customer due diligence and record-keeping. Article 4 of the PTCPA requires trust companies, or persons who form selftrusts, to identify their customers and verify customer identification. The Order of Enforcement of the PTCPA clarifies that customer due diligence must be conducted on both the settlor and beneficiaries of a trust (Arts.5, 8(1)(i)(c)). Upon conducting customer identification, trust companies and persons who form selftrusts are obliged to immediately prepare records and maintain these for seven years from the day on which the business relationship is terminated (Art.6). 145. Japans administrative authorities may, to the extent necessary for the enforcement of obligations under the PTCPA, including the implementation of the requirement for customer identification, collect reports from and conduct onsite inspections of trust companies (Arts.13, 14). In addition, Japans tax authorities have powers to obtain information on trusts, including information on the identity of the settlor, trustee and beneficiaries. As trust companies are regulated by the Financial Service Agency, the Agency also has a full range of administrative powers to access information held by trust companies. The Income Tax Act (Art.235(2)) and the Corporation Tax Act (Art.156-2) provide that the officials in charge of the National Tax Agency, the Regional Taxation Bureaus, or Tax Offices may ask government and public offices and other related governmental
organisations to co-operate so as to inspect, or to provide books and documents and materials relevant to the inspection conducted by the said officials.
Tax laws
146. The general rule applying to the taxation of trusts in Japan is that profits/expenses generated in a trust is/are attributed to its beneficiaries (i.e. taxed at the beneficiary level) regardless of whether the trusts income is distributed to the beneficiaries or not. That is, beneficiaries are taxed as if they directly own the assets and liabilities in the trust. In cases where no beneficiaries have been designated, income generated in a trust is attributed to the settlor (i.e. taxed in the hands of the settlor). There are in principle, however, three ways in which income from trust assets can be taxed for Japanese tax purposes: taxation on the beneficiary at the time the income accrues (this is the general rule of trust taxation); taxation on the beneficiary at the time the income is distributed to the beneficiary (this includes certain collective investment trusts and pension and retirement trusts); and taxation as a corporation at the time the income accrues to the trustee (this includes trusts which are allowed to issues beneficiary rights in the form of securities).
147. Section 227 of the Income Tax Act provides that a trustee of a trust (excluding collective investment trusts, defined retirement and pension trusts, and trusts taxable as corporations) is obliged to submit a Statement of Trust to the tax authorities within one month of the end of each business year where the trustee is a trust company or by 31 January of each year where the trustee is not a trust company (e.g. a relative acting as a trustee of a private trust). The form of the Statement of Trust is specified in Article 96(4) of the Ministry of Finance Ordinance and the particulars that must be filed with Japans tax authorities include: the name and address of the beneficiary, settlor, and trustee; when a beneficiary changes, the date of the change and its reason; the terms of the trust (trust deed); the objectives of the trust; profit and loss accounts and balance sheet information regarding the financial status of the trust; and the amount of profit (if any) distributed to the beneficiary.

148. The National Tax Agency reports that Japans income tax laws apply in a non discriminatory manner. Consequently, resident trustees of foreign trusts are obliged to file the Statement of Trust which contains particulars on the ownership of the foreign trust (regardless of whether the trust generates Japanese source income) (Income Tax Act s.227). As noted above, section 227 of the Income Tax Act does not apply to trustees of collective investment trusts, defined retirement and pension trusts, and trusts taxable as corporations. These types of trusts are, however, subject to the identification and record-retention requirements under the Trust Business Act and the PTCPA.24
Identity Information maintained by service providers

149. Financial institutions and trustees acting in a professional capacity are subject to the PTCPA and are obliged to verify the identity of the beneficiaries and settlors of any trusts which are their customers. Other specified business operators covered by the PTCPA are required to undertake customer due diligence when establishing a relationship with a trustee acting on behalf of a trust (see paragraphs 93-101).
Foundations (ToR A.1.5)

150. It is possible to form a foundation in Japan under the General Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations Act (GIAGIF Act). Foundations in Japan are typically formed for charitable purposes. The GIAGIF Act provides for the establishment of general incorporated associations (shadan hojin) and general incorporated foundations (zaidan hojin). Both general incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are granted separate legal status under the GIAGIF Act (Art.3) and are obliged to register with a local office of Japans Legal Affairs Bureau (Arts.22, 163). General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are also obliged to have one or more resident representatives.
24.
In addition to the record-retention requirements under the Trust Business Act: trustees of collective investment trusts are obliged to submit to the tax authorities a form which specifies the name and address of the beneficiary and the distribution amount pursuant to Article 225 of the Income Tax Act; trustees of defined retirement and pension trusts are obliged to withhold tax on payments to beneficiaries and submit to the tax authorities a certificate of withholding tax which specifies the name and address of the beneficiaries pursuant to Article 226 of the Income Tax Act; and trustees of trusts taxable as corporations are subject to the record-keeping retention requirements under the Corporation Tax Act (detailed in section A.2 of this report).
151. The members of a general incorporated association own the general incorporated association. A legal person as well as a natural person may be a member of a general incorporated association. However, as opposed to companies, technically no contribution is required from the members of the association. No member may be granted rights to receive any dividends or liquidation dividends (Art.11). If the association has a board of directors, each of the representative directors and other designated directors may conduct corporate affairs in accordance with the boards decisions (Arts.90 and 91). If the association has no board of directors, each director may conduct corporate affairs in accordance with decisions made by a majority of the directors (Art.76). 152. A general incorporated foundation has no members. Each of the representative directors and other designated directors (Arts.197, 90, 91) may conduct corporate affairs in accordance with the decisions of the board of directors although certain material matters of the foundation must be decided by the board of councillors (Art.178). Directors of a foundation are elected at the board of councillors meeting (Arts.177, 63), and representative directors are elected at the board of directors meeting (Arts.197, 90).
Ownership information on foundations Registration of foundations

153. General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are obliged to register their incorporation with the competent branch of the Legal Affairs Bureau at the address of their principal office (GIAGIF Act Arts.22, 163). The applications for registration of a general incorporated association and a general incorporated foundation both require inter alia the following information (Arts.301, 302): the name and purpose; the location of the principal office and branch offices; if there are provisions in the articles of incorporation with regard to the duration or the grounds for dissolution, such provisions; the names of the foundation councillors, directors, and auditors; and the name and address of the representative director.
154. General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations must also attach to their application for registration their notarised articles of incorporation, which specify inter alia the names and addresses of the founders and, in the case of a general incorporated association, the names and addresses of the members (general incorporated foundations have

no members) (GIAGIF Act Arts.10, 11, 13, 152, 153, 155, 318, 319). Articles of incorporation are also required to be maintained at the entitys principal office in Japan (Arts.14, 156). Associations and foundations are further obliged to notify the Legal Affairs Bureau within two weeks of any change to the particulars previously registered (Art.303). The Legal Affairs Bureau maintains information in its registry of associations and foundations for an indefinite duration and maintains application documents for five years. When a foundation is liquidated, the Legal Affairs Bureau maintains registered information on the liquidated foundation for a period of twenty years (Commercial Registration Ordinance Art.34).
Information maintained by the foundation

155. General incorporated associations are obliged to prepare and maintain membership registries listing the names and addresses of their legal members (GIAGIF Act Art.31). The membership registry must be kept at the foundations principal office in Japan and be available for inspection by the foundations members (Art.32). 156. General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are obliged to prepare and maintain accurate accounting books, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, business reports, and detailed annexed statements thereof (GIAGIF Act Arts.120-129, 199). The accounting books, amongst other things, identify beneficiaries (if any) who have received payments from the foundation or association. Accounting books must be retained for 10 years from the time they are closed (Arts.120, 199). 157. General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are further obliged to prepare and maintain notarised articles of incorporation, which specify inter alia the names and addresses of the founders and, in the case of a general incorporated association, the names and addresses of the members (foundations have no members) (GIAGIF Act Arts.11, 152, 155, 318, 319). Articles of incorporation are required to be maintained at the at the foundations/associations principal office in Japan (Arts.14, 156).
Tax Law
158. Under Japans Corporation Tax Act, general incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations (foundations) are categorised by way of their organisational design and contents of their articles of incorporation. In principle, foundations are categorised as either: foundations whose income is subject to corporate tax; or foundations whose income derived from profit making businesses is subject to corporate tax when it conducts a specified business (profit-making business). The former are required to submit tax notifications to the tax authorities at the time of establishment,
while the latter are required to submit notification of commencement of profit-making business to the tax authorities only when they commence profit-making business operations (Corporation Tax Act Arts.148, 150). The Legal Affairs Bureau provides information to the National Tax Office concerning the registration of incorporation of general incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations. Based on the information provided by the Legal Affairs Bureau, the tax authorities direct foundations not having submitted their tax notifications to do so.
Information held by service providers

159. Specified business operators covered by the PTCPA are required to undertake customer due diligence when establishing a relationship with a foundation or association who is a customer (through a natural person who is actually in charge of conducting the specified transaction with the specified business operator on behalf of the customer) (see paragraphs 93-101).
Enforcement provisions to ensure availability of information (ToR A.1.6)

160. The existence of appropriate penalties for non-compliance with key obligations is an important tool for jurisdictions to effectively enforce obligations to retain identity and ownership information. 161. The Companies Act provides a variety of penalties to ensure that accurate information is maintained on the legal ownership and control of companies incorporated in Japan and foreign companies conducting continuous transactions in Japan. Failure to complete a required registration under the provisions of the Companies Act is punishable by a non-penal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Companies Ac, Art.976(i)). Likewise, failure to state or record matters to be stated or recorded (or recording false matters) in the articles of incorporation and shareholder registry is punishable by a non-penal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (Art.976(vii)). Fines under Article 976 can be levied against inter alia the companys incorporator, directors, auditor, and administrator of shareholder registry (Art.976). Moreover, providing false information to the Legal Affairs Bureau which causes the Registrar to make a false entry in the registry is punishable by imprisonment with work for not more than five years or a fine of not more than JPY 500 000 (EUR 4 348) (Penal Code Art.157(1)). 162. The Legal Affairs Bureau reports that contents of the commercial registry are accurate and reliable because: the matters to be registered under the Companies Act (e.g. the changing of a director) cannot be asserted against a bona fide third party until after the registration of such matters (Companies Act Art.908); those who fail to register or register false

information intentionally are punished; and registration applicants are obliged to submit documents necessary to investigate the contents of the application. The Registrar in each competent branch of the Legal Affairs Bureau has specialised legal knowledge and examines the contents of applications. In cases where the Legal Affairs Bureau comes to know about a person who has failed to meet his/her registration obligations which subjects them to non-penal fines, the Registrar will notify such a fact to the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice is responsible for asserting and collecting fines imposed under the Companies Act. In addition, Japans State Redress Law is applied to inappropriate conduct of a Registrar and the government compensates damages to those who rely on information registered in the commercial registry. 163. Stock companies are obliged to prepare and maintain a shareholder registry (Companies Act Art.121). Failure to maintain a shareholder registry is punishable by a non-penal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Art.976(viii)). 164. Failure to provide a required registration under the Limited Liability Partnership Act and Limited Partnership Act for Investment is an offence and subjects the partners of a LLP and general partners of a investment LPS to a civil fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Limited Liability Partnership Act Art.75(i); Limited Partnership Act for Investment Art.34). 165. The partners of LLPs and investment LPSs are obliged to make and retain a written partnership contract that contains the names and addresses of the partners (Limited Liability Partnership Act Art. 4; Limited Partnership Act for Investment Art.3). Failure to maintain a partnership agreement is punishable by a civil fine of JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695). 166. Trust companies are obliged to prepare a report on the status of trust property for each accounting period (which cannot exceed one year) and deliver it to the beneficiaries of the trust property (Art.27(1)). Failure to deliver information regarding trust particulars to the beneficiaries, or delivering false information to the beneficiaries, is an offence and subjects the representatives of a trust company to imprisonment with work for not more than six months, a fine of not more than JPY 500 000 (EUR 4 348), or both (Art.96(vii) and (viii)). 167. General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are obliged to register information that identifies their founders and members of the foundation council. Failure to register, or registering false documents, with the Legal Affairs Bureau is an offence and subjects the foundations directors and council to a non-penal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (Art.342). General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are also obliged to prepare and maintain accurate accounting books (GIAGIF Act Art. 120, 199). The accounting books, amongst other things,
identify beneficiaries (if any) who have received payments from the foundation or association. Failure to maintain, or recording false entries in, accounting books is an offence and subjects the directors and foundation council to a non-penal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Art.342). 168. General incorporated associations are obliged to prepare and maintain a membership registry listing the names and addresses of its members (GIAGIF Act Art.31). Failure to maintain a membership registry, or making false statements in the registry, is an offence and subjects the general incorporated associations directors and foundation council to a non-penal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Art.342). 169. Specified business operators under Japans PTCPA are obliged to identify and maintain records on the identities of their customers and the natural person who is actually in charge of conducting a specified transaction. Failure to conduct customer due diligence or maintain records as required by the PTCPA is an offense and the administrative authorities can order the specified business operators who commit the offence to take remedial actions (Art.16). If the specified business operators commit an offence to the order, they are subject to imprisonment with work for not more than two years or a fine of not more than JPY 3 million (EUR 26 086), or both (Art.23). 170. Japans administrative authorities may, to the extent necessary for the enforcement of obligations under the PTCPA, including the implementation of the requirement for customer identification, collect reports from and conduct on-site inspections (Arts.13, 14). Attorneys are subject to supervision for compliance with these obligations by the JFBA, which can take disciplinary actions for non-compliance, such as reprimand, suspension of business for not more than two years, order for withdrawal from the association, or expulsion. 171. A variety of strict tax examinations are conducted in Japan for legal and individual taxpayers that attempt to evade their tax obligations. Case selection processes are supported by the KSK system, which contains data related to income tax returns, corporation tax returns, and a variety of information sources, from the viewpoint of business type, business form, and business size. The National Tax Agency reports that it has a structure to efficiently collect information which is effective for examinations. 172. Civil penalties for Japanese tax purposes are collectively referred to as kasanzei. They generally apply when tax returns have not been submitted by required deadlines or not submitted correctly and have the nature of an administrative sanction. The following lists the types of penalties under Japans tax laws:

Description Additional tax for deficient returns (Kasyoushinkoku-kasanzei) Additional tax for no return or return after due date (Mushinkoku-kasanzei) Heavy additional tax (Juukasanzei) Tax Law General Act of National Taxes, Article 65 General Act of National Taxes, Article 66 General Act of National Taxes, Article 68 Penalty Amount 10% or 15% of additional duties and taxes 15% or 20% of additional duties and taxes 35% (deficient returns) or 40% (no return or return after due date) of total amount of duties and taxes in relations to hiding or disguising the fact based on which taxable income should be calculated Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year, or a fine not exceeding JPY 500 000 Imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and/or a fine not exceeding JPY 10 million or not exceeding evaded tax amount Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, and/ or a fine not exceeding JPY 5 million or not exceeding evaded tax amount * Revocation of blue return eligibility Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year, or a fine not exceeding JPY 500 000
No return (or information return) or return after due date without due cause Tax evasion
Income Tax Act, Article 241; Corporation Tax Act, Article 160 Income Tax Act, Article 238; Corporation Tax Act, Article 159
Tax evasion due to no submission of tax return
Income Tax Act, Article 238; Corporation Tax Act, Article 159
Noncompliance of preparing and maintaining books and records
Income Tax Act, Article 150; Corporation Tax Act, Article 127
Noncompliance in submitting Income Tax Act, Article 242 information return
* Effective from 30 August 2011..
173. To impose correct taxes on taxpayers who intentionally evade taxes using fraud or other illegal acts, the tax authorities conduct tax examinations by exercising its compulsory authority, using methods similar to those used in criminal investigations conducted by other enforcement authorities. In a criminal investigation, tax collectors consider the following factors in determining whether the case is criminal (i.e. tax crime): degree of maliciousness; scale of the offence; degree of evidence to be gathered for the sake of building a criminal case; and other such factors. Tax collectors (criminal investigators) of the tax authorities are to report charges to Japans public prosecutors to request criminal prosecution (public prosecutors then make final decision regarding the institution of prosecution after their own investigations). 174. In fiscal year 2009, the tax authorities commenced 213 criminal investigations, processed 210 cases, including those carried over from the previous fiscal year, of which it charged 149 cases that were forwarded to public prosecutors. In fiscal year 2009, 141 cases were all convicted at the Court of First Instance with an average prison sentence of 14.6 months and average fines amounting to about JPY 17 million (EUR 147 800). Seven persons were sentenced to prison without probation. Prison sentences without probation have been handed down every year since 1980. 175. There is a variety of penalties under Japans laws to ensure that information required to be maintained is, in fact, maintained. The penalties appear to be proportionate and dissuasive enough to ensure compliance. Most of Japans laws provide a range of penalties, including small to large monetary fines depending on the level of infraction and imprisonment in egregious cases. In addition, the tax authority is able to respond to requests for ownership and identity information for all types of legal entities and arrangements. Information received from partner jurisdictions with an exchange of information relationship with Japan confirms this.
Determination and factors underlying recommendations
Phase 1 determination The element is in place. Phase 2 rating Compliant.
A.2. Accounting records

Jurisdictions should ensure that reliable accounting records are kept for all relevant entities and arrangements.
176. The Terms of Reference sets out the standards for the maintenance of reliable accounting records and the necessary accounting record retention period. It provides that reliable accounting records should be kept for all relevant entities and arrangements. To be reliable, accounting records should: (i) correctly explain all transactions; (ii) enable the financial position of the entity or arrangement to be determined with reasonable accuracy at any time; and (iii) allow financial statements to be prepared. Accounting records should further include underlying documentation, such as invoices, contracts, etc. Accounting records need to be kept for a minimum of five years.
General requirements (ToR A.2.1)

177. The Corporation Tax Act and Income Tax Act contain provisions requiring the maintenance of accounting records that correctly explain all transactions, enable the financial position of relevant entities and arraignments to be determined with reasonable accuracy at any time, and allow financial statements to be prepared. Other specific acts, as described below, add to or reinforce the record-keeping requirements contained in the Corporation Tax Act and Income Tax Act.
Tax laws
178. The Corporation Tax Act provides the obligations for companies, foundations25, associations26, and trusts taxable as corporations (e.g. trusts which are allowed to issues beneficiary rights in the form of securities) to prepare and retain accounting records for a period of seven years. Details of accounting records are specified in Articles 66 and 67 of the Corporation Tax Law Enforcement Ordinance. Article 66 provides that all companies shall prepare cashbooks and other required accounting books which systematically and clearly record items pertaining to transactions and perform account settlements on the basis of those records. Foreign companies are obliged to prepare such records for operations resulting in Japanese-source income as stipulated in Article 42 of the Corporation Tax Act (Computation of Income Amounts Pertaining to Domestic Source Income). Article 67 clarifies the
25. 26. Charitable foundations are not subject to the obligations unless they run profitmaking business. Charitable associations are not subject to the obligations unless they run profitmaking business.
types of documents required to be prepared and maintained under Articles 42 and 66, and these include: copies of contractual agreements, invoices, receipts, estimates, and other documents corresponding to these materials that are received from counterparties to a transaction; and financial statements such as inventory sheets, balance sheets, profit and loss statements and other documents prepared with regard to account settlements.
179. Article 67 of the Corporation Tax Law Enforcement Ordinance further provides that companies are obliged to consolidate their accounting records and preserve the records for seven years at the place for tax payments (i.e. in Japan). If a company wishes to keep accounting records electronically for tax purposes, it is obliged to apply for electronic record retention with its local Tax Office. In practice, Tax Offices will approve the request if the company demonstrates that it can keep documents electronically in compliance with Japans tax laws (Electronic Book Keeping Act Art.4). 180. Article 231 of the Income Tax Act provides that a resident who performs operations that generate real estate income, business income, or timber income in the year (and a non-resident who performs such operations in Japan) shall, as specified by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, maintain accounting books and record therein the matters concerning the gross revenue and necessary expenses for transactions in the relevant year and preserve these books (including documents prepared or received concerning the operations). Articles 102 and 103 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance provide that residents and non-residents are obliged to consolidate the following accounting books and documents and maintain such documents for seven or five years at the location of their address or business address: accounting books with respect to all transactions, stock sheets, inventory sheets, balance sheets, profit and loss statements and any other such documents prepared with regard to accounting (seven years); and underlying documentation including claims, delivery slips, receipts, and other documents (including contractual agreements) that are made or received with respect to the operation (five years).
Companies
181. Article 432 of the Companies Act requires every stock company to prepare accurate books in a timely manner and to retain its account books and important materials regarding its business for ten years from the time of the closing of the account books. Article 435 of the Companies Act requires

every stock company to prepare financial statements (meaning balance sheets, profit and loss statements and other statements as is necessary and appropriate in order to reflect the status of the assets and profits and losses of a stock company) and business reports for each business year and supplementary schedules thereof. Stock companies are obliged to retain their financial statements and supplementary schedules thereof for ten years from the time of their preparation (Art.435(4)). Financial statements must be kept at the stock companys head office (Art.442). Stock companies are further obliged to give public notice of their balance sheets (or, for large companies27, their balance sheets and profit and loss statements) immediately after the conclusion of the annual shareholders meeting (Art.440). 182. Article 615 of the Companies Act requires every membership company (i.e. a general partnership company, limited partnership company, or limit liability company) to prepare accurate books in a timely manner and to retain its account books and important materials regarding its business for ten years from the time of the closing of the account books. Article 617 of the Companies Act requires every membership company to prepare financial statements (meaning balance sheets and other statements that are necessary and appropriate in order to indicate the status of the property of a membership company). Membership companies are obliged to retain their financial statements for ten years from the time of their preparation (Art.617(4)). 183. A liquidator must retain the books of the liquidating stock company or membership company as well as any material data regarding the business and liquidation of the same for a period of ten years from the time of the registration of completion of the liquidation at the location of head office of the liquidating company (Companies Act Arts.508, 672).
Partnerships
184. The Limited Liability Partnership Act and Limited Partnership Act for Investment respectively provide accounting record retention rules for LLPs and investment LPSs. Individual or corporate partners are also subject to the record-keeping requirements under the Income Tax Act and Corporation Tax Act, respectively.
27.
A large company means any stock company which satisfies any of the following requirements: the amount of the stated capital in the balance sheet as of the end of its most recent business year is JPY 500 million (EUR 4.35 million) or more; or the total sum of the amounts in the liabilities section of the balance sheet as of the end of its most recent business year is JPY 20 billion (EUR 173.9 million) or more (Companies Act Art.2).
185. Article 28 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act provides that the accounting of an LLP shall be governed by generally accepted corporate accounting practices. Partners of a LLP are obliged to prepare a balance sheet of the partnership as of the date of formation of the partnership. Partners are also obliged, within two months from the end of each business year, to prepare a balance sheet, profit and loss statement and other detailed statements of the partnership (which must include the amount of each capital contribution made by each partner for the relevant business year) (Arts.29(1)(2); 31(2)). Such documents may be prepared in electronic format and the partners are obliged to retain these documents at the LLPs principal office in Japan for 10 years from the preparation thereof (Art.31(3), (4). Liquidators of LLPs are obliged to preserve the financial books of the LLP in liquidation and material documents regarding the LLPs business and liquidation for 10 years from the registration of the conclusion of liquidation in the district in which the principal office of the LLP in liquidation is located (Art.52). Failure to prepare and retain, or recording false matters in, financial statements is an offense and subjects the partners or liquidators of a LLP to a non-penal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Art.75). 186. Article 8 of the Limited Partnership Act for Investment provides that the general partners of a investment LPS are obliged to prepare, within three months after the end of each business year, a balance sheet, profit and loss statement and business report, along with detailed attachments (referred to as financial statements). Financial statements of a investment LPS must be maintained by the general partners at the principal office of the investment LPS for a period of 5 years (Art.8). General partners of investment LPSs are further obliged to maintain an audit report prepared by either a certified public accountant or an accounting firm for a period of five years (Art.8(2)). All partners of investment LPSs may inspect or request a copy of the financial statements and audit report at any time (Art.8(3)). Failure to prepare and retain, or recording false matters in, financial statements is an offense and subjects the general partners or liquidators of a investment LPS to a nonpenal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Art.34). 187. There are no specific provisions in the Civil Code requiring the maintenance of accounting records for NKs. However, corporate and individual partners of a NK are obliged to prepare and maintain consolidated accounting records of the NK pursuant to the Corporation Tax Act and Income Tax Act, respectively. As a practical matter, NK members must include income arising from their NK interests in their corporate or individual tax returns compliant with Japans tax laws. NKs typically draw up their accounts for a period that coincides with the accounting period of the majority of their members to calculate taxable income. Standard NK contracts typically include a requirement for the NK to prepare financial records under Japanese generally accepted accounting principles.
Trusts
188. The Trust Act requires all trustees, including trustees subject the Trust Business Act, to prepare a balance sheet, profit and loss statement, trust account ledger, and general ledger reflecting the financial status of trust assets and report such matters to the beneficiaries (Article 37). Interested persons can inspect and copy these documents and records (Art.38). Any trustee who fails to perform the obligation to prepare these documents, or has made false statements or records, is subject to a civil fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Art.270). In addition, trustees are obliged, upon request from any beneficiary at any time, to report on the status of trust administration as well as the status of property that belongs to trust property (Trust Act Art.36). 189. Trust companies are also obliged to prepare a report on the status of trust property for each accounting period (which cannot exceed one year) and deliver it to the beneficiaries of the trust property (Trust Business Act, Art.27(1)). It is also provided under the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Trust Business Act that trust companies are obliged to prepare and maintain a trust account ledger for ten years from the maturity of the trust, and general ledger for five years since the inception of the trust. 190. Failure to deliver information regarding trust particulars to the beneficiaries, or delivering false information to the beneficiaries, is an offense and subjects the representatives of a trust company to imprisonment with work for not more than six months, a fine of not more than JPY 500 000 (EUR 4 348), or both (Art.96(vii) and (viii)). 191. In addition, section 227 of the Income Tax Act provides that a trustee of a trust (excluding collective investment trusts, defined retirement and pension trusts, and trusts taxable as corporations) is obliged to submit a Statement of Trust to the tax authorities within one month after the end of each business year in the case where the trustee is a trust company or by 31 January each year in the case where the trustee is not a trust company. The form of the Statement of Trust is specified in article 96(4) of the Ministry of Finance Ordinance and the particulars that must be filed with Japans tax authorities include profit and loss accounts and balance sheet information regarding the financial status of the trust, and the amount of profit (if any) distributed to the beneficiary. Trustees of trusts taxable as corporations (e.g. trusts which are allowed to issues beneficiary rights in the form of securities) are subject to the record-keeping requirements under the Corporation Tax Act. Individual trustees are subject to the record-keeping requirements under the Income Tax Act.
Foundations
192. General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are obliged to prepare and maintain accurate accounting books, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, business reports, and detailed annexed statements thereof (GIAGIF Act Arts.120-129, 199). The accounting books, amongst other things, identify beneficiaries (if any) who have received payments from the foundation or association. Accounting books must be retained for 10 years from the time they are closed (Arts.120, 199). Failure to maintain, or recording false entries in, accounting books is an offence and subjects the directors and foundation council to a non-penal fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695) (Art.342). 193. General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are also subject to the same record-keeping requirements as companies under the Corporation Tax Act if they run a profit-making business (GIAGIF Arts.120, 199).
Service providers
194. Specified business operators under the PTCPA (as defined in paragraphs 93-101) are obliged, upon concluding a transaction, to prepare transaction records and to maintain those records for seven years from the day the transaction was conducted (PTCPA Art.7). Transaction records include: the date of the transaction; the type and value of the transaction; and matters sufficient for identifying the original possessor and destination for transactions which accompany the transfer of property (PTCPA Ordinance Art.14). However, transactions exempted from the PTCPA record-keeping requirement include: transactions without transfer of property; transactions with transfer of property which amount to less than JPY 10 000 (EUR 86); and with respect to money exchange businesses, the purchase or sale of foreign currency or travellers checks of less than JPY 2 million (EUR 12 700).
Underlying documentation (ToR A.2.2)

195. For tax purposes, persons subject to Japans Corporation Tax Act or Income Tax Act have a statutory obligation to maintain underlying documentation. Under the Corporation Tax Act, companies, foundations, associations, and trusts taxable as corporations are obliged to maintain copies of contractual agreements, invoices, receipts, estimates, and other documents corresponding to these materials that are received from counter-parties to a transaction (Corporation Tax Law Enforcement Ordinance Art.67). Foreign companies are also obliged to prepare and maintain such records for their operations that result in Japanese-source income. Under the Income Tax Act, individuals who perform operations that generate real estate income, business

income, or timber income are obliged to maintain underlying documentation that includes claims, delivery slips, receipts, and other documents (including contractual agreements) that are made or received with respect to the operation (Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance Arts.102, 103). Non-residents who perform such operations in Japan are also obliged to prepare and maintain such records (Income Tax Act Art.231). 196. Article 37(5) of the Trust Act provides that where a trustee has prepared or acquired a written contract relating to the disposition of property that belongs to the trust property or any other documents or electromagnetic records concerning the trust administration, the trustee is obliged to retain such documents or records for ten years from the date of the preparation or acquisition. Accordingly, trustees are obliged to maintain underlying documentation concerning the trust administration (such as contracts, invoices, etc.) irrespective of the type if income (if any) they generate. In practice, Japans tax authorities report no issues regarding the availability of underlying documentation for trusts. 197. Charitable foundations and charitable associations are obliged to prepare and maintain accurate accounting books, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, business reports, and detailed annexed statements thereof (GIAGIF Act Arts.120-129, 199). They are also obliged to maintain important materials pertaining to its business (Art.120). Japans tax authorities report that important materials pertaining to its business include underlying documentation such as invoices and contracts. Additionally, Japans tax authorities report that charitable foundations and charitable associations are obliged to submit, upon request, information concerning the circumstances of their operational organisation and business activity, which may include such items as contracts and invoices. 198. Several of Japans exchange of information partners who provided input regarding the review of Japan noted that Japan has been able to provide underlying documentation, including receipts, invoices, transaction records, and contractual agreements, in response to specific requests for exchange of information.
Document retention (ToR A.2.3)

199. The record-keeping requirements contained in Corporation Tax Act are subject to a general retention period of seven years, in principle, two months after the end of the income year to which they relate (Corporation Tax Law Enforcement Ordinance Art.67). The record-keeping requirements contained in the Income Tax Act are subject to a general retention period of seven (or five) years after the end of the income year to which they relate (Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance Arts.102, 103).
200. Articles 432 and 615 of the Companies Act obliges stock companies and membership companies, respectively, to maintain accounting records for ten years from the time of their closing. A liquidator appointed in relation to a company is required to retain the accounts and records of the liquidated company for a minimum of ten years from the time of the registration of completion of the liquidation (Art.s.508, 672). 201. Partners of LLPs are obliged to maintain accounting records of the LLP for ten years from the time of their preparation (Limited Liability Partnership Act Art.31(4)). General partners of investment LPSs are obliged to maintain accounting records of the LPS for five years from the time of their preparation (Limited Partnership Act for Investment Art.8). 202. Trustees subject to Japans Trust Business Act are obliged to maintain a trust account ledger for ten years from the maturity of the trust and a general ledger for five years from the inception of the trust (Ordinance of Enforcement of the Trust Business Act). 203. General incorporated associations and general incorporated foundations are obliged to maintain accounting records for 10 years from the time they are closed (GIAGIF Act Arts.123, 199). 204. Specified business operators under the PTCPA are obliged to maintain transaction records for seven years from the day the transaction was conducted (PTCPA Art.7). 205. Information received from Japans peers notes that in all cases Japan has been able to provide the requested accounting records.
A.3. Banking information

Banking information should be available for all account-holders.
206. In Japan, the Financial Services Agency serves as the regulatory authority for financial institutions. Banks are companies that have been established in accordance with the Companies Act and have obtained a licence to conduct banking business in accordance with the Banking Act. The Banking

Act empowers the Commissioner of the Financial Services Agency to demand reports and materials concerning the business or financial conditions of a bank (including its agencies), to conduct on-site inspections at bank premises, to penalise misconduct (suspension of a banks operations or revocation of its license) and to order a bank to hold a part of its assets within Japan. 207. The application process for a banking license in Japan is set out in Article 1(8) of the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Banking Act. The licence application has to be signed by all directors, and documents required to be submitted include the applicants articles of incorporation, certificate of registered matters, minutes of the initial meeting, detailed business plan, resumes of all directors, company auditors and accounting advisors and locations of each business office.
Record-keeping requirements (ToR A.3.1)

208. Article 7 of the PTCPA requires financial institutions, upon concluding a transaction (international or domestic), to immediately prepare transaction records and to maintain those records for seven years from the day the transaction was conducted (Art.7). Article 14 of the Ordinance mandates that transaction records consist of: the account number and other matters to be used for the purpose of searching customer identification records; the date of the transaction; the type and value of the transaction; and matters sufficient for identifying the original possessor and destination for transactions which accompany the transfer of property.
209. There are exceptions in the record-keeping requirements under the PTCPA for small transactions. Transactions exempted from the PTCPA record-keeping requirements include (Order Art.13): transactions without transfer of property; transactions with transfer of property which amount to less than JPY 10 000 (EUR 86); and with respect to money exchange businesses, the purchase or sale of foreign currency or travellers checks of less than JPY 2 million (EUR 12 700).
210. In terms of customer due diligence, upon conducting customer identification, specified business operators are obligated to prepare records and maintain these for seven years from the day on which the business
relationship was terminated (PTCPA Art.6). The following records are required to be maintained (Ordinance Art.10(1)): name and other matters sufficient for identifying the person for whom identification was conducted; name of the person who conducted the customer identification and name of the person who prepared the customer identification records; the date and time the customer identification document was presented in cases where the customer identification was conducted face-to-face; the type of transaction for which customer identification was conducted; the method by which customer identification was conducted; the title of the customer identification documents, or copies thereof, the mark or number attached thereto, sufficient for identifying the document or copy thereof; and the account number for searching transaction records.
211. Banks and other financial institutions are also subject to recordkeeping requirements under the Corporation Tax Act, which stipulates the obligations for companies to prepare and retain transaction records for a period of seven years. Banks and other financial institutions are obliged to maintain records that systematically and clearly record all transactions (including small transactions as defined for purposes of Japans AML record-keeping regime) and to perform account settlements based on those records (Corporation Tax Law Enforcement Ordinance Arts.66, 67). Article 67 of the Corporation Tax Law Enforcement Ordinance requires the maintenance of copies of contractual agreements and other documents corresponding to these materials that are received from counter-parties to a transaction. Article 67 further provides that companies are obliged to preserve these records for seven years. 212. There are sufficient legal obligations in place for banks and other financial institutions to maintain all records pertaining to accounts as well as to related financial and transactional information in Japan. Furthermore, input received from Japans peers indicates that Japan is able to exchange bank records for all types of legal entities and arrangements. Japan reports that bank information is maintained for all clients and that its competent authority has not encountered issues regarding availability of bank information, both for domestic tax cases and for providing exchange of information assistance.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: ACCESS TO INFORMATION 69
B. Access to information
213. A variety of information may be needed in a tax enquiry and jurisdictions should have the authority to obtain all such information. This includes information held by banks and other financial institutions as well as information concerning the ownership of companies or the identity of interest holders in other persons or entities, such as partnerships and trusts, as well as accounting information in respect of all such entities. This section of the report examines whether Japans legal and regulatory framework gives the authorities access powers that cover all relevant persons and information and whether rights and safeguards are compatible with effective exchange of information. It also assesses the effectiveness of this framework in practice.
Overview
214. Japans tax authorities have the necessary powers to obtain bank, ownership, identity, and accounting information and have enforcement measures to compel the production of such information. The ability of Japans tax authorities to obtain information for exchange of information purposes is derived from its general access powers under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act coupled with the authority provided by the relevant exchange of information agreements. There are no statutory bank secrecy provisions in place that would restrict effective exchange of information. 215. Japans competent authority (in practice, the National Tax Agencys Director of the International Operations Division), when requested by a foreign counterpart, can retrieve information with the assistance of officials within Regional Taxation Bureaus and Tax Offices, which have the necessary powers under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act to access information from taxpayers and third parties. Officials within the National Tax Agency have access to the National Tax Agencys KSK system, which contains relevant tax return and information return information, as well as relevant information provided by the Legal Affairs Bureau. As a result, approximately 20% of Japans exchange of information requests in the past three years ending 31 December 2009 have been responded to without the need for involvement
70 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: ACCESS TO INFORMATION

of the Regional Taxation Bureaus or Tax Offices. The co-ordination procedures between Japans competent authority and the Regional Taxation Bureaus and Tax Offices are clearly defined and effective in practice. 216. Application of rights and safeguards (e.g. notification, appeal rights) in Japan do not unduly prevent or delay effective exchange of information.
B.1. Competent Authoritys ability to obtain and provide information

Competent authorities should have the power to obtain and provide information that is the subject of a request under an exchange of information arrangement from any person within their territorial jurisdiction who is in possession or control of such information (irrespective of any legal obligation on such person to maintain the secrecy of the information).
Bank, ownership, and identity information (ToR B.1.1) and accounting records (ToR B.1.2)
217. The National Tax Agency is the Japanese government agency responsible for administering Japans tax laws and the assessment and collection of internal taxes. The National Tax Agency supervises 12 Regional Taxation Bureaus and 524 Tax Offices throughout Japan. The National Tax Agency Head Office sets the strategy for the tax administration, and supervises and oversees the administration of the Regional Taxation Bureaus and the Tax Offices. Each of the Regional Taxation Bureaus, which are supervised and overseen by the National Tax Agency, supervises and oversees Tax Offices in its jurisdiction. In addition, the Bureaus directly levy and collect taxes from large taxpayers. The Tax Offices, under the guidance and oversight of the National Tax Agency and Regional Taxation Bureaus, serve as the frontline enforcement organisations, and the administrative bodies maintaining the closest relationships with taxpayers in Japan. In fiscal year 2010, the National Tax Agency had 56 261 employees and a budget of JPY 716 billion (EUR 6.226 billion) (the majority of which was accounted for by salary costs). 218. Administration of the exchange of information articles under Japans treaty network is the responsibility of Japans competent authority, being the Minister of Finance or an authorised representative of the Minister. The Director of the International Operations Division under the National Tax Agency is authorised to act as the competent authority for international exchange of information in tax matters and, in practice, is responsible for managing and responding to all of Japans exchange of information requests. The International Operations Division is based in Tokyo. The National Tax Agency has internal administrative guidelines, the 219. Commissioners Directive for Exchange of Information with Contracting
Party of Tax Treaty, for processing incoming requests for information, including procedures relating to the exchange of information staff receiving requests and for Regional Taxation Bureaus (including Tax Offices). These procedures are based on the OECD Manual on Information Exchange. Upon receipt of a request, the competent authority performs a control check to determine whether the request is in conformity with the respective exchange of information agreement and whether there exist grounds for non-exercise of authority of inquiry and inspection (as described in B.2. of this report). 220. In approximately 20% of cases, requests for exchange of information made under Japans DTCs or TIEAs pertain to information already held by the National Tax Agency within its KSK system. The National Tax Agencys internal administrative guidelines provide the procedures used in cases where information is available from internal sources. In such cases, Japans competent authority is generally able to respond to the request without the involvement of Regional Taxation Bureaus. The guidelines also stipulate the procedures for exercising the authority of inquiries and inspections under Japans Act on Special Provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Corporation Tax Act and the Local Tax Act Incidental to Enforcement of Tax Treaties (Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act) in order to collect information from third parties in cases where requested information is not available from internal sources. 221. If requested information is in the possession or control of a taxpayer or third party, the request is forwarded from the competent authority to the competent Regional Taxation Bureau where the taxpayer or third party resides. At each Regional Taxation Bureau there is an exchange of information administrator who is responsible for receiving such requests. The request is sent electronically and logged via a management record. Upon receipt of a request, the exchange of information administrator appoints a collecting information official at a Tax Office with the closest proximity to where the taxpayer or third party possessing or controlling the information resides. Generally, Senior Examiners in International Taxation (officials who have thorough knowledge of international tax matters) are appointed to collect information. The official collecting the information is thereafter responsible for retrieving the information using Japans statutorily prescribed information gathering powers. 222. In most cases, these officials arrange a face-to-face meeting with the person or representative who is the source of the requested information (including representatives from banks). In practice, the exercise of powers of inquiry and inspection pursuant to an international exchange of information request is typically notified to the source of information; provided, however, the requesting jurisdiction did not request such information be kept confidential. At the pre-arranged meeting, the collecting information official explains

what information is required and informs the individual concerned of the consequences for failing to provide such information. The tax official sets an appropriate date for responding that is determined based on the volume and particulars requested on a case-by-case basis. Once retrieved, the information is sent via internal mail service back to the exchange of information administrator and then back to Japans competent authority. Both the exchange of information administrator and the competent authority review the information to ensure it adequately responds to the request. 223. There are no legal or procedural limitations on how a person may be audited or the number of times they may be audited that would limit the ability of the Japans competent authority or Regional Taxation Bureaus (including Tax Offices) to use their access powers for the purpose of exchange of information requests.
Powers to obtain information

224. Japans tax authorities have the necessary information gathering powers conferred on it under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act. The Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act provides the statutory authority for Japans competent authority to exchange information for tax purposes with foreign jurisdictions pursuant to the provisions of a DTC or TIEA (Art.8-2). 225. Article 9 of the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act provides that the relevant official of the National Tax Agency, Regional Taxation Bureaus, or Tax Offices may, pursuant to a request for information made under a DTC or TIEA concerning civil tax matters in the requesting jurisdiction, conduct inquires regarding parties specified in the request and inspect the accounting books and other property concerning the businesses of such parties. 226. Article 10-2 of the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act provides that the Tax Collectors (criminal investigators) may, pursuant to a request for information made under a DTC or TIEA concerning criminal tax matters in the requesting jurisdiction, conduct inquiries regarding parties specified in the request and inspect the accounting books and other property concerning the businesses of such parties. Article 10-3 of the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act also provides tax collectors with the authority to conduct search and seizure to obtain necessary information in response to a tax crime investigation in the requesting jurisdiction. Prior to exercising this authority, Tax Collectors (located in the Regional Taxation Bureaus) must obtain a permit issued by a Justice of the District Court holding jurisdiction over the location of the relevant Regional Taxation Bureau. In practice, permits for conducting search and seizure are obtained by tax collectors on the same day of making an appearance before a Justice of the District Court.
Bank information
227. There are no limitations on the ability of Japans tax authorities to obtain information held by a bank or other financial institution for either civil or criminal tax purposes in response to a specific exchange of information request. There are no special procedures used to access information held by banks or other financial institutions. There is no need for court approval when officials from the tax authorities request information from banks or other third party financial institutions. Consent of other authorities or regulatory bodies is also not required.28 228. There is no explicit requirement to specify particular details when making a request for information to Japan for bank information. As a matter of practicality, however, sufficient details would need to be provided to enable Japans tax authorities to action the request. The National Tax Agency reports that it is possible to action a request for bank information if the requesting jurisdiction provides a combination of information to specify the identity of the account holder (e.g. account number or similar identifying information). 229. The tax authorities have a good relationship with financial institutions in Japan and reports that banks are co-operative with regard to requests for information. There have been no cases where banks have refused to provide information to the tax authorities for exchange of information purposes.
Ownership and identity information and accounting records

230. There are no limitations on the ability of the tax authorities to obtain ownership and identity information and accounting records from taxpayers or third parties for civil or criminal tax purposes. There is no need for court approval when officials from the tax authorities request information from taxpayers or third parties. Court approval is required, however, to exercise search and seizure for requests regarding criminal tax matters in the requesting jurisdiction. Search and seizure is not available for requests pertaining civil tax matters in the requesting jurisdiction. 231. The TIEAs concluded by Japan include provisions that tax officials of a requesting jurisdiction can be present during examinations of taxpayers and third parties upon a requested jurisdictions consent. To date, no jurisdiction has requested to participate in an examination in Japan.
28.
As mentioned in paragraph 223, Japans tax authorities must obtain permission from the courts to exercise their search and seizure powers for a requesting jurisdiction in relation to criminal cases.
Use of information gathering measures absent domestic tax interest (ToR B.1.3)
232. The concept of domestic tax interest describes a situation where a contracting party can only provide information to another contracting party if it has an interest in the requested information for its own tax purposes. Japan has no domestic tax interest with respect to its information gathering powers. Information gathering powers provided to Japans tax authorities under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act can be used to provide exchange of information assistance regardless of whether Japan needs the information for its own domestic tax purposes.
Compulsory powers (ToR B.1.4)

233. As previously described, Japans tax authorities have the necessary powers to obtain information from natural and legal persons and have enforcement measures to compel the production of such information. Under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act, they have powers to discover and inspect any documents deemed relevant to their examination from taxpayers and third party record keepers for purposes of responding to an exchange of information request (Arts.9, 10-2, 13). The tax authorities do not have the power to compel testimony from taxpayers and third parties. In practice, this limitation has not limited Japans competent authority to respond to an information request. Input received from Japans peers confirms this. 234. Article 13 of the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act provides that any person who: fails to respond to or provides false information in response to inquiries by relevant officials; hinders or evades inspections; or submits accounting books or other documents containing false entries or records shall be punished with imprisonment with work for a term not exceeding six months or fines not exceeding JPY 500 000 (EUR 4 348). In cases where representatives of corporations or the agents of corporations or individuals commits an offense under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act, in addition to penalising the actual perpetrator, fines are assessed against the said corporations or individuals (Art.13(2)).
Secrecy provisions (ToR B.1.5)

235. The Protection of Personal Information Act prohibits business operators, including banks and other financial institutions, from providing personal data to third parties without prior consent of the customer. Article 23 of the Act contains exemptions for cases in which the provision of personal data is based on laws and regulations, or necessary for co-operation with a state organ, a local government or an individual or business operator entrusted by one in executing the affairs prescribed by laws and regulations (Art.23(i-iv)). The third-party restrictions of the Act therefore do not apply to
Japans competent authority when accessing information maintained by business operators, including banks and other financial institutions. 236. There are no other provisions under Japans laws relating to the secrecy of ownership, identity or accounting information. Japan has no bank secrecy laws which prevent banks and other financial institutions from disclosing their client information to the tax authorities. 237. All of Japans exchange of information agreements permit Japan to decline a request if responding to the request would disclose any trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secret or trade process, or information, the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy. This follows the standards set forth in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and the OECD Model TIEA. 238. Among the situations in which Japan is not obliged to supply information in response to a request is when the requested information would disclose confidential information protected by attorney-client privilege. Article 23 of the Practicing Attorney Act provides that a practicing attorney (bengoshi) or a person who was previously a practicing attorney shall have the right and duty to maintain the secrecy of any facts which he or she came to know in the performance of his or her duties; provided, however, that this shall not apply when otherwise provided for by any law. 239. Article 1 of the Practising Attorney Act provides that attorneys in Japan are entrusted with the mission of protecting fundamental human rights and achieving social justice. Article 3 further provides that the duties of an attorney in Japan, upon request of the party or the concerned parties, or upon the entrustment if public agency, are to engage in acts relating to lawsuits, non-contentious cases, objections, requests for re-examination, appeals, and other petitions against administrative agencies and other general legal services. Practicing attorneys are required to register with at least one regional bar association in Japan, which is an autonomous professional organisation affiliated with the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. 240. The communications between a client and an attorney in Japan are only privileged to the extent that the attorney acts in his or her professional capacity as attorney in the performance of his or her statutorily prescribed duties. The privilege appears to be somewhat broader than that envisaged under the standard. However, it has never been invoked to prevent exchange of information in practice nor have any of Japans peers had any difficulty obtaining information on this account. Moreover, where an attorney acts in any other capacity (e.g. as a real estate broker), the attorney client privilege does not apply. The privilege does not attach to documents or records delivered to an attorney in an attempt to protect such documents or records from disclosures required by law. In this case, exchange of information resulting

from and relating to any such communications cannot be declined because of the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, attorney client privilege protection is preserved under Japans DTCs and TIEAs and requests for that information will be declined unless the privilege has been waived. 241. In a 2001 Osaka High Court Decision and a subsequent 2002 Supreme Court decision29, it was held that Japans tax laws and the Practicing Attorney Act are interpreted to mean that the information protected by an attorneys obligation of confidentiality can be disclosed to tax officials who exercise the power of inquiry and inspection. In the decisions, the courts took account of the strict confidentiality imposed on tax officials in Japan (see para.305) and that providing information to Japans tax authorities would not directly lead to a public disclosure of the information. Japanese law also recognises a protection against disclosure for judi242. cial scriveners. Article 24 of the Judicial Scrivener Act provides that unless there is a justifiable reason, a judicial scrivener or a person who was previously a judicial scrivener shall bear the duty to maintain the confidentiality of any facts which he or she may have learned in the course of performing his or her professional duties in relation to legal cases. Japans tax authorities report that the privilege has never been invoked to prevent exchange of information in practice nor have any of Japans peers had any difficulty obtaining information on this account. Moreover, where a judicial scrivener acts in any other capacity (e.g. as a real estate broker), the privilege does not apply. 243. The power to obtain information under Japans tax laws is also restricted in the case of information held by CPAs, CPTAs and notaries. Article 27 of the Certified Public Accountants Act provides that a certified public accountant shall not, without justifiable grounds, divulge to others or misappropriate any secrets that he or she has learned concerning the matters handled in his or her services. Similarly, Article 38 of the Certified Public Tax Accountants Act provides that a certified public tax accountant shall not, without justifiable grounds, divulge to others or misappropriate any secrets learned concerning the matters handled in his or her services. Article 4 of the Notary Public Act provides a notary public shall not divulge to others any secrets that he or she has learned concerning the matters handled in his/ her services unless otherwise provided by other laws. This shall not apply when a notary public is permitted to do so by the clients. In practice, professional secrecy of CPAs, CPTAs and notaries has never been an obstacle for Japans tax authorities to respond to an exchange of information request. The information maintained by these professionals is typically available through other channels in Japan (i.e. by the clients of these professionals).
29. Osaka High Court Decision, 19 December 2001, No.13; Supreme Court Decision, 25 June 2002, No.65.
244. In a 1997 Supreme Court decision,30 it was held that a judicial scrivener did not violate his professional secrecy obligations under the Judicial Scrivener Act by disclosing information regarding a transaction of his client to Japans tax authorities. In its decision, the Court took account of the strict confidentiality imposed on tax officials in Japan (see para.305) and that providing information to Japans tax authorities would not directly lead to a public disclosure of the information. Japans tax authorities report that this precedent should be applicable to other professionals, such as CPAs, CPTAs, and notary publics.
B.2. Notification requirements and rights and safeguards

The rights and safeguards (e.g. notification, appeal rights) that apply to persons in the requested jurisdiction should be compatible with effective exchange of information.
Not unduly prevent or delay exchange of information (ToR B.2.1)

245. Japans tax authorities are not statutorily obliged to inform the person concerned of the existence of an exchange of information request. Likewise, the tax authorities are not obliged to inform the taxpayer concerned prior to contacting third parties to obtain information. 246. In practice, however, Japans tax authorities will disclose the fact that they are exercising their authority of inquiry and inspection under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act to the person in possession of the requested information. In particular, the following matters are explained to the source of information, except where the requesting jurisdiction indicates that such matters should not be disclosed (administrative guidelines):
30.
that authority of inquiry and inspection is being exercised to provide information to the Contracting Party under a DTC or TIEA; the Contracting Party that made the request; that the source of information was specified in the request;
Supreme Court Decision, 17 October 1997, No.1249.

the information requested by the Contracting Party; and that the request is not subject to grounds for non-providing information (see para.246).
As part of Japans fiscal year 2011 tax reform (submitted to the Diet), 247. new provisions under the Act on General Rules for National Taxes requiring prior written notification are under discussion in the Diet. The notification requirements provide that taxpayers should be informed of a tax examination conducted in Japan by written notice prior to the examination. The notification rules permit exceptions from prior notification in cases in which the information request is of a very urgent nature or the notification is likely to undermine the chance of success of the investigation conducted by the requesting and/or requested jurisdictions. These provisions are proposed to apply mutatis mutandis to examinations for exchange of information purposes for foreign jurisdictions (Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act Art.9). 248. Article 8-2 of the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act provides several safeguards to ensure the proper exercise of the tax authoritys power to conduct inquiries and inspections of taxpayers or third parties for purposes of responding to an exchange of information request. These are called grounds for non-providing information and include: the tax authorities of the Contracting Party are deemed unable to provide Japan with information corresponding to the information that would be provided by Japan (mutuality); it is deemed that the confidentiality of the information that would be provided by Japan pursuant to the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act could not be guaranteed in the Contracting Party concerned; there is deemed to be a risk that the information that would be provided by Japan pursuant to the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act might be used for other purpose except for contributing to the performance of the duties of the tax authorities of Contracting Party; there is deemed to be a risk that providing such information might harm Japans national interests;31 and the tax authorities of Contracting Party are deemed not to pursue regular means available in acquiring information requested (except where use of such means would be extremely difficult).
31.
The National Tax Agencys administrative guidelines provide that risk of harming Japans interests include, for example, cases that might affect Japans diplomatic and security interests, and cases that might impede public law and order and criminal investigations.
249. If any of the above grounds for non-providing information are judged to exist, Japans competent authority will notify the requesting jurisdiction to this effect, with explanation of the reasons thereof.32 250. Taxpayers have no special rights to intervene against the tax authorities information-gathering powers under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act. The Japanese authorities have indicated that, to date, there have been 251. no cases where taxpayers or third party record keepers refused to provide requested information in response to the tax authorities information-gathering powers under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act.
32.
The National Tax Agencys administrative guidelines includes information requested which would disclose or reveal any trade, business, industrial, commercial, or professional secret or trade process and offend against public order as a grounds for non-providing information.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: EXCHANGING INFORMATION 81
C. Exchanging information
Overview
252. Jurisdictions generally cannot exchange information for tax purposes unless they have a legal basis or mechanism for doing so. A jurisdictions practical capacity to effectively exchange information relies both on having adequate mechanisms in place as well as an adequate institutional framework. This section of the report assesses Japans network of exchange of information agreements against the standards and the adequacy of its institutional framework to achieve effective exchange of information in practice. 253. Japan has an extensive network of bilateral agreements that provide for exchange of information in tax matters, and is currently engaged in negotiations to establish new agreements as well as renegotiations of its older treaties. Japan has 65 exchange of information partners covered by 54 agreements (50 double tax conventions (DTCs) and 4 tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs)), 47 of which are in force. Japan actively seeks to expand its exchange of information network. In 2010, Japan signed protocols to its DTCs with Belgium, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Singapore, and Switzerland33. These protocols amend the DTCs exchange of information articles to meet the international standard. Also in 2010, Japan signed agreements with Bermuda (TIEA); Hong Kong, China; Kuwait; Netherlands; and Saudi Arabia. In the first half of 2011, Japan signed TIEAs with The Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, and the Isle of Man. Japans agreements cover its major trading partners and Japan has not refused to enter into an exchange of information agreement with any Global Forum member seeking to do so. The large majority of Japans agreements meet the international standards.
33. The protocol to Japans DTC with Switzerland includes provisions that are not fully in line with the standard on identity of the holder of the information. Therefore, in order to be consistent with the standard it would be necessary for the protocol to rely on further mutual understanding of both States on the interpretation of these provisions.
82 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: EXCHANGING INFORMATION

254. Japans policy is to negotiate exchange of information agreements to the international standard. In particular, Japans practice is to include an exchange of information article in conformity with the 2005 update of the OECD Model Taxation Convention. Considering Japans extensive treaty network, many of them do not include the last update to OECD Model Taxation Convention. However, Japans capacity to access a wide range of information (as detailed in section B.1. of this report), in particular bank information, without reference to a domestic tax interest ensures Japans ability to exchange information in line with the international standard. 255. Input received from Japans peers indicates that in many cases Japan is not able to respond to requests for information within 90 days of receipt by providing the information requested or an update on the status of the request. Japans domestic procedures for handling exchange of information requests, in particular the lack of internal timelines for responding to requests, appear to inhibit expedient response times. In practice, Japans competent authority does not systematically provide requesting jurisdictions with a status update when requests cannot be responded to within 90 days. It is recommended that Japan ensure that its authorities set appropriate internal deadlines to be able to respond to exchange of information requests in a timely manner, by providing the information requested within 90 days of receipt of the request, or if it has been unable to do so, to provide a status update. 256. Japans institutional framework facilitates effective exchange of information: there is a sufficient number of professional staff with clear responsibilities for processing requests and retrieving information; the staff have adequate expertise and training specific to exchange of information; and Japan has adequate financial and technical resources dedicated to exchange of information. 257. In general, input from Japans exchange of information partners suggests that Japans practices in terms of exchange of information are to a high standard notwithstanding slow response times. Japan has been able to respond to the vast majority of requests it receives in a thorough and comprehensive manner.
C.1. Exchange-of-information mechanisms

Exchange of information mechanisms should allow for effective exchange of information.
Other forms of exchange of information

258. Beyond meeting the standard of effective exchange of information assistance in response to specific requests, Japan engages in exchange of information practices that go beyond the standard, including automatic and
spontaneous exchanges of information. Input received from Japans peers indicates that Japan actively exchanges information on a spontaneous and automatic basis. 259. Japan provides information acquired during the course of examinations for domestic tax purposes to its exchange of information partners when it believes such information to be of interest to its partners. In addition, Japan systematically and periodically sends information it obtains on a routine basis to exchange of information partners. For example, Japan provides its exchange of information partners with information concerning non-Japanese residents obtained through mandatory tax reporting (e.g. information contained in information and withholding returns). Such information may include particulars concerning real-estate income, business income, dividends, interest, royalties, capital gains, and salary income. Several of Japans exchange of information partners provided positive feedback regarding Japans spontaneous and automatic exchange of information practices. Japans competent authority reports that some of its specific requests for exchange of information relate to information provided on a spontaneous or automatic bases.
Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre

260. Japan actively participates in the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre (JITSIC). JITSIC was established in 2004 by the tax administrations of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. In 2007, Japans National Tax Agency joined JITSIC. In 2010, the tax agencies of the Republic of Korea and the Peoples Republic of China joined as members. 261. JITSIC was established to supplement the ongoing work of its members in identifying and curbing tax avoidance and shelters and those who promote them and invest in them.34 Delegates from each of the member jurisdictions are based in either Washington, DC or London and exchange information on abusive tax schemes, their promoters and investors, consistent with the provisions of bilateral tax conventions.35 Pursuant to the domestic procedures of the parties, the delegates of JITSIC from each respective member jurisdiction are delegated the ability to act as competent authorities for purposes of bilateral exchanges of information. 262. Japan has two delegates dispatched to the JITSIC London office. Among JITSIC member jurisdictions, information concerning tax avoidance schemes is exchanged on a daily basis through the JITSIC delegates.
34. 35. JITSIC Memorandum of Understanding. JITSIC Terms of Reference.
Foreseeably relevant standard (ToR C.1.1)

263. The international standard for exchange of information envisages information exchange upon request to the widest possible extent. Nevertheless it does not allow fishing expeditions, i.e. speculative requests for information that have no apparent nexus to an open inquiry or investigation. The balance between these two competing considerations is captured in the standard of foreseeable relevance which is included in Article 26(1) of the OECD Model Taxation Convention set out below: The competent authorities of the contracting states shall exchange such information as is foreseeably relevant to the carrying out of the provisions of this Convention or to the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws concerning taxes of every kind and description imposed on behalf of the contracting states or their political subdivisions or local authorities in so far as the taxation thereunder is not contrary to the Convention. The exchange of information is not restricted by Articles 1 and 2. 264. Japans DTCs are generally patterned on the OECD Model Taxation Convention and its commentary as regards the scope of information that can be exchanged. DTCs initially signed or amended by protocol after 2005 generally use the foreseeably relevant standard (Australia (2008); Belgium (2010); Brunei (2009); France (2007); Hong Kong (2010); Kazakhstan (2008); Kuwait (2010); Luxembourg (2010); Malaysia (2010); Netherlands (2010); Saudi Arabia (2010); Singapore (2010); Switzerland (2010); United Kingdom (2006)). Older DTCs generally use the term as is necessary or as is relevant in lieu of as is foreseeably relevant. The terms as is necessary and as is relevant are recognised in the commentary to Article 26 of the OECD Model Taxation Convention to allow for the same scope of exchange as does the term foreseeably relevant.36 265. Japans DTCs with Austria (1961), Fiji (1962), Ireland (1974), New Zealand (1967), Sri Lanka (1967) and Thailand (1990) incorporate additional language, generally noting that they apply to such information (being information which is at their disposal (or available) under their respective taxation laws in the normal course of administration) as is necessary. In practice, this wording will not limit Japans ability to respond to a request from these jurisdictions. There is no domestic tax interest requirement in Japan and Japans authorities can access all types of information, whether this information is needed for domestic or exchange of information purposes. Japan is
36. The word necessary in Article 26(1) of the 2003 OECD Model Taxation Convention was replaced by the phrase foreseeably relevant in the 2005 version. The commentary to Article 26 recognises that the term necessary allows for the same scope of exchange as does the term foreseeably relevant.
able to exchange information, including in cases where the information is not publicly available or where it is not already in possession of the government authorities. It is noted, however, that while this is not an issue for Japan it may impose a restriction on the partners ability to respond to a request as they may interpret this language more restrictively. 266. Two of Japans DTCs with Germany and Zambia provide for the exchange of information that is necessary for the carrying out of the provisions of the agreement, but do not specifically provide for the exchange of information in aid of the administration and enforcement of domestic laws. It is recommended that Japan renegotiate these agreements so that they provide for effective exchange of information. 267. The Protocol to Japans DTC with Switzerland (2010) contains interpretive provisions which cover inter alia the interpretation of the exchange of information provision. In particular, the interpretive provisions provide that where information is requested by a Contracting State in accordance with Article 25A, the competent authority of that Contracting State shall provide the following information to the competent authority of the other Contracting State: the name and, to the extent known, the address of any person believed to be in possession of the requested information. This requirement is not fully in line with the international standard (see Article 5(5) of the OECD Model TIEA and its Commentary). In order to be consistent with the standard it would be necessary for the protocol to rely on further mutual understanding of both States on the interpretation of these provisions. Switzerland has announced that it is taking steps to bring the agreement into line with the standard. 268. Japans TIEAs with The Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, and the Isle of Man meet the foreseeably relevant standard as they are patterned on the OECD Model TIEA and its commentary regarding the scope of information that can be exchanged. Japans TIEA with Bermuda requires in Article 5 that the Applicant State is to provide further information to clarify the connection between the person under examination and the information requested, as follows: Where the applicant party requests information with respect to a matter which does not constitute serious tax evasion, a senior official of its competent authority shall certify that the request is relevant to, and necessary for, the determination of the tax liability under the laws of the applicant Party. 269. Nevertheless, this variation to Article 5 of the OECD Model TIEA appears to be in line with the purpose of the requirement in this provision, which is to demonstrate the foreseeably relevance of the information sought. It is also noted that the Japan Bermuda TIEA provides that a requested

party is under no obligation to provide information which relates to a period more than 6 years prior to the tax period under consideration. 270. In cases where a request is unclear or incomplete, Japans competent authority reports that it routinely seeks clarifying or additional information from the requesting jurisdiction before declining a request. Information received from partner jurisdictions with an exchange of information relationship with Japan confirms this. 271. Records held by Japans competent authority indicate that a few requests for information were declined during the last three years. The requests were declined by Japan because not all domestic available means of investigation had been exhausted by the requesting party. Generally, the requesting jurisdiction agreed with the determination and used alternative domestic avenues to source the information it was seeking.
In respect of all persons (ToR C.1.2)

272. For exchange of information to be effective it is necessary that a jurisdictions obligation to provide information is not restricted by the residence or nationality of the person to whom the information relates or by the residence or nationality of the person in possession or control of the information requested. For this reason, the international standard for exchange of information envisages that exchange of information mechanisms will provide for exchange of information in respect of all persons. Twenty-nine of Japans agreements specifically provide for exchange 273. of information with respect to all persons. None of these agreements restricts the applicability of the exchange of information provision to certain persons, for example those considered resident in one of the States. 274. Twenty-five of Japans DTCs limit the application of the treaty to residents of the contracting States (Austria; Brazil; Bulgaria; Canada; Czechoslovakia37; Denmark; Egypt; Fiji; Finland; Germany; Hungary; India; Indonesia; Ireland; Italy; New Zealand; Poland; Philippines; Romania; Spain; Sri Lanka; Thailand; Turkey; USSR38; and Zambia). All but two of these agreements (Japans DTCs with Zambia and Germany) note that information is to be exchanged for carrying out the provisions of domestic laws. As Japans domestic laws are applicable to non-residents as well as to residents, under these agreements information can be exchanged in respect of all persons. Japans agreements with Zambia and Germany are limited to
37. 38. As applicable to Slovak Republic and Czech Republic. As applicable to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
providing exchange of information assistance for carrying out provisions of the Convention. 275. Japans competent authority has advised that it has not had any difficulties with any of its exchange of information partners with respect to this issue. Japan has provided and received information unrestricted by the residence or nationality of the person to whom the information relates or by the residence or nationality of the person in possession or control of the information requested.
Obligation to exchange all types of information (ToR C.1.3)

276. Jurisdictions cannot engage in effective exchange of information if they cannot exchange information held by financial institutions, nominees or persons acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity. The OECD Model Taxation Convention, which is an authoritative source of the standards, stipulates that bank secrecy cannot form the basis for declining a request to provide information and that a request for information cannot be declined solely because the information is held by nominees or persons acting in an agency or fiduciary capacity or because the information relates to an ownership interest. 277. Fourteen of Japans DTCs provides that a contracting state may not decline to supply information solely because the information is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person (Australia (2008); Belgium (2010); Brunei (2009); France (2007); Hong Kong, China (2010); Kazakhstan (2008); Kuwait (2010); Luxembourg (2010); Malaysia (2010); Netherlands (2010); Saudi Arabia (2010); Singapore (2010); Switzerland (2010); United Kingdom (2006)). Japans policy is to incorporate wording in line with Article 26(5) in all of its new agreements. 278. Although Japans other DTCs do not include such a provision, there are no limitations in Japans laws with respect to access to bank information, information held by nominees, and ownership and identity information. There may be, however, such limitations in place in the domestic laws of some of its treaty partners (e.g. Austria). In these cases, the absence of a specific provision requiring exchange of bank information unlimited by bank secrecy may serve as a limitation on the exchange of information which can occur under the relevant DTC. In practice, Japan has experienced no difficulties arising from such limitations. It is recommended, however, that Japan continue to monitor effective exchange of information between such treaty partners and, if necessary, renegotiate its older DTCs to incorporate wording in line with Article 26(5) of the OECD Model Taxation Convention.

279. Japans TIEAs include the provisions contained in Article 5(4) subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the OECD Model TIEA, obliging the contracting parties to exchange all types of information.
Absence of domestic tax interest (ToR C.1.4)

280. The concept of domestic tax interest describes a situation where a contracting party can only provide information to another contracting party if it has an interest in the requested information for its own tax purposes. An inability to provide information based on a domestic tax interest requirement is not consistent with the international standard. Contracting parties must use their information gathering measures even though invoked solely to obtain and provide information to the other contracting party. 281. Japans DTCs with Australia, Belgium, Brunei, France, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States incorporate wording in line with Article 26(4) of the OECD Model Taxation Convention, obliging the contracting parties to use information-gathering measures to exchange requested information without regard to a domestic tax interest. Japans other DTCs do not contain such a provision. There are, however, no domestic interest restrictions on Japans powers to access information. Japan is able to exchange information, including in cases where the information is not publicly available or already in the possession of the governmental authorities as noted in section B.2 of this report. 282. A domestic tax interest requirement may however exist for some of Japans treaty partners. In such cases, the absence of a specific provision requiring exchange of information unlimited by domestic tax interest will serve as a limitation on the exchange of information which can occur under the relevant DTC. In practice, Japan has experienced no difficulties arising from domestic tax interest provisions in its partner jurisdictions. No requests for information have been declined on this basis. It is recommended, however, that Japan continue to monitor effective exchange of information in place between such treaty partners and, if necessary, renegotiate its older DTCs to incorporate wording in line with Article 26(4) of the OECD Model Taxation Convention. 283. Japans TIEAs allow information to be obtained and exchanged notwithstanding it is not required for any domestic tax purpose.
Absence of dual criminality principles (ToR C.1.5)

284. The principle of dual criminality provides that assistance can only be provided if the conduct being investigated (and giving rise to an information request) would constitute a crime under the laws of the requested country if
it had occurred in the requested country. In order to be effective, exchange of information should not be constrained by the application of the dual criminality principle. There are no dual criminality requirements in Japans agreements for 285. exchange of information in tax matters.
Exchange of information in both civil and criminal tax matters (ToR C.1.6)
286. Information exchange may be requested both for tax administration purposes and for tax prosecution purposes. The international standard is not limited to information exchange in criminal tax matters but extends to information requested for tax administration purposes (also referred to as civil tax matters). 287. All of Japans exchange of information agreements provide for exchange of information in both civil and criminal tax matters. Indeed, some of Japans agreements refer to fighting fiscal evasion as one of the objects of the agreement and in others, the first paragraph of the exchange of information provision provides that the information exchange will occur inter alia for the prevention of evasion or avoidance of, or fraud in relation to, such taxes. 288. Japan provides exchange of information assistance at the administrative level (National Tax Agency, Criminal Investigation Division) when the requested information relates to a criminal tax matter in the requesting jurisdiction. Where search and seizure is necessary, Tax Collectors (criminal investigators) must obtain a permit from a judge prior to exercising this authority. Japans competent authority reports that criminal cases are given as much priority as possible.
Provide information in specific form requested (ToR C.1.7)

289. Exchange of information mechanisms should allow for the provision of information in the specific form requested (including depositions of witnesses and production of authenticated copies of original documents) to the extent possible under a jurisdictions domestic laws and practices. 290. There are no restrictions in the exchange of information provisions in Japans DTCs and TIEAs that would prevent Japan from providing information in a specific form, as long as this is consistent with its own administrative practices. Japans DTC with the United States (2003) includes a specific clause to reinforce the need to provide information in the form requested (in the form of authenticated copies of original documents). 291. Japans competent authority provides information in the specific form requested to the extent permitted under Japanese law and administrative

practice. As noted in section B.1 of this report, Japans tax authorities do not have the power to compel testimony from taxpayers or third parties. However, persons failing to respond to, or providing false information in response to, inquiries from tax officials in Japans tax authorities may be penalised pursuant to the Tax Treaty Special Provisions Act. 292. Japans competent authority is prepared to provide information in the specific form requested to the extent permitted under Japanese law and administrative practice. Information received from partner jurisdictions with an exchange of information relationship with Japan indicates that Japan is able to respond to such requests.
In force (ToR C.1.8)

293. Exchange of information cannot take place unless a jurisdiction has exchange of information arrangements in force. Where exchange of information agreements have been signed the international standard requires that jurisdictions must take all steps necessary to bring them into force expeditiously. 294. Japan has an extensive network of 54 bilateral agreements that provide for exchange of information in tax matters (covering 65 partners), comprising 50 DTCs and 4 TIEAs. Japan signed three Protocols to DTCs (Belgium; Luxembourg; Switzerland) and four new DTCs (Hong Kong, China; Kuwait; Netherlands; Saudi Arabia) in 2010 that are awaiting ratification. Japan signed TIEAs with The Bahamas, the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man in 2011 that also await ratification. All of Japans other agreements providing for exchange of information in tax matters are in force. 295. Approximately 80% of Japans agreements have entered into force within 12 months of signing. For some agreements, the period of time between signature and entering into force has been as brief as 6 months.39 Only six agreements took substantially longer periods before they entered into force, those with: Brazil (21 months); Canada (21 months); Belgium (24 months); Philippines (24 months); Romania (26 months); and Poland (34 months). 296. After an international agreement is signed, it is submitted to the Diet for its approval when required according to Japans constitutional practices. Treaties enter into force only after the final exchange of diplomatic notes between jurisdictions notifying each other that have completed their domestic procedures. Japans government endeavours to bring Japans DTCs and TIEAs into force as soon as possible after signature.
39. Vietnam (2 months); India (4 months); Bangladesh (4 months); Bulgaria (5 months); Thailand (5 months); United States (5 months); Bermuda (6 months); Denmark (6 months); New Zealand (6 months).
In effect (ToR C.1.9)

297. For exchange of information to be effective, the contracting parties must enact any legislation necessary to comply with the terms of the agreement. 298. All of Japans agreements which have been signed and concluded by both parties are in effect in Japan. Japans DTCs and TIEAs are subject to the approval of the Diet when required according to Japans constitutional practices. Article 98(2) of Japans Constitution provides that treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed. 299. As noted previously in this report, Japans legal and regulatory framework is in place to ensure availability and access to information required for international tax matters. As such, Japans international agreements have been given effect to in its national legislation. 300. Japans competent authority has a developed institutional framework that supports effective exchange of information. It has written administrative procedures to be followed by exchange of information staff for processing, coordinating, and responding to incoming requests. The competent authoritys administrative guidelines provide procedures for the co-ordination between the competent authority, Regional Taxation Bureaus, and Tax Offices. The guidelines establish a commitment by the tax authorities to provide exchange of information assistance in a timely manner.
C.2. Exchange-of-information mechanisms with all relevant partners

The jurisdictions network of information exchange mechanisms should cover all relevant partners.
301. Ultimately, the international standard requires that jurisdictions exchange information with all relevant partners, meaning those partners who are interested in entering into an information exchange arrangement. Agreements cannot be concluded only with counterparties without economic significance. If it appears that a jurisdiction is refusing to enter into agreements or negotiations with partners, in particular ones that have a reasonable

expectation of requiring information from that jurisdiction in order to properly administer and enforce its tax laws it may indicate a lack of commitment to implement the standards. 302. Japan has an extensive treaty network that covers all of its major trading partners (United States; the Peoples Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; the Republic of Korea; Singapore; Saudi Arabia; Indonesia; Germany; Australia). Japan has signed exchange of information agreements with 34 OECD/G20 countries40 and 43 of the 96 Global Forum members.41 Two of Japans agreements with its major trading partners Hong Kong, China and Saudi Arabia are not yet in force. It is recommended that Japan continue to work with these jurisdictions to bring these agreements into force expeditiously. 303. Japan currently has several treaty discussions in various stages of progress (2 formal negotiations are underway as of May 2011). In all cases, Japan expects that the outcome in terms of exchange of information provisions will be to the international standard. 304. Comments were sought from Global Forum member jurisdictions in the course of the preparation of this report. One jurisdiction informed the assessment team that it requested a TIEA with Japan and received a negative response. Japans competent authority has advised that it, in turn, asked the jurisdiction whether it would consider negotiating a DTC because of the close economic ties between the jurisdictions. The assessment team was also advised that the jurisdiction never responded to Japans inquiry. There is no other indication that Japan has not entered into an agreement with a jurisdiction when requested to do so.
40.
41.
Australia; Austria; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; the Peoples Republic of China; the Czech Republic; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Hungary; India; Indonesia; Ireland; Israel; Italy; the Republic of Korea; Luxembourg; Mexico; the Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Poland; Russia; Saudi Arabia; the Slovak Republic; South Africa; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; the United Kingdom; the United States. Australia; Austria; The Bahamas; Belgium; Bermuda; Brazil; Brunei; Canada; the Cayman Islands; the Peoples Republic of China; Czech Republic; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Hungary; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia; Ireland; the Isle of Man; Israel; Italy; the Republic of Korea; Luxembourg; Malaysia; Mexico; the Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; the Philippines; Poland; Russia; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; the Slovak Republic; South Africa; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; the United Kingdom; the United States.

Phase 1 determination The element is in place. Factors underlying recommendations Recommendations Japan should continue to develop its exchange of information network with all relevant partners. Phase 2 rating Compliant.
C.3. Confidentiality
The jurisdictions mechanisms for exchange of information should have adequate provisions to ensure the confidentiality of information received.
Information received: disclosure, use, and safeguards (ToR C.3.1)

305. Governments would not engage in information exchange without the assurance that the information provided would only be used for the purposes permitted under the exchange mechanism and that its confidentiality would be preserved. Information exchange instruments must therefore contain confidentiality provisions that spell out specifically to whom the information can be disclosed and the purposes for which the information can be used. In addition to the protections afforded by the confidentiality provisions of information exchange instruments, jurisdictions with tax systems generally impose strict confidentiality requirements on information collected for tax purposes. 306. All exchange of information articles in Japans DTCs have confidentiality provisions modeled on Article 26(2) of the OECD Model Taxation Convention. Likewise, all of Japans TIEAs have confidentiality provisions modeled on Article 8 of the OECD Model TIEA. 307. The confidentiality provisions of Japans DTCs and TIEAs are backed by general confidentiality provisions in Japans domestic legislation. Article 126 of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes imposes an obligation on Japans tax authorities to maintain strict confidentiality in respect of any information obtained through their work. Non-compliance with Article 126 subjects Japans tax officials to imprisonment with work for a term not exceeding two years or a fine of not more than JPY 1 million (EUR 8 695). Article 100 of the National Public Service Act also imposes an obligation on Japans public officials (including retired officials) to maintain

strict confidentiality in respect of information they obtain through their work. Non-compliance with article 100 subjects Japans public officials to imprisonment with work for a term not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding JPY 500 thousand (EUR 4 348). Based on the purpose of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information Held by Administrative Organs, the National Tax Agency reports that it strives to ensure that confidentiality of taxpayer information is maintained by conducting periodic inspections of the controls in place at Regional Taxation Bureaus, Tax Offices, and the National Tax Agency itself. 308. The National Tax Agencys administrative guidelines for exchange of information for tax purposes contain provisions regarding the confidentiality of information exchanged. Only exchange of information staff within the International Operations Division, as well as officials within Regional Taxation Bureaus and Tax Offices responsible for gathering information have access to information contained in exchange of information requests and the information obtained in response to those requests. Where information cannot be exchanged electronically between Japans competent authority and Regional Taxation Bureaus (including Tax Offices), Japan uses a special certified mail service established solely for the National Tax Agency.
All other information exchanged (ToR C.3.2)

309. The confidentiality provisions in Japans exchange of information agreements and domestic law do not draw a distinction between information received in response to requests or information forming part of the requests themselves. As such, these provisions apply equally to all requests for such information, background documents to such requests, and any other document reflecting such information, including communications between the requesting and requested jurisdictions and communications within the tax authorities of either jurisdiction.
C.4. Rights and safeguards of taxpayers and third parties

The exchange of information mechanisms should respect the rights and safeguards of taxpayers and third parties.
Exceptions to requirement to provide information (ToR C.4.1)

310. Each of Japans exchange of information agreements ensures that the parties are not obliged to provide information which would disclose any trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secret or information which is the subject of attorney client privilege or information the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy. 311. As noted in section B.1 of this report, Japans domestic law permits the disclosure of information to the extent that it is required to be disclosed by a DTC or TIEA. Japans DTCs and TIEAs specifically provide that trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secrets are not required to be disclosed. Similarly, they do not require the disclosure of information that would be contrary to public policy. Therefore, information that falls into these categories remains protected under Japans domestic laws and requests for such information are declined. Japan reports that, to date, no such matter has arisen. As noted previously in Section B.1 of the report, professional privileges in Japan are in line with the standard. 312. Currently, Japan generally follows the mutuality provision in Article 26 of the OECD Model Taxation Convention and the Commentary thereto. This has the effect of removing from Japan any obligation to carry out administrative measures or otherwise supply information to a requesting jurisdiction if that requesting jurisdiction is not itself able to carry out corresponding administrative measures or to obtain the information under its laws or in the normal course of its administration. The National Tax Agency reports that, to date, no such matter has arisen.
C.5. Timeliness of responses to requests for information

The jurisdiction should provide information under its network of agreements in a timely manner.
Responses within 90 days (ToR C.5.1)

313. In order for exchange of information to be effective it needs to be provided in a timeframe which allows tax authorities to apply the information to the relevant cases. If a response is provided after a significant lapse of time the information may no longer be of use to the requesting authorities. This is particularly important in the context of international co-operation as cases in this area must be of sufficient importance to warrant making a request. 314. There are no provisions in Japans laws or in its DTCs pertaining to the timeliness of responses or the timeframe within which responses should be provided. Japans TIEAs include an obligation to either respond to the request, or provide a status update within 90 days of receipt of the request. As such, there appear to be no legal restrictions on the ability of Japans competent authority to respond to requests within 90 days of receipt by providing the information requested or by providing an update on the status of the request. 315. The statistics held by Japans competent authority reveal that for the last three years ending on 31 December 2009, 20.2% of requests were responded to within 90 days, 30.1% of requests were responded to within 180 days, 38.7% of requests were responded to within one year, and 11% of requests were responded to in one year or more. As such, approximately 90% of requests were responded to within one year.42 As seen during the on-site visit, Japan gives priority to urgent requests. Requests that cannot be fulfilled within 90 days typically relate to cases where it is necessary to gather the requested information through on-site examinations. Input received from Japans peers confirms that in many cases Japan does not respond to requests for information within 90 days of receipt by providing the information requested or an update on the status of the request. Japans competent authority does not systematically provide request316. ing jurisdictions with a status update when requests cannot be responded to within 90 days. Japans tax authorities report, however, that they routinely contact requesting jurisdictions as soon as possible where a request is unclear or additional information is necessary to action a request. As a result, some kind of contact with the requesting jurisdiction is made in most cases within 90 days of receipt of a request.
42. The number of days for providing requested information is counted from the date of receipt of the request to the date the response letter is sent out, and includes the period for which any clarifying questions are made to the requesting jurisdiction.
317. For complicated cases or cases for which prompt responses are required, staff in charge of such cases are dispatched to partner jurisdictions for face-to-face meetings to explain the details of the cases to the officials in charge of administering each of the respective jurisdictions exchange of informing programs (this program is implemented with several different jurisdictions as required). Additionally, Japans competent authority reports that it plans to have periodical meetings with jurisdictions with which it has a significant exchange of information relationship or has strong mutual economic ties in order to update the status of requests, as well as to exchange views pertaining to matters of interest for both jurisdictions regarding exchange of information. 318. Japan also has a program of dispatching tax officials as long-term visitors in partner jurisdictions. In particular, Japan has tax officials in Australia; Canada; the Peoples Republic of China; France; Germany; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; the Republic of Korea; the Netherlands; the Philippines; Singapore; Thailand; the United Kingdom; and the United States. These officials are authorised by Japans competent authority to assist in matters pertaining to exchange of information requests. Japans National Tax Agency reports that these officials maintain good relationships with the respective foreign jurisdictions competent authority and facilitate discussions regarding exchange of information requests. Many of Japans exchange of information partners provided positive feedback regarding this program. 319. Japans National Tax Agency reports that, as a capital-exporting jurisdiction, it makes more outbound requests for information to its exchange of information partners than it receives inbound requests. As such, the National Tax Agency strives to provide thorough and comprehensive responses in a timely fashion to ensure reciprocal treatment from its exchange of information partners. This is emphasised to all personnel handling exchange of information requests in Japans Regional Taxation Bureaus and Tax Offices.
Monitoring
320. Japans competent authority uses performance measures to internally monitor its exchange of information program. Records are kept on excel files called management records that record the day a request for information is received and the day the response is sent to the requesting jurisdiction. Japans competent authority reviews the management records on a quarterly basis. The time engaged on cases generally varies with the complexity of the subject matter and volume of information requested. Periodically, Japans competent authority requests follow-up reports from Regional Taxation Bureaus in cases where a request is long outstanding. However, the National Tax Agency does not have internal guidelines for how long each step in the

process should take when responding to a request, without which exchange of information could be delayed.
Organisational process and resources (ToR C.5.2)

321. Japans legal and regulatory framework relevant to exchange of information for tax purposes is presided over by Japans competent authority, being the Minister of Finance or an authorised representative of the Minister. The Director of the International Operations Division under the National Tax Agency is authorised to act as competent authority and, in practice, is responsible for managing and responding to all of Japans exchange of information requests. The International Operations Division is based in Tokyo. Japans competent authority forwards letters of notification identifying itself to Japans exchange of information partners. In cases where any change occurs, letters of notification are sent out on each such occasion. 322. The International Tax Policy Division, under the Tax Bureau of the Ministry of Finance, is in charge of researching, planning, and drafting international tax treaties and laws and regulations of taxation on incomes of non-residents and foreign corporations and systems of foreign tax credit. 323. The Exchange of Information Section of Japans International Operations Division administers operations pertaining to exchange of information. The Section is staffed with six full time staff in Tokyo. In addition, 19 officials within the International Operations Division are currently dispatched to foreign jurisdictions as long-term overseas visitors. The Director of the International Operations Division authorises its staff to act as competent authority on a case-by-case basis. In 2010, Japan increased the number of staff working in the Exchange of Information Section by two as a result of an increase in the number of inbound and outbound requests. Further increases in staff are being considered in order to promote exchange of information more actively within Japan. Two of the long-term overseas dispatched visitors serve at the JITSIC 324. London office. These officials are involved in exchange of information concerning individual taxpayers, and also share information, examination methods, best practices and other intelligence with JITSIC member jurisdictions concerning international tax avoidance schemes. The other long-term overseas visitors are currently dispatched to 14 jurisdictions, where they are active in collecting general information pertaining to tax administration, tax systems, economic conditions and customs of trade in the jurisdictions in which they are stationed, as well as assisting in exchange of information operations. 325. All staff within Japans National Tax Agency receive training regarding the administration of Japans tax laws. The National Tax College is the National Tax Agencys principal training organization. The National Tax
College is an affiliated organ of the National Tax Agency. It mainly offers training courses for the Ministry of Finance officials to engage in national tax administration work. In addition to the central institute in Tokyo, 12 regional training centres are established in cities where Regional Taxation Bureaus and the Okinawa Regional Taxation Office are located. 326. Specialised international taxation training courses are held for Regional Taxation Bureau and Tax Office officials periodically each year. The Director of the International Operations Division (Japans competent authority for exchange of information) as well as other senior staff within the Exchange of Information Section provides instruction at these courses regarding issues pertaining to exchange of information, including procedures for processing and retrieving information in response to inbound requests. Additionally, the Exchange of Information Section uses manuals, including the OECD Manual on Information Exchange, to instruct new staff within the division. 327. Japan has internal administrative procedures for processing incoming requests for information, including procedures relating to the exchange of information staff receiving requests and to Regional Taxation Bureaus and Tax Offices that are sources of common types of information requested. These manuals are available on the National Tax Agencys internal website for all tax officials within the National Tax Agency. The manuals explain the outline of the Japans legal and regulatory framework for exchange of information (e.g. provisions under the Tax Treaties Special Provisions Act), detailed procedures for processing and retrieving requested information, and case studies. Designed for use by Japans competent authority staff, these manuals also offer explanations of the key points for preparing letters of response to requesting jurisdictions. 328. The staff within the Exchange of Information Section use checksheets (Forms 6-1, 6-2) to process inbound requests and for sending responses back to requesting jurisdictions. Where a request is unclear or incomplete, Japans competent authority routinely seeks clarifying or additional information from the requesting jurisdiction. Co-ordination procedures between the competent authority, Regional Taxation Bureaus, and Tax Offices are clearly defined in administrative guidelines and effective in practice. Overall Japan has dedicated appropriate financial, human and techni329. cal resources to the various areas of its exchange of information regime considering the volume of inbound requests it receives. All competent authority staff maintain high professional standards and have adequate expertise and training specific to exchange of information.
Absence of restrictive conditions on exchange of information (ToR C.5.3)

330. There are no laws or regulatory practices in Japan that impose unreasonable, disproportionate, or unduly restrictive conditions on exchange of information.
Phase 1 determination This element involves issues of practice that are assessed in the Phase 2 review. Accordingly no phase 1 determination has been made. Phase 2 rating Largely Compliant. Factors underlying recommendations In many cases, Japan does not respond within 90 days to international requests for information in tax matters and does not provide requesting parties with status updates. Recommendations Japan should ensure that it is able to respond to exchange of information requests in a timely manner, by providing the information requested within 90 days of receipt of the request, or if it has been unable to do so, to provide a status update. Japan should ensure that its authorities have in place procedures, including appropriate internal deadlines, to be able to respond to exchange of information requests in a timely manner.
Japans domestic procedures for handling exchange of information requests, in particular the lack of internal timelines for responding to requests, appear to inhibit expedient response times.
SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS AND FACTORS UNDERLYING RECOMMENDATIONS 101
Summary of Determinations and Factors Underlying Recommendations

Factors underlying recommendations
Determination
Recommendations
Jurisdictions should ensure that ownership and identity information for all relevant entities and arrangements is available to their competent authorities (ToR A.1) Phase 1 determination: The element is in place. Phase 2 rating: Compliant. Jurisdictions should ensure that reliable accounting records are kept for all relevant entities and arrangements (ToR A.2) Phase 1 determination: The element is in place. Phase 2 rating: Compliant. Banking information should be available for all account-holders (ToR A.3) Phase 1 determination: The element is in place. Phase 2 rating: Compliant. Competent authorities should have the power to obtain and provide information that is the subject of a request under an exchange of information arrangement from any person within their territorial jurisdiction who is in possession or control of such information (irrespective of any legal obligation on such person to maintain the secrecy of the information) (ToR B.1) Phase 1 determination: The element is in place. Phase 2 rating: Compliant.
102 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS AND FACTORS UNDERLYING RECOMMENDATIONS

Determination
Recommendations
The rights and safeguards (e.g. notification, appeal rights) that apply to persons in the requested jurisdiction should be compatible with effective exchange of information (ToR B.2) Phase 1 determination: The element is in place. Phase 2 rating: Compliant. Exchange of information mechanisms should allow for effective exchange of information (ToR C.1) Phase 1 determination: The element is in place. Phase 2 rating: Compliant. The jurisdictions network of information exchange mechanisms should cover all relevant partners (ToR C.2) Phase 1 determination: The element is in place. Japan should continue to develop its exchange of information network with all relevant partners.
Phase 2 rating: Compliant. The jurisdictions mechanisms for exchange of information should have adequate provisions to ensure the confidentiality of information received(ToR C.3) Phase 1 determination: The element is in place. Phase 2 rating: Compliant. The exchange of information mechanisms should respect the rights and safeguards of taxpayers and third parties (ToR C.4) Phase 1 determination: The element is in place. Phase 2 rating: Compliant.
SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS AND FACTORS UNDERLYING RECOMMENDATIONS 103
Determination
Recommendations
The jurisdiction should provide information under its network of agreements in a timely manner (ToR C.5) This element involves issues of practice that are assessed in the Phase 2 review. Accordingly no Phase 1 determination has been made. Phase 2 rating: Largely Compliant. In many cases, Japan does not respond within 90 days to international requests for information in tax matters and does not provide requesting parties with status updates. Japan should ensure that it is able to respond to exchange of information requests in a timely manner, by providing the information requested within 90 days of receipt of the request, or if it has been unable to do so, to provide a status update. Japan should ensure that its authorities have in place procedures, including appropriate internal deadlines, to be able to respond to exchange of information requests in a timely manner.
Japans domestic procedures for handling exchange of information requests, in particular the lack of internal timelines for responding to requests, appear to inhibit expedient response times.
ANNEXES 105
Annex 1: Jurisdictions Response to the Review Report 43

First of all, Japan would like to extend its sincere appreciation to the assessment team for their dedicated work and professionalism throughout the Peer Review process. Japan is also grateful to other members of the Peer Review Group for providing their valuable inputs and comments to Japans combined Peer Review Report. We appreciate that Japan was rated as Compliant in the overall rating and in most of the individual elements in our report. It proves Japans long-standing contribution to setting out new standards for transparency and exchange of information for the tax purposes and implementing those standards. In respect of the items C.5 rated as Largely Compliant, Japan has already implemented new measures in order to follow the Recommendations in 2011. The first Recommendation on the 90-day-response-period to other countries request and the following status updates, Japan has increased the number of staff and has set an additional section headed by Assistant Director for further facilitating the work of exchange of information, and never fails to provide status updates when unable to respond to requests within 90 days. The second Recommendation on introducing appropriate guidelines for responding to requests in a timely manner, Japan now clearly refers to the 90-day-response-period rule in our operational guideline. With those measures, we are certain that Japan has already reached the same level of practice as that of the other countries which obtained Compliant in this element C.5. Taking into account our recent efforts, we believe that Largely Compliant evaluation in the element C.5 will be upgraded to Compliant (i.e. Compliant in all elements) under a supplementary review of Japan.
43. This Annex presents the jurisdictions response to the review report and shall not be deemed to represent the Global Forums views.
106 ANNEXES
Finally, since the beginning of the Global Forum, Japan has played an important role as Co-Vice Chair of Peer Review Group and a member of the Steering Group. We will make further contributions to activities of the Global Forum, collaborating with other member countries.
ANNEXES 107
Annex 2: List of all Exchange-of-Information Mechanisms in Force
No. 1
Jurisdiction Armenia*
Type of EOI agreement Double Taxation Convention (DTC) DTC DTC DTC Taxation Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) DTC DTC DTC DTC (Protocol) TIEA DTC DTC DTC DTC TIEA DTC DTC DTC DTC
Date signed 18 Jan 1986
Date in force 27 Nov 1986
2 3 4 5
Australia Austria Azerbaijan* Bahamas
31 Jan 2008 20 Dec 1961 18 Jan 1986 27 Jan 2011
03 Dec 2008 04 Apr 1963 27 Nov 1986 ---
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Bangladesh Belarus* Belgium Bermuda Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Canada Cayman Islands China Czech Republic** Denmark Egypt
28 Feb 1991 18 Jan 1986 09 Nov 1988 26 Jan 2010 01 Feb 2010 23 Mar 1976 20 Jan 2009 07 Mar 1991 19 Feb 1999 07 Feb 2011 06 Sep 1983 11 Oct 1977 03 Feb 1968 03 Sep 1968
15 Jun 1991 27 Nov 1986 16 Nov 1990 --1 Aug 2010 29 Dec 1977 19 Dec 2009 09 Aug 1991 14 Dec 2000 --26 Jun1984 25 Nov 1978 26 Jul 1968 06 Aug 1969
108 ANNEXES
Type of EOI agreement DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC TIEA DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC(Protocol) DTC DTC (Protocol) DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC
No. 19 21
Jurisdiction Fiji*** France
Date signed 04 Sep 1962 04 Mar 1991 11 Jan 2007 18 Jan 1986 17 Feb 1983 13 Feb 1980 09 Nov 2010 24 Feb 2006 03 Mar 1982 18 Jan 1974 21 Jun 2011 08 Mar 1993 14 Feb 1980 19 Dec 2008 08 Oct 1998 17 Feb 2010 18 Jan 1986 05 Mar 1992 25 Jan 2010 19 Feb 1999 10 Feb 2010 09 Apr 1996 18 Jan 1986 04 Mar 1992 25 Aug 2010 22 Mar 1967 04 Mar 1992 23 Jan 2008 09 Dec 2006 20 Feb 1980 12 Feb 1976 18 Jan 1986 15 Nov 2010
Date in force 23 Apr 1963 28 Dec 1991 01 Dec 2007 27 Nov 1986 04 May 1984 25 Oct 1980 --28 Jun 2006 31 Dec 1982 04 Dec 1974 --24 Dec 1993 28 Jan 1982 30 Dec 2009 22 Nov 1999 --27 Nov 1986 27 Dec 1992 --31 Dec 1999 01 Dec 2010 06 Nov 1996 27 Nov 1986 16 Dec 1992 --30 Sep 1967 16 Dec 1992 09 Nov 2008 05 Dec 2008 23 Dec 1982 09 Apr 1978 27 Nov 1986 ---
20 Finland 22 Georgia* 23 Germany 24 Hungary 25 Hong Kong, China 26 India 27 Indonesia 28 Ireland 29 Isle of Man 30 Israel 31 Italy 32 Kazakhstan 33 Korea 34 Kuwait 35 Kyrgyzstan* 36 Luxembourg 37 Malaysia
38 Mexico 39 Moldova* 40 Netherlands 41 42 New Zealand Norway
43 Pakistan 44 Philippines 45 Poland 46 Romania 47 Russia* 48 Saudi Arabia
ANNEXES 109
No.
Jurisdiction
Type of EOI agreement DTC DTC (Protocol) DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC (Protocol) DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC DTC
Date signed 09 Apr 1994 04 Feb 2010 11 Oct 1977 07 Mar 1997 13 Feb 1974 12 Dec 1967 19 Feb 1999 21 May 2010 18 Jan 1986 07 Apr 1990 08 Mar 1993 18 Jan 1986 18 Jan 1986 02 Feb 2006 06 Nov 2003 18 Jan 1986 24 Oct 1995 19 Feb 1970
Date in force 28 Apr 1995 14 July 2010 25 Nov 1978 05 Nov 1997 20 Nov 1974 22 Sep 1968 25 Dec1999 --27 Nov 1986 31 Aug 1990 28 Dec 1994 27 Nov 1986 27 Nov 1986 12 Oct 2006 30 Mar 2004 27 Nov 1986 31 Dec 1995 23 Jan 1971
49 Singapore 50 Slovak Republic** 51 52 South Africa Spain
53 Sri Lanka 54 Sweden 55 Switzerland 56 Tajikistan* 57 Thailand 58 Turkey 59 Turkmenistan* 60 Ukraine* 61 United Kingdom 62 United States 63 Uzbekistan* 64 Vietnam 65 Zambia *
Japan continues to apply the U.S.S.R. treaty of 18 January 1986 in relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan (11 jurisdictions). ** Japan continues to apply the Czechoslovakia treaty of 11 October 1977 in relations with the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic. *** By Exchange of Notes of September 25, 1970 between the Government of Japan and the Government of the United Kingdom, the Japan-UK treaty of 4 September 1962 was extended to Fiji. The current Japan-UK treaty is a new treaty, different from the Japan-UK treaty of 4 September 1962.
110 ANNEXES
Annex 3: List of all Laws, Regulations and Other Relevant Material
Commercial Laws
Commercial Code Companies Act Limited Liability Partnership Act Limited Partnership Act for Investment Act on Authorization of Public Interest Incorporated Associations and Public Interest Incorporated Foundations General Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations Act Act on Engagement in Trust Business by a Financial Institution Trust Act Trust Business Act Electronic Bookkeeping Act
Taxation Laws
Corporation Tax Act Income Tax Act Act on Special Measures Concerning Taxation Act on Special Provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Corporation Tax Act and the Local Tax Act Incidental to Enforcement of Tax Treaties Local Tax Act
ANNEXES 111
Banking and Financial Laws

Financial Instruments and Exchange Act Insurance Business Act Banking Act Act on Investment Trusts and Investment Corporation Act on Securitization of Assets
Anti-Money Laundering Laws

Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds
Other Laws
The Constitution of Japan Civil Code Act on the Protection of Personal Information National Public Service Act Attorney Act Judicial Scrivener Act Local Autonomy Act
112 ANNEXES
Annex 4: People interviewed during on-site visit
Ministry of Finance Tax Bureau

Director, International Tax Policy Division Director for International Tax and Treaties Deputy Director, International Tax Policy Division
National Tax Agency (Central)

Deputy Director, Individual Taxation Division, Taxation Department Deputy Director, Property Taxation Division, Taxation Department Deputy Director, Corporation Taxation Division, Taxation Department Assistant Director, Large Enterprise Examination Division Deputy Director, Criminal Investigation Division
International Operations Division

Deputy Director Acting Section Chief, Exchange of Information Section
Regional Taxation Bureau (Tokyo)

Deputy Chief Examiner, International Examination of Large Enterprise Division Senior Examiner (International Taxation), Co-ordination Division (Large Enterprise Examination)
ANNEXES 113
Ministry of Justice
Attorney, Civil Affairs Bureau
Financial Intelligent Unit National Police Agency

Superintendant Assistant Director, Japan Financial Intelligence Center
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to coordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisations statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.
OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue Andr-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16 (23 2013 57 1 P) ISBN 978-92-64-20575-8 No. 61019 2013-01
Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes
PEER REVIEWS, COMBINED: PHASE 1 + PHASE 2,
incorporating Phase 2 ratings JAPAN

The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes is the multilateral framework within which work in the area of tax transparency and exchange of information is carried out by 120 jurisdictions, which participate in the Global Forum on an equal footing. The Global Forum is charged with in-depth monitoring and peer review of the implementation of the international standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. These standards are primarily reected in the 2002 OECD Model Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters and its commentary, and in Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and its commentary as updated in 2004. The standards have also been incorporated into the UN Model Tax Convention. The standards provide for international exchange on request of foreseeably relevant information for the administration or enforcement of the domestic tax laws of a requesting party. Fishing expeditions are not authorised but all foreseeably relevant information must be provided, including bank information and information held by duciaries, regardless of the existence of a domestic tax interest or the application of a dual criminality standard. All members of the Global Forum, as well as jurisdictions identied by the Global Forum as relevant to its work, are being reviewed. This process is undertaken in two phases. Phase 1 reviews assess the quality of a jurisdictions legal and regulatory framework for the exchange of information, while Phase 2 reviews look at the practical implementation of that framework. Some Global Forum members are undergoing combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 reviews. The Global Forum has also put in place a process for supplementary reports to follow-up on recommendations, as well as for the ongoing monitoring of jurisdictions following the conclusion of a review. The ultimate goal is to help jurisdictions to effectively implement the international standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. All review reports are published once approved by the Global Forum and they thus represent agreed Global Forum reports. For more information on the work of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, and for copies of the published review reports, please refer to www.oecd.org/tax/transparency and www.eoi-tax.org.
Consult this publication on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205765-en. This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases. Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org for more information.
ISBN 978-92-64-20575-8 23 2013 57 1 P
9HSTCQE*cafhfi+

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Uploaded by

Copyright:

GLOBAL FORUM ON TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR TAX PURPOSES

Peer Review Report Combined: Phase 1 + Phase 2, incorporating Phase 2 ratings

ISBN 978-92-64-20575-8 (print) ISBN 978-92-64-20576-5 (PDF)

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

ABOUT THE GLOBAL FORUM 5

About the Global Forum

Information and methodology used for the peer review of Japan

2010 figures, Statistics Japan, www.stat.go.jp/english/.

General information on legal system and the taxation system

The tax system

International exchange of information for tax purposes

Overview of the financial sector and relevant professions

Type of institution Banks (total) Commercial banks*

Number of institutions (January 2011) 273

107.4 (as of December 2010)

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 23

Compliance with the Standards

24 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 25

A.1. Ownership and identity information

26 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 27

Companies (ToR 8 A.1.1) Types of companies

28 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Ownership information on domestic companies Registration of companies

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 29

Stock companies share registries

30 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 31

Ownership information on foreign companies 14

32 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Registration of foreign companies

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 33

34 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 35

Ownership information held by directors and officers

Ownership information held by service providers

36 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

18. 19. 20.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 37

38 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Ownership information held by nominees

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 39

40 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Bearer shares (ToR A.1.2)

Partnerships (ToR A.1.3) Types of partnerships

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 41

NKs, civil code partnerships

TKs, silent partnerships

42 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

LLPs, limited liability partnerships

LPSs, investment limited partnership

Ownership information on partnerships Registration of partnerships

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 43

44 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 45

Information held by service providers

Information held by the partnership or partners

Trusts (ToR A.1.4)

46 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Fiduciary duties of trustees

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 47

48 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 49

50 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Identity Information maintained by service providers

Foundations (ToR A.1.5)