複数の店を経営しながら、営業許可も取引の決済もぜんぶ従業員の名義。「名義が従業員なら、自分は税務署に見えないはずだ」——そう考えた経営者に、税務署は所得税・消費税・源泉所得税の三方向から追徴をかけました。合計は加算税込みで約1億5,500万円。税務調査ファイルの第3回は、国税庁が公表した「名義借り」の実例から、名義を変えても課税は逃げられないという原則——実質所得者課税——がどう働くのかを読みます。名義を「貸した」側に何が起きるのかも扱います。
Business licences in employees' names, payments settled in employees' names — "if nothing is in my name, the tax office cannot see me." The National Tax Agency's published case shows how that ended: assessments from three directions at once — income tax, consumption tax and withholding tax — totalling roughly ¥155 million including penalties. This instalment of Tax Audit Files reads Japan's substance-over-name rule: Article 12 of the Income Tax Act taxes the person who actually enjoys the income, whatever name is on the paperwork. We also cover what happens to the person who lends their name.
The case: licences and settlement in employees' names, the money managed by the boss
Information on file suggested the taxpayer was the de facto operator of several hostess clubs in the area, so an audit was opened.
Examiners questioned not only the taxpayer but the employees. Business licence applications and transaction settlements were in employees' names — yet sales were managed, and business decisions made, by the taxpayer. De facto control was found to rest with him.
Pressed on this, he admitted he had "thought that operating in employees' names would conceal that he was the operator", and had filed nothing.
Tax was assessed from three directions: income tax on the business profits, consumption tax on the business, and withholding tax on fees paid to hostesses. Operating under others' names while filing nothing was treated as disguise and concealment, so the heavy additional tax applied.
The rule: tax follows the person who enjoys the income
Income Tax Act, Article 12 (taxation of the person with real income)
Where the person to whom income from assets or business legally appears to belong is a mere nominee and does not enjoy that income, and another person enjoys it, the income is treated as belonging to the person who enjoys it.
Whoever's name is on the licence or the account, tax attaches to the person who actually takes the money. Renaming things moves nothing. What the audit examined was not paperwork but cash flow and decision-making: who managed the sales, who set the policy. And note how it was established — by questioning the employees. Borrowing names means creating witnesses.
Verdict
The substance rule attaches tax to the real operator, and operating under another's name while filing nothing is treated as disguise and concealment: the heavy additional tax runs at 35% (in place of the understatement penalty) or 40% (in place of the non-filing penalty), plus 10% more for repetition within five years. The person who lent the name is the taxable party on paper, faces questioning, and risks being treated as complicit. No fee for lending a name is worth this.
Basis: Income Tax Act Art. 12; Act on General Rules for National Taxes Art. 68
Where the name and the substance match, the issue never arises. Family businesses where the registered proprietor and the person actually running things differ face the same structural question — file under the person who actually enjoys the income.
Why the assessment came from three directions
| Tax | Why | Amount here |
|---|---|---|
| Income tax | The clubs' profits were the real operator's business income | approx. ¥118m undeclared / ¥48m assessed |
| Consumption tax | Sales made him a taxable person | approx. ¥97m assessed |
| Withholding tax | The payer of hostess fees must withhold income tax at source | approx. ¥122m in fees / ¥10m assessed |
The third is the one people miss: withholding is the payer's duty. Hiding a business stacks the problem three layers deep — sales, consumption tax, and the payroll withholding you never operated.
FAQ
Q. If everything is in someone else's name, how does the tax office reach the real operator?
A. Audits question employees and other connected people, not just the taxpayer. In the published case, licences and settlement were in employees' names, but sales management and business decisions rested with the taxpayer, and de facto control was found on that basis. The more names you borrow, the more people know the truth.
Q. What happens to the employee who lent the name?
A. On paper they are the business operator, so they face questioning and must explain themselves. Until substance is established, filing and payment demands look their way, and knowing cooperation risks being treated as aiding concealment. No fee makes that worthwhile.
Q. How heavy is the heavy additional tax?
A. 35% where it replaces the understatement penalty, 40% where it replaces the non-filing penalty, plus a further 10% where it recurs within five years. Delinquency tax accrues on top.
Q. Is taking business receipts into a family member's account also dangerous?
A. If you are the one enjoying the income, it must be declared as yours whichever account it sits in. Doing this while under-declaring is likely to be treated as a concrete act of concealment.
Sources
This article is general information; attribution of income and withholding duties depend on the facts. Consult a tax office or a licensed tax accountant.