Resident tax, even if unemployed spouse?

Must a spouse of a Japanese national, who is unemployed, pay for resident tax?

This was a great debate among my friends and I, that surprisingly could not be resolved. Resident tax is supposed to be based on income tax, but if that is zero/none, wouldn't that mean that the resident tax is zero/none too?

However, some people were saying that resident tax must be paid, even if the income is zero. But, that doesn't appear to make any sense, because there doesn't seem to be anything to base it on. How would the resident tax be calculated?

Is the Japanese spouse working and making money, and when she/he files taxes (or when their employer does the taxes for them), is the non-Japanese spouse properly reported as the gtax dependenth of the working Japanese person?

Once that is done, and the non-Japanese spouse has zero income, then there will be no resident taxes levied on the non-Japanese spouse.

However, if the non-Japanese spouse is not mentioned on the Japanesefs tax papers as the gtax dependent,h tax authorities would not know that the non-Japanese spouse has zero income.

Resident tax is supposed to be based on income tax, but if that is zero/none, wouldn't that mean that the resident tax is zero/none too?
No, that assumes it is a simple percentage. My fist year in Japan I had zero assessable income, but my local resident taxes were something like 70,000 yen (can't remember exactly, a long time ago). i.e. the amount is a fixed fee plus a percentage of income. (Haven't bothered to check the sliding scale of percentages either.)

The short answer is no. All you had to do is to ask your tax office.
https://www.nta.go.jp/publication/pamph/koho/kurashi/html/02_2.htm

@by Uco

My understanding was that it should be "no" too (no income then no resident tax), but apparently various members in our group (during our great debates), said that was not the case. It might also be a matter of where in Japan they are located. So looking into that.

1) It appears that part of the issue is when the person last received income. So any income into a tax year (example former job), results in resident tax. "When" they stopped working is very important.

Various foreigners appear to get caught up with this, and are "kind of surprised" by an unexpected resident tax bill. Probably because since they are unemployed at that time, it is more of a burden to pay the resident tax.

This of course makes sense (any income results in some amount of resident tax), but that wasn't the case being argued. Because what initiated the debate was a fully unemployed spouse with no income for more than a year.

2) Also any income by the spouse (example part-time job), will result in a resident tax bill

In fact, any "smallish" amount by the spouse in Japan, can result in a tax problem. As there is the avalanche of income tax, resident tax, health insurance (a different problem by itself), etc... There is a kind of sweet spot range from 1,000,000 yen (around 10,000 dollars) to 1,500,000 (around 15,000 dollars) or so, where the spouse has enough to pay off all the taxes and such, is still a dependent on the taxes of the other spouse (so they get an additional deduction), and it's considered worth it. Going beyond 2,000,000 (around 20,000) or so means another kind of trouble as they reach the point where the spouse can't be a dependent (no extra deduction) and must pay out more money into the national pension.

Again, in this case, this is not a truly unemployed spouse. Even smallish part-time income will result in resident tax. So this situation is understood.

3) Reverse sexism, targeting, or harassing married male foreign spouses in Japan

These interesting cases were brought up by male foreigners in the group, who had problems with immigration about being an unemployed spouse. In fact, such somewhat similar incidents appear to have been posted here on japan-guide too and other forums. After becoming aware of the issue, I have been spotting such reports on the Internet.

It appears that it's acceptable for a female spouse to be unemployed and at home. It usually stays as a non-issue and there isn't any income tax, resident tax, etc... expected by immigration officials.

If the foreign spouse is male and unemployed, then it suddenly becomes an issue. There is a demand for income tax, resident tax, and official explanation of why unemployed. Even the marriage visa or extension appears to be conditional to employment.

The clear problem with that would be what is the point of the marriage visa, if it's really a work visa to pull tax revenue for the state in disguise? Taking traditionalism out of the equation, why can't the male spouse be at home or unemployed?

In the case of two male members in the group, they stated that because of immigration they switched from marriage visas to work visas. One person going from work visa to marriage visa, back to work visa. This was because they were given only 1 year extensions despite being married for 3 years (in one case) and "harassed" about being unemployed. Switching to work visas also reduced the stress they had to put their wives through each year. Was quite surprised to hear that.

As far as I know, there has been no harassment when my non-Japanese husband was made redundant from a job in Japan, and we had to switch him to gspouse of Japanese nationalh from his early gworkh resident status. (OK, Ifm the Japanese wife.)

However, because he HAD a job, the following year we were faced with a big, um, resident tax, health insurance, etc., bills. This is simply because these various gtaxesh are calculated based on the previous yearfs income.

Even when we switched his status from gworkh to gspouse,h I recall the first one was one year, but after that, even without him having a full-time work, (myself being a freelancer, so no gstableh income but fairly OK income, going on for many years. And I registered him as my gtax dependenth), he got the 3-year status after that initial one year. (Wefd been married for over several years at that time already.)


The clear problem with that would be what is the point of the marriage visa, if it's really a work visa to pull tax revenue for the state in disguise? Taking traditionalism out of the equation, why can't the male spouse be at home or unemployed?

Soc my answer to this is that gspouse of Japanese nationalh status IS to allow the married couples to live together in Japan, and not to extract taxes. Traditional thinking remains strong among the immigration (and other) officials. And they have this gwell, people (particularly men) canft be doing nothing, right?h about people in general too.

Just sharing my experiences.

@AK

Thank you for sharing your experiences. Different perspectives are valuable.

"However, because he HAD a job, the following year we were faced with a big, um, resident tax, health insurance, etc., bills."

Yes, many foreigners fall into this unpleasant surprise. Despite being presently unemployed, some portion of their previous year's salary can be calculated for resident tax. The higher the previous salary, the more painful it might be.

"And I registered him as my gtax dependenth), he got the 3-year status after that initial one year. (Wefd been married for over several years at that time already.)"

Possibly, there is some calculation for when a couple is married for several years or have children (under Japanese citizenship). In the case of the guys who had the issues with immigration in our group, they were relatively newly married. They were given 1-year only marriage visas/extensions multiple times.

"Soc my answer to this is that gspouse of Japanese nationalh status IS to allow the married couples to live together in Japan, and not to extract taxes."

On this point, we might disagree. It appears many Japanese citizens are not aware of the role tourism and taxing foreign workers play in the economy.

The harsh argument goes that because the Japanese population is rapidly ageing, the tax base of young Japanese workers is decreasing. To support the older Japanese and status quo, foreigners are seen as a way to generate additional tax revenue. That, or producers of part Japanese children, which will prop up the tax base in the future. Immigration, from this perspective, is a kind of quasi tax generator.

Visas/extensions for foreigners are about paying into the system, not respect for their marriage or love. And it keeps going, where permanent residency is granted under the condition of tax benefit to Japan. In fact, to gain permanent residency the applicant must have paid all taxes and fees to the satisfaction of immigration, be debt free, be considered a good risk (all kinds of odd things come into play), and generator of future tax revenue. The quasi exception or additional condition, is if the foreigner is a parent and provider (so the government doesn't have to pay welfare or any additional costs) of children of Japanese citizenship, who will be expected to grow into being contributors to the tax base in the future.

"Traditional thinking remains strong among the immigration (and other) officials. And they have this gwell, people (particularly men) canft be doing nothing, right?h about people in general too."

In the case of one of the male foreigners, the "harassment" and immigration troubles over unemployment and taxes resulted in divorce. And I'm starting to see this is not an isolated case, but a theme of targeting that might be more common than expected. It appears that visa/extensions become long drawn out battle periods of stress and problems with immigration, that possibly can be exacerbating any other marital issues.

In contrast, the treatment of Japanese male spouses with foreign females appears to be handled more gently and respectfully, in the case of their unemployment and taxes. On the one hand, it's not even asked about or bushed aside. On the other hand, it's treated as a critical condition to grant the marriage visa/extension.

Thank you for writing. Rejo.

I disagree about the gtax generatorh portion of your argument – we donft have any children (so no gpartly Japanese childrenh involved here). We only make modest income, which sometimes goes up, other times goes down, which is normal considering we both are by now freelancers.

We find the tax, health insurance, and pension payments gburdensomeh many years, but thatfs what we need to pay to live here. (And it is not that the tax rates/social security contribution percentages) are any less in any other country.)

Visas/extensions for foreigners are about paying into the system, not respect for their marriage or love.s
Of course if we live in the country, we need to pay the taxes according to its law. And of course for gspouseh status holders, the marriages need to be genuine too.

Unemployment can be very stressful – yes we have experienced that ourselves too – and particularly for the non-local males, it can hit hard. And that alone can break the marriages, unfortunately, and Ifm sorry to hear that if it has happened to your acquaintances. But I hope that they do not take it out or blame it on the Japanese immigration system. I feel some gventingh going on in your words too right there.

Maybe it helps that neither of us (meaning neither my husband or I) have this notion that the guy has to be the gbread earnerh – sometimes (Ifm not saying that it is the case with your acquaintances) this notion gcanh result in additional stress for the guy. Once he himself or the wife lifts that notion away, that makes things easier to some extent.

And about the gJapanese husband and non-Japanese wifeh being treated easy or not even asked about job/income – well, itfs kinda sad that the immigration doesnft even expect the wife to be able to make a decent income, if you turn it around, isnft it.

Best wishes to you and your family. I rest my case.

I enjoyed reading your perspective AK. I'm glad that your situation has become comfortable.

The issue of foreigners as tax revenue generators for Japan is definitely interesting, because it appears to be at the center of many visa/extension issues. One could argue that tax revenue is the bottom line, more than marriage or love, which would be a "personal concern".

However, the harsh perspective I presented is not new, and has been around for quite a while. You might want to take a look at an interesting paper on the subject from 2015. Many of the points I was alluding to, are clearly stated in vivid detail in that document and other articles.

Among these points, allowing an increase of foreigners into Japan is not done out of any type of kindness (to include respect for marriage), but rather to benefit and generate more revenue for the state. It's not always spelled out so plainly, but the purpose is clear. How foreigners are used by the state, is something that many might overlook or not be aware of.

"Can Guest Workers Solve Japan's Fiscal Problems"(https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/15e129.pdf)

Other examples:

"More seniors, more foreigners: How Japan is changing"
(https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181210-more-seniors-more-foreig...)

"Aging Population with Fewer Children and the Labor Force in Japan"
(https://www.aots.jp/en/publications/hrm-ir/report13-17/)

"A new law regarding foreign workers brings up old problems"
(https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2018/12/12/issues/new-law-regar...)