The sixth oral argument hearing was held on Monday, June 8th, at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court. We express our sincere gratitude to everyone who has supported us on a regular basis.

Prior to this hearing, the plaintiffs submitted opinion papers from two tax law scholars, Professor Yoshikazu Miki of Aoyama Gakuin University and Associate Professor Daijun Fujima of Kanagawa University ( Professor Miki's opinion paper , Associate Professor Fujima's opinion paper ), and elaborated on their contents in their fourth preparatory document . Furthermore, in their fifth preparatory document, they explained the supplementary evidence regarding the individual circumstances of each plaintiff. The summary of the former arguments is as follows:

① The government is claiming that a "direct connection to work" is necessary.

The government argues that childcare fees are expenses for childcare and not "directly" related to business activities, and therefore do not qualify as necessary expenses. However, the word "directly" is not used in the Income Tax Act. In the opinion paper we have submitted, we reiterate that the requirement of "direct relevance" is not written in the law. Our argument is that adding a requirement that is not in the law afterward to deny the recognition of expenses violates the principle of legality in taxation.

② The fundamental principle of tax law is to "broadly recognize general expenses."

This document also examines in detail the reports and legislative materials from the Tax System Research Council in the 1960s, when the current Income Tax Law was created. These materials indicate that expenses should be recognized as broadly as possible, encompassing not only those directly contributing to income generation, but also those related to the business. It has been pointed out that current practice interprets the scope of necessary expenses more narrowly than the legal wording.
This trial is at stake because it questions the very fundamental principle of tax law: "What constitutes a necessary expense?"

③ Childcare fees cannot be judged on the basis of "it's childcare, so it's not a business expense."

The government argues that childcare fees are childcare expenses and therefore household expenses. However, we counter that the mere term "childcare" cannot negate their business expense status. For example, without examining specific circumstances such as why the expenditure was made, what kind of work is involved, and whether income was generated from the expenditure, it is impossible to determine whether it is truly related to work. Our opinion paper also states that the nature, purpose, and effect of the expenditure should be judged comprehensively.

④ Licensed daycare centers are fundamentally a system "for the purpose of employment."

To enroll a child in a licensed daycare center, parents must submit documents such as an employment certificate and a declaration of employment status to the local government and receive certification of the "need for childcare." In other words, the childcare fees for licensed daycare centers are expenses incurred on the premise that parents are working. No "childcare fees" are incurred if the child is simply cared for at home. In that sense, a key point of this opinion paper is that childcare fees are expenses incurred in order to work, and not simply household expenses.

What we wanted to convey to the court in the document we submitted this time was simple.
Instead of making the abstract argument that "it's not a business expense because it's for childcare," I want you to look at the actual purpose and role of the expenditure before making a judgment. The provisions of the tax law, the legislative intent, recent court cases, and the opinions of two tax law scholars all support this viewpoint.

Furthermore, at this hearing, we requested testimony from Professor Miki, Professor Fujima, and the two plaintiffs ( submission of evidence ), and it was decided that the two plaintiffs would be questioned . The next hearing will be to question the two plaintiffs. We are currently coordinating the date for September or later, and will inform you as soon as it is decided.

Next due date <br data-start="489" data-end="492">Date and time: September or later (undecided)
Location: Tokyo District Court (Courtroom to be determined)

Please feel free to invite others and come observe the proceedings.
We would greatly appreciate your continued support.

The fifth oral argument hearing was held on Thursday, April 23rd, at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court. We express our sincere gratitude to everyone who has supported us on a regular basis.

Prior to this hearing, the plaintiff submitted preparatory brief (3) and argued the following:

In preparatory brief (3), we refuted and supplemented the defendant's claims, mainly focusing on the following points.

1. The "direct relevance" requirement is unnecessary. The defendant argues that a "direct" relevance to the business is necessary for an expense to qualify as a necessary expense, but this contradicts the wording of Article 37 of the Income Tax Act and the principle of legality in taxation. Court precedents do not establish "direct relevance" as an independent requirement, and the qualification of an expense as a necessary expense should be determined by a comprehensive judgment that takes into account the nature, purpose, and effect of the expenditure.

2. Childcare fees are not household expenses. The defendant argues that expenses related to childcare, such as childcare fees, are "essentially personal consumption," but it is wrong to deny their necessity based solely on the classification of expenses.

3. Childcare fees are considered business-related expenses . Business-related expenses are not limited to expenses directly related to the work itself, but also include expenses that prepare the prerequisites for employment. In this case, the childcare fees qualify as business-related expenses.

4. The nature and social position of childcare centers today (employment support function)
Historically and institutionally, daycare centers have increasingly served to support parents' employment, and the premise that daycare fees are solely "expenses for the child" is fundamentally flawed.

At the next hearing, the plaintiffs plan to submit expert opinions from two tax law researchers.

Next due date
June 8th (Monday) 11:30am~
Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 703

Please feel free to invite others and come observe the proceedings.
We would greatly appreciate your continued support.

The fourth oral argument hearing was held on Tuesday, February 24th at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to everyone who has continued to support us.

Prior to this hearing, the defendants filed a statement of their objections to the complaint, arguing as follows:
*For details of the government's argument, please see here ( Preparatory Document ⑵ ) to view it.

Regarding the framework for determining necessary expenses , the defendant argued that in order for an expense to be considered a necessary expense, it must be directly linked to a specific economic activity (so-called "direct connection"). The issue at issue is whether or not the "direct" requirement exists in the legal interpretation of necessary expenses (Article 37, Paragraph 1 of the Income Tax Act).

2. Given the nature of daycare centers, daycare fees are not considered necessary expenses. The defendants argue that daycare centers have always been "facilities for the care and education of children" (Article 39 of the Child Welfare Act), and that this nature has not changed since the system was established. Furthermore, the defendants argued that the fact that daycare centers allow parents to secure working hours is merely a secondary benefit of social support for fulfilling childcare responsibilities under a legal system that "bears primary responsibility for parents." Therefore, they cannot be considered necessary expenses. The issue at issue is whether the nature of today's daycare center system is "for the children" or "for the parents' working lives."

At the next hearing, the plaintiff will refute the defendant's written submissions and make an oral statement regarding the contents of the rebuttal.

Next date
April 23rd (Thursday) 3pm
Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 703

Please invite your friends and come to observe the hearing.
We appreciate your continued support.

The third oral argument hearing was held on Tuesday, November 18th at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to everyone who has continued to support us.

Summary of Defendant's Argument <br>At the previous hearing, the defendant argued, in summary:

• "The main purpose of a nursery school is to care for and educate children (child welfare)."

• "Childcare fees are the price to pay, and securing working hours for parents is merely a secondary benefit."

• "Therefore, childcare fees are not related to income earning and are not considered necessary expenses."

Based on this logic, they took the position that it was not a necessary expense ( Preparatory document ⑴ ).

Summary of Plaintiff's Arguments
At this hearing, we mainly refuted the claims of the above countries.
First, we analyzed recent court cases as well as existing court cases and academic theories to determine whether an expense constitutes a necessary expense ( Article 37, Paragraph 1 of the Income Tax Act), and then organized and presented the framework for determining whether an expense constitutes a necessary expense (First Preparatory Document [Regarding the framework for determining whether an expense constitutes a necessary expense and the applicability of childcare fees] ).

Based on this, the court pointed out the error in the defendant's argument, stating that the central role of childcare centers today is to "support parents in their employment" (Preparatory Brief No. 2 [Purpose of Childcare Center Use Today] ). The summary is as follows:

• In the past, nurseries were facilities for providing special education for children, but over the past 30 years, the nature of nurseries has changed dramatically. Now, nurseries are institutionally positioned as facilities to support working parents.

• Major institutional reforms that indicate this shift: 1. 1997 amendment to the Child Welfare Act: Daycare centers changed from being "relief-centered" to being "services" that parents could freely choose.
  ② 2012 Amendment to the Child Welfare Act: The eligibility criteria were changed from “lacking childcare” to “needing childcare,” making the system accessible to all parents who want to work.

• Other government policies: In 2016, Prime Minister Abe declared, "We are determined to achieve zero waiting lists for childcare," following his comment, "Japan, die! I couldn't get into daycare!" In 2020, under the state of emergency, he made a thorough request to local governments to provide childcare so that medical workers could continue working.

• Currently, 96% of daycare center use is due to work.
  →It is clear that today's daycare centers are employment support facilities.

At the hearing, attorney Enatsu gave a presentation on the "framework for determining necessary expenses," and attorney Toda gave a presentation on the "nature of daycare centers." ( Enatsu's statement and projected materials , Toda's statement and projected materials )

After the hearing, a brief explanation of the defendant's claims was given to those in attendance, making for a very productive session.

After the hearing, with the plaintiffs and their lawyers outside the Tokyo District Court

Next date

At the next hearing, the defendant is scheduled to refute the plaintiff's written rebuttal (the deadline for the defendant to submit written rebuttals is February 17th).

February 24, 2026 (Tuesday) 13:30~
Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 703

Please invite your friends and come to observe the hearing.
We appreciate your continued support.

The second oral argument hearing was held on Tuesday, September 2nd at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to everyone who has continued to support us.

Prior to this hearing, the defendant submitted a written rebuttal to the complaint, arguing that childcare is a form of welfare and that childcare fees are compensation for it, denying that the expenses are necessary expenses. You can see it in the preparatory documents (⑴ ).

After the hearing, a brief explanation of the defendant's claims was given to those in attendance, making for a very productive session.

▲After the hearing, with everyone who came to observe

At the next hearing, the plaintiffs will refute the defendants' written submissions and make an oral presentation on the contents of their rebuttals.

Next date
Tuesday, November 18th from 11am
Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 703

Please invite your friends and come to observe the hearing.
We appreciate your continued support.

The first oral argument for this case was held today (June 5, 2025) at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court.

In court, the plaintiffs presented a summary of their complaint , and the defendants presented their answer .
Afterwards, the plaintiffs, Mr. Matsumura and Mr. Kuramochi, and their attorney, Mr. Toda, each made statements of opinion and presented their complaint.
Please see below for details of the speeches given on the day.
(※Link: Mr. Matsumura , Mr. Kuramochi , Attorney Toda )

The court instructed the defendant/government to submit a written rebuttal by the next hearing, which is set for July 31.

After the hearing, we held a hearing report session to provide an overview of the trial and future prospects. Many people attended both sessions and lively discussions were held.

The next hearing will be held on September 2nd at 1:30 pm in Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court.
We hope you will attend and participate in our next meeting as well. Thank you for your continued support.

▲With the plaintiffs and their lawyers in front of the court

▲With everyone who participated in the deadline report meeting

CALL4 prepared a report on the lawsuit press conference held on February 25th, which was published today.

Please take a look.

Lawsuit press conference report "Lawsuit to turn childcare fees into expenses" - February 25, 2025 @ Judicial Press Club

Thank you for your support of the "Make Childcare Fees an Expense! Lawsuit" campaign.

We are pleased to announce that this week on Tuesday, February 25th, we have filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court entitled "Turn Childcare Fees into an Expense!"

A press conference was held at the Judicial Press Club at 2:00 p.m. on the same day.

At the press conference, attorneysEnatsu and Toda explained the details of the lawsuit and its legal significance.

Attorney Toda emphasized that this lawsuit has "legal significance" in that it raises new questions about what constitutes as necessary expenses and what constitutes as household expenses.

He also pointed out that the definition currently adopted by the tax office, which states that necessary expenses are only those directly related to business operations, is an overly narrow interpretation of necessary expenses.

In the first place, the High Court has ruled that even if an expenditure is not directly related to the business, it can be recognized as a necessary direct expense if there is a connection.

Despite this, the tax office still requires for a direct connection between business and expenses for it to be deemed as necessary expenses and therefore, still treats childcare fees as merely a household expense.

The attorneys also noted that another reason for the tax office not changing their decision in viewing the treatment of childcare fees as household expenses, or personal consumer expenditure,    is due to the still ingrained misogynistic belief that men earn money outside the home and women take on the housework and childcare duties unpaid.

Yet, currently in Japan, 70% of households have dual incomes.

The tax office's view of childcare fees as household expenses rather than necessary expenses should be corrected in order to maintain a balance between diverse working styles and childcare.

Therefore, it is important to clarify that childcare fees are necessary expenses and not household expenses.

One of the plaintiffs, Mr. Kuramochi, also attended the press conference. He mentioned, "Raising children is hard, but fun. That's why I wanted to be an opportunity for other people to take on the challenge."

Through the judicial system, we aim to settle the interpretation of "necessary expenses" and "household expenses" so that childcare fees can be deducted as expenses.

We appreciate your continued support.