I am a Canadian citizen interested in and considering spending some time in Japan on the so-called 'rich tourist visa' but am wondering about whether or not the amount of time spent in Japan (1 year) will inadvertently make me a tax resident. I understand it's a non-working visa that doesn't allow you to enroll in NHI or pay into/receive pensions, and read somewhere that holders of this visa (as they are basically just extended tourists) are also exempted from paying resident tax (apparently there is a special form you fill out at the 区役所 that establishes you as exempt). I also understand that Japan doesn't follow the >183 day rule like the US and many other countries, but rather adjudicates your tax residence based on whether you have a 住所 in Japan—basically whether or not Japan is the 'center of your vital interests.' My question is: normally, residing in Japan for 1 year is enough to trigger limited tax residency, but even if someone spends a whole year in Japan on the designated activities #40 visa, how could their 'center of vital interests' now be deemed in Japan if they don't even have a bank account or assets or permanent address in Japan and are forced to leave after a year?
Furthermore, there have been people who clearly demonstrated that (unlike the DNV or WHV) you can get this visa more than once, and there appears to be no real limit to how many times you can repeatedly apply for it as long as you meet the qualifications each time. This person describes in their blog post how they applied for and got it two years in a row with no problem at all. Imagine if someone did this 5 times in a row thus satisfying the 5/10 years rule (although I'm not even sure if Designated Activities #40 is a Table 1 or Table 2 visa, so the 5/10 year rule may not even apply…please correct me if I'm wrong), then would they in principle become an unlimited tax resident of Japan? Or rather, does the fact that you literally have to "move out" (de register) and leave the country fully without a re-entry permit every year basically make the years spent discontinuous and thus not accruing for the purposes of tax residence?
I know there's not a lot of info out there on this visa (or its tax implications, which yes, I understand tax status ≠ visa status) but if any of you have any experience with it I'd love to hear it. I am not a tax or immigration expert so I may have a bunch of false premises. I'm happy to be corrected if I've got anything wrong.
by Deer_Door