Exit Tax and 'Returning Within 5 Years' — Examining the System That Drew Attention Following Reports of Atsuhiko Nakata's Return to Japan Through the Provisions of the Law

In July 2026, it was reported that Atsuhiko Nakata of Oriental Radio and his family, including Moe Fukuda, had returned to Japan permanently from Singapore, sparking a major debate on social media that included both support and criticism. The term 'exit tax' appeared repeatedly throughout this discussion. This is because the period of 'about five years'—from their emigration in 2021 to their return in 2026—was linked to the 'five-year' provision found in the exit tax legislation.

The mechanism of the exit tax (tax on overseas transfers) itself was organized by following the legal provisions in a separate article, 'What is the Exit Tax (Tax on Overseas Transfers)? — Verifying Who Is and Is Not Subject to It Through the Law.' In this article, we will focus specifically on the treatment of 'returning within five years of departure,' which received particular attention in the recent reports, to confirm how the system is actually stipulated.

First, I would like to make one disclaimer. An individual's tax status is determined by factual circumstances such as the nature of the assets they held, whether they filed the necessary notifications, and their holdings at the time of their return. None of this information is public. This article does not speculate on the tax amount or tax filing details of any specific individual, but rather explains the content of the system that has garnered interest following the news reports.

What was reported and what became the subject of debate

First, let's organize the facts. The Nakata family moved to Singapore in 2021, and in early July 2026, Moe Fukuda reported that the family had returned to Japan permanently. In a magazine column, it was stated that it was her husband, Atsuhiko, who first suggested wanting to return to Japan.

In response to this report, there was a series of criticisms on social media regarding their tax burden. Because the time from emigration to return was about five years, posts linking this to the 'five-year' period of the exit tax spread. However, most of these posts were not from a position where the authors could know the details of the individual's assets or tax filing status.

On the other hand, it has also been reported that much of this criticism spread without any basis. The Huffington Post Japan reported that the comments directed at the couple, such as 'freeloading' or 'tax evasion,' were baseless criticisms that included misunderstandings and defamation. Toyo Keizai Online also discussed the criticisms of 'tax saving purposes' and 'failed emigration' as being off the mark.

In other words, this topic has spread more as a discussion of reputation using the tax system as material, rather than a discussion of the tax system itself. That is precisely why it is meaningful to confirm how the system is actually written.

How do celebrities and experts view this?

Opinions are divided. (This is to be expected, as various positions and motives are likely involved...) The following is limited to what can be confirmed through reports and statements released by the individuals themselves. Please check the respective sources for the full context of their remarks.

In early July 2026, Takafumi Horie countered the heated criticism on his own YouTube channel. It is reported that he stated it was pitiful that Nakata was being bashed so excessively, and asked those criticizing him, 'Do you have the right to say that?' Regarding the background of the return, he suggested that a decline in YouTube views and the fact that his taxable income was no longer as high as it used to be might be contributing factors. What I want to confirm here is that this is an opinion on the nature of the criticism, not an explanation of the tax system.

According to reports, Saki Miyawaki (an overseas real estate investor) explains the situation from the perspective of the exit tax that lies behind the fact of 'returning in five years' and the costs associated with moving abroad that are easy to overlook.

Hirotada Ototake also touched upon the structure of this criticism itself in an article for SPA!.

For the same event, such different interpretations emerge from the perspectives of tax, living costs, and public opinion. This is considered a sign that the exit tax system is barely known to the general public, making it easy for fragmented information to take on a life of its own.

What is being said as the reason for the return

The reason for the return mentioned in the reports is mainly the children's education, not taxes.

It is reported that the background involved the children's advancement in school and challenges regarding the language environment surrounding Japanese and English. The explanation is that it was a decision made after the family discussed educational environments and future options. Since matters concerning their children fall within the private domain of the family, this article will not delve any further into this.

The aspect of living costs has also been pointed out. While Singapore has no capital gains tax or inheritance tax, and the top income tax rate is lower than in Japan, international school tuition is reported to be around 4 to 5.5 million yen per person per year. For a family with multiple children, this can amount to a burden of tens of millions of yen over several years. It is a point often raised in practice as a general theory that if you judge emigration based solely on tax rates, the difference may be offset—or even reversed—by living costs.

If you return to Japan within 5 years of leaving, does the exit tax disappear?

I will start with the conclusion. There is indeed a provision that allows tax to be 'treated as if it never existed' by returning within 5 years. However, this is not something that is automatically applied to everyone; it is limited to cases where multiple requirements and procedures are met.

The basis for this is Article 60-2, Paragraph 6 of the Income Tax Act. This paragraph stipulates that if a person returns to Japan by the day on which 5 years have elapsed from the date of departure from Japan, for securities, etc., that have been continuously owned since the time of departure, 'all' of the deemed transfer 'may be treated as if it did not occur.' Furthermore, under Paragraph 7 of the same Article, if an extension of the tax payment deferral period has been received, this 5-year period is read as 10 years.

The 'cancellation' referred to here does not mean that the tax will automatically disappear just by returning within the period. It is a process of correcting the tax relationship after going through the procedures described below. It should also be noted that some details regarding judgments and procedures are delegated to cabinet orders, and the system is not completed by the legal text alone.

With that in mind, the following points must be understood.

First, whether one is subject to the exit tax in the first place. Those subject to it are residents who own a total of 100 million yen or more in target assets at the time of departure from Japan and who have had a domicile or residence in Japan for a total of more than 5 years within the 10 years prior to the date of departure (Article 60-2, Paragraph 5). If these requirements are not met, taxation and cancellation are not an issue to begin with.

Second, the scope of cancellation is limited to assets that are 'continuously owned.' Assets sold after departure are not subject to cancellation even if one returns to Japan.

Third, tax payment deferral involves procedures. Article 137-2, Paragraph 1 of the Income Tax Act stipulates that tax payment is deferred only if a notification of a tax agent is submitted by the time of departure from Japan and collateral is provided by the deadline for filing a final tax return. The deferral period is generally 5 years, or 10 years upon notification. During the deferral period, a statement of continued application must be submitted every year.

Fourth, cancellation is not automatic. According to the National Tax Agency's guidance, it is necessary to file a request for correction or an amended tax return within 4 months from the date of return.

Note that this article focuses on the system under the Income Tax Act. When considering the actual burden, the Special Reconstruction Income Tax and interest tax based on the deferral period may also be relevant.

In other words, the understanding that 'the exit tax disappears if you return within 5 years' is not accurate. It is a matter that only holds true when the conditions of being subject to the tax, continuous ownership, deferral procedures, and post-return requests are all met.

What can and cannot be confirmed from this report

Let me summarize.

What can be confirmed is that, as a system, there is a provision for cancellation by returning within 5 years (or 10 years if an extension of the deferral period has been received). This is written in the legal text.

What cannot be confirmed are facts such as whether a specific individual was subject to that system, whether they had received a tax payment deferral, whether they held the target assets until the time of their return, or whether they performed the cancellation procedures. These are not matters that are made public. Therefore, it is not possible, nor should it be considered appropriate, to discuss an individual's tax amount or tax filing details from the outside.

On the other hand, what this report has shown is clear. For those considering moving abroad, the exit tax is an issue that cannot be dismissed by saying 'I didn't know.'

Summary

・There is indeed a provision that allows the deemed transfer taxation to be 'nullified' if one returns to Japan within 5 years of departure (Article 60-2, Paragraph 6 of the Income Tax Act). If an extension for the tax payment deferral has been granted, this period is 10 years (Paragraph 7 of the same Article).
・However, there are conditions for this to apply. These include meeting requirements such as having 100 million yen or more in target assets, continuously owning the assets until returning, completing tax deferral procedures, and filing a request for correction within 4 months from the date of return.
・Assets sold after departure are not eligible for cancellation even if one returns to Japan.
・Tax payment deferral requires the notification of a tax agent by the time of departure and the provision of collateral by the final income tax return deadline (Article 137-2, Paragraph 1).
・It is dangerous to plan an emigration based on the assumption that 'it will be fine if I return within 5 years.' There is no guarantee you will be able to return, selling assets makes them ineligible, and there are many procedural requirements.
・An individual's tax status cannot be determined from public information. One should distinguish between understanding the system and confirming individual factual circumstances.

Generally speaking, overseas emigration is not decided solely by taxes. In the recent reports, the core reasons discussed were not taxes. Even so, if you do not factor the exit tax into your plans when considering emigration, you may face an unexpected burden when filing your tax return for the year of your departure. It is sound practice to understand the system first and then choose where to live based on reasons other than taxes.

For what to check and in what order regarding overall emigration, please refer to 'What Happens to Japanese Taxes When You Emigrate Overseas — The Order to Check Before You Leave.' For an overview of the exit tax eligibility and mechanism, see 'What is the Exit Tax (Taxation on Overseas Departure) — Verifying Who Is and Isn't Subject to It Through Legal Provisions.' The overall pitfalls of emigration, including the determination of resident vs. non-resident status, are organized in Chapter 1 of the series, 'Stumbling Blocks in Individual Emigration and Residency — 20 Tax Patterns for Overseas Business and Emigration (Chapter 1, Patterns 1-5).'

※This article provides general information based on public information and laws as of July 2026. It does not certify or evaluate the tax status of any specific individual or corporation. The statements of the individuals mentioned in the article are summaries based on the scope of reports and publicly available communications. Individual application depends on specific factual circumstances. Please check the National Tax Agency website or similar sources for the latest laws and circulars.

Reference Materials (Verified July 2026)
Income Tax Act Article 60-2 (Special Provisions for Capital Gains, etc. in the Case of Overseas Migration) Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 e-Gov Law Search https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/340AC0000000033
Income Tax Act Article 137 of 2(Tax Deferral When Applying Special Provisions for Capital Gains, etc. in the Case of Overseas Migration) Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, and Paragraph 6 e-Gov Law Search https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/340AC0000000033
National Tax Agency Tax Answer No. 1478 (Special Provisions for Capital Gains, etc. in the Case of Overseas Migration) [Tax Deferral/Cancellation Procedures Upon Return to Japan]https://www.nta.go.jp/taxes/shiraberu/taxanswer/shotoku/1478.htm
J-CAST News "Takafumi Horie Expresses His Opinion on Criticism of Atsuhiko Nakata's Return to Japan" (July 9, 2026) https://www.j-cast.com/2026/07/09516220.html
HuffPost Japan Edition "Moe Fukuda & Atsuhiko Nakata's "Return to Japan" met with ... baseless criticism online"https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/20b1ecd9d6195fe97ee1260210ce9378acdc99bf
Toyo Keizai Online "The Misguided Criticism of 'Tax Evasion' and 'Failed Migration'"https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/950714
Livedoor News "Overseas Real Estate Investor Saki Miyawaki Deciphers the Pitfalls of Exit Tax and Overseas Migration Behind Atsuhiko Nakata's 'Returning in 5 Years'"https://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/31843865/