「Do Not」に関連した英語例文の一覧と使い方(434ページ目) - Weblio英語例文検索

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2, interest arising in a Contracting State shall be taxable only in the other Contracting State if: a) the interest is beneficially owned by the Government of that other Contracting State, a political subdivision or local authority thereof, or the central bank of that other Contracting State or any institution owned by that Government; b) the interest is beneficially owned by a resident of that other Contracting State with respect to debt-claims guaranteed, insured or indirectly financed by the Government of that other Contracting State, a political subdivision or local authority thereof, or the central bank of that other Contracting State or any institution owned by that Government; c) the interest is beneficially owned by a resident of that other Contracting State that is either: (i) a bank; (ii) an insurance company; (iii) a securities company; or (iv) any other enterprise, provided that in the three taxable years preceding the taxable year in which the interest is paid, the enterprise derives more than 50 per cent of its liabilities from the issuance of bonds in the financial markets or from taking deposits at interest, and more than 50 per cent of the assets of the enterprise consist of debt-claims against persons that do not have with the enterprise a relationship described in subparagraph a) or b) of paragraph 1 of Article 9; d) the interest is beneficially owned by a pension fund that is a resident of that other Contracting State, provided that such interest is not derived from the carrying on of a business, directly or indirectly, by such pension fund; or e) the interest is beneficially owned by a resident of that other Contracting State and paid with respect to indebtedness arising as a consequence of the sale on credit by a resident of that other Contracting State of any equipment, merchandise or service. 例文帳に追加

３ ２の規定にかかわらず、一方の締約国内において生ずる利子であって、次のいずれかの場合に該当するものについては、他方の締約国においてのみ租税を課することができる。(a)当該利子の受益者が、当該他方の締約国の政府、当該他方の締約国の地方政府若しくは地方公共団体、当該他方の締約国の中央銀行又は当該他方の締約国の政府が所有する機関である場合(b)当該利子の受益者が当該他方の締約国の居住者であって、当該利子が、当該他方の締約国の政府、当該他方の締約国の地方政府若しくは地方公共団体、当該他方の締約国の中央銀行又は当該他方の締約国の政府が所有する機関によって保証された債権、これらによって保険の引受けが行われた債権又はこれらによる間接融資に係る債権に関して支払われる場合(c)当該利子の受益者が、次のいずれかに該当する当該他方の締約国の居住者である場合(i)銀行(ii)保険会社(iii)証券会社(iv)(i)から(iii)までに掲げるもの以外の企業で、当該利子の支払が行われる課税年度の直前の三課税年度において、その負債の五十パーセントを超える部分が金融市場において発行された債券又は有利子預金から成り、かつ、その資産の五十パーセントを超える部分が当該企業と第九条１(a)又は(b)に規定する関係を有しない者に対する信用に係る債権から成るもの(d)当該利子の受益者が当該他方の締約国の居住者である年金基金であって、当該利子が、当該年金基金が直接又は間接に事業を遂行することにより取得されたものでない場合(e)当該利子の受益者が当該他方の締約国の居住者であって、当該利子が、当該他方の締約国の居住者により行われる信用供与による設備、物品の販売又は役務の提供の結果として生ずる債権に関して支払われる場合 - 財務省

Article 2 (1) The term "Whistleblowing" as used in this Act shall mean whistleblowing made by a worker (which shall mean worker as provided for in Article 9 of the Labor Standards Act (Act No. 49 of 1947); the same shall apply hereinafter), without a purpose of obtaining an wrongful gain, a purpose of causing damages to others, or any other wrongful purpose, about Reportable Fact that has been occurred, is being occurred or is about to be occurred by "Business Operator" (which shall mean any of the following business operators (which shall mean juridical person, other organization and individual who operates a business)), or such persons as officer, employee or agent in the workplace where the worker is occupied in performing the Business Operator's business activities, to the said Business Operator or the person designated by the said Business Operator in advance (hereinafter referred to as "Business Operator, etc."), to an Administrative Organ with the authority to impose disposition (which shall mean an order, rescission, and other acts involving the exercise of public authority; the same shall apply hereinafter) or recommendation, etc. (which shall mean a recommendation and other acts which are not disposition; the same shall apply hereinafter) upon the said Reportable Fact, or to any person who are recognized to be necessary to do whistleblowing to the said Reportable Fact in order to prevent the occurrence thereof or the spread of damage caused thereby (including person who suffers or might suffer damage from the said Reportable Fact, but excluding any person who might cause damages to the competitive position or any other legitimate interests of the Business Operator; the same shall apply in Item (iii) of the following Article.). 例文帳に追加

第二条　この法律において「公益通報」とは、労働者（労働基準法（昭和二十二年法律第四十九号）第九条に規定する労働者をいう。以下同じ。）が、不正の利益を得る目的、他人に損害を加える目的その他の不正の目的でなく、その労務提供先（次のいずれかに掲げる事業者（法人その他の団体及び事業を行う個人をいう。以下同じ。）をいう。以下同じ。）又は当該労務提供先の事業に従事する場合におけるその役員、従業員、代理人その他の者について通報対象事実が生じ、又はまさに生じようとしている旨を、当該労務提供先若しくは当該労務提供先があらかじめ定めた者（以下「労務提供先等」という。）、当該通報対象事実について処分（命令、取消しその他公権力の行使に当たる行為をいう。以下同じ。）若しくは勧告等（勧告その他処分に当たらない行為をいう。以下同じ。）をする権限を有する行政機関又はその者に対し当該通報対象事実を通報することがその発生若しくはこれによる被害の拡大を防止するために必要であると認められる者（当該通報対象事実により被害を受け又は受けるおそれがある者を含み、当該労務提供先の競争上の地位その他正当な利益を害するおそれがある者を除く。次条第三号において同じ。）に通報することをいう。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム

The ban was fully lifted in December 2007, with the sales of all insurance products approved as a result and, now that roughly three years have passed, the steps for prevention of harmful practices are slated to be changed as necessary on the basis of monitoring results and other information from the perspective of the protection and convenience of insurance policyholders, etc. However, I do not feel it appropriate to make a definite statement about any future orientation now. From what I heard, however, over-the-counter sales make up 1 percent of non-life insurance sales and approximately 6 percent of life insurance sales, which are the figures that I believe have been reported to me. Judging from those, it seems to me that the firewall or information on financing deals is protected fairly strictly. I recall the debate that took place in the past about the possible highly negative impact of the insurance sales by banks on the livelihood of sales agents marketing life insurance products but some regional banks are actually not engaged in life insurance sales. In the meantime, I hear that the three mega-banks are selling life insurance, but my guess is that it rather reflects their effort to have a full line of products, so to speak. The possibility of the insurance sales by banks posing a real threat to the life insurance industry, particularly the livelihood of life insurance sales agents, was a subject of a heated debate in the LDP as well. It turns out that more liberalization does help add more convenience for the people, as the results show: the over-the-counter sales by banks make up 6 percent of life insurance sales and 1 percent in non-life insurance sales. Let me also point out that it is extremely important to protect life insurance policyholders and that the greater the convenience for prospective policyholders, the more accessible life insurance becomes. I cannot give any definite word at this point in time – if I may be a little daring, however, I would say on the issue of the scheduled review after three years that the statistics look acceptable to me, but that is just my personal opinion. 例文帳に追加

平成19年12月、すべての保険商品の取扱いが認められて全面解禁したわけでございますが、弊害防止措置についてはモニタリング結果等を踏まえ、保険契約者等の保護や利便性の観点から概ね3年間経過しまして、所要の見直しを行うことにしておりますが、現在の方向性については、現在確たることは申し上げられないというふうに思っておりますが、たしか私が聞くところによりますと、窓口販売は損害保険だとたしか1％、それから生命保険だと6％ぐらいの数字ということをたしか報告いただいておりますので、ファイアーウォールといいますか、融資に関する情報がかなりきちんと私は厳格に守られているのではないかということを思っておりますし、一時こんなものを銀行で売られたら、生命保険を売って回る生保の募集員の方々の生活を非常に圧迫するというような論議も当時あったやに私は覚えておりますけれども、現実には地方銀行でも生命保険を売っていないところもございますし、それから、3メガバンクは売っているようでございますが、それもどちらかというと商品を揃えるというか、そういう色彩が強いのではないかというふうに私は思っておりまして、当時、銀行で窓販されるともう生命保険業界、特に生命保険の勧誘員の方の生活が本当に脅かされるというようなことを大変自由民主党でも当時議論の過程では噴出したのですが、結果としては、この生命保険が窓販6％、損保1％ということを見れば、この辺はやはりできるだけ自由にした方が国民の利便になるわけですから、それから、生命保険に入った人の保護というのは非常に大事でございまして、生命保険に入る人の利便性というか、便利な方がより生命保険に接することができるわけですから、そういったところを考えたら、まだ今の時点では確たることは申し上げられませんけれども、しかし、3年後に見直しを行うということでございますが、こういうことは少し一歩踏み込んだ発言になるのかもしれませんけれども、出てきた数字を見ると、妥当なところではないかなというふうに私は、ここは個人的意見ですけれども、思いますね。 - 金融庁

(3) The provision of Article 52-6(1) of the New Banking Act (including the cases where it is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 17 of the New Long-Term Credit Bank Act; hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) shall not apply, until the day on which one year has elapsed from the Effective Date, to granting of credit, etc. (meaning granting of credit, etc. as defined by Article 52-6(1) of the New Banking Act; hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) by a Bank Holding Company as defined by Article 2(11) of the New Banking Act (hereinafter referred to as a "Bank Holding Company" in this paragraph) and/or its Subsidiary Companies, etc. (meaning Subsidiary Companies, etc. as defined by 52-6(1) of the New Banking Act; hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph), or by a Long-Term Credit Bank Holding Company as defined by Article 16-4(1) of the New Long-Term Credit Bank Act (hereinafter referred to as a "Long-Term Credit Bank Holding Company" in this paragraph) and/or its Subsidiary Companies, etc., to one person as defined by Article 52-6(1) of the New Banking Act of which the total amount exceeds the Limit of Granting of Credit, etc. by Bank Holding Company (meaning Limit of Granting of Credit, etc. by Bank Holding Company as defined by Article 52-6(1) of the New Banking Act; hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) at the time when this Act comes into effect, if the Bank Holding Company or the Long-Term Credit Bank Holding Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as a "Bank Holding Company, etc." in this paragraph and Article 105 of these Supplementary Provisions) notifies thereof to the Financial Reconstruction Commission by the day on which three months have elapsed from the Effective Date. In this case, where it is likely that if the Bank Holding Company and/or its Subsidiary Companies, etc., or Long-Term Credit Bank Holding Company and/or its Subsidiary Companies, etc., do not continue granting of credit, etc. of which the total amount exceeds the Limit of Granting of Credit, etc. by Bank Holding Company to the one person even after the day on which one year has elapsed from the Effective Date, it would significantly hinder the continuation of the business of the one person, or where there is other compelling reason, and when the Bank Holding Company, etc. obtains an approval from the Prime Minister before that day, the Bank Holding Company, etc. shall be deemed to have obtained the approval referred to in the proviso to Article 52-6(1) of the New Banking Act on the day after that day. 例文帳に追加

３　新銀行法第五十二条の六第一項（新長期信用銀行法第十七条において準用する場合を含む。以下この項において同じ。）の規定は、この法律の施行の際現に新銀行法第五十二条の六第一項に規定する同一人に対する信用の供与等（同項に規定する信用の供与等をいう。以下この項において同じ。）の額が合算して銀行持株会社に係る信用供与等限度額（同条第一項に規定する銀行持株会社に係る信用供与等限度額をいう。以下この項において同じ。）を超えている新銀行法第二条第十一項に規定する銀行持株会社（以下この項において「銀行持株会社」という。）若しくはその子会社等（新銀行法第五十二条の六第一項に規定する子会社等をいう。以下この項において同じ。）又は新長期信用銀行法第十六条の四第一項に規定する長期信用銀行持株会社（以下この項において「長期信用銀行持株会社」という。）若しくはその子会社等の当該同一人に対する信用の供与等については、当該銀行持株会社又は当該長期信用銀行持株会社（以下この項及び附則第百五条において「銀行持株会社等」という。）が施行日から起算して三月を経過する日までにその旨を金融再生委員会に届け出たときは、施行日から起算して一年を経過する日までの間は、適用しない。この場合において、当該銀行持株会社若しくはその子会社等又は当該長期信用銀行持株会社若しくはその子会社等が合算して当該同一人に対して同日後も引き続き銀行持株会社に係る信用供与等限度額を超えて当該信用の供与等をしないこととすれば当該同一人の事業の継続に著しい支障を生ずるおそれがある場合その他のやむを得ない理由がある場合において当該銀行持株会社等が同日までに内閣総理大臣の承認を受けたときは、当該銀行持株会社等は、同日の翌日において新銀行法第五十二条の六第一項ただし書の規定による承認を受けたものとみなす。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム

I made a comment at the informal ministerial gathering today, which was obviously not a comment from the head of the administration, but I am Vice-Chief of the People's New Party (PNP), and the current government is, as you know, a coalition of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and the PNP. Accordingly, Prime Minister Kan, right after he assumed office, met with (PNP) Chief Shizuka Kamei to discuss how the two parties would cooperate in policymaking, at which meeting I was also present as the PNP Secretary-General at that time. Under the three-party coalition that preceded the current one, there was a committee called the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies, which was set up as a forum for the parties to coordinate or match their policies, but then the Social Democratic Party left the coalition. That is why how the remaining parties should cooperate in policymaking afterwards was a subject of discussion at the party leader meeting right after Prime Minister Kan became the new Prime Minister, during which both leaders agreed to go about it properly. Then as it turned out, as you know, we had a House of Councilors election and the same subject also just came up again during the recent meeting of the two party leaders, who supposedly agreed to "do it (policy cooperation)." That is why I decided to make an elaborate comment on this subject to Prime Minister Kan at today's informal ministerial gathering, to which Prime Minister Kan responded by telling Mr. Gemba, who is a state minister and is also DPJ's Policy Research Committee Chair, to work on policy cooperation with the PNP in the proper way - therefore, Policy Research Committee Chair Gemba and I proceeded to discuss how it should be done, a task that I presume will basically be handled mainly by policy research committee chairs. 例文帳に追加

今日、閣僚懇で、私はこれは行政の長としての発言ではございませんけれども、国民新党の副代表でもございますし、両党、民主党と国民新党のご存じのように連立内閣でございますから、両党間の政策協議をどうするのかということは、実は菅総理がなられた後、すぐ亀井静香（国民新党）代表と話をされまして、当時私は幹事長でございましたから、同席をいたしまして、前の3党連立内閣のときは、基本政策閣僚委員会というのがございまして、ここで政策を整合性を図る、あるいはすり合わせをするということでございましたが、社民党さんが連立を離脱されましたので、その後の政策協力をどうするかということが当時菅総理が実現した後のすぐの党首会談でのテーマで、しっかりやりましょうという話でございましたが、ご存じのように参議院選挙になりましたので、またこの前も両党首会談でそのことが議題になって、「（政策協力を）やろう」ということでございましたから、今日閣僚懇で菅総理に相当申し上げまして、ちょうど玄葉さんが民主党の国務大臣兼政調会長でございますから、菅総理からもきちっと国民新党のほうとの政策協議をするようにということでございまして、玄葉政調会長と私ともどういうふうにするのかと、基本的に政調会長中心だというふうに思いますけれども、そのことを打ち合わせをさせていただいたわけでございます。 - 金融庁