I’m the person who asked Aya about whose name the condo is registered under below.

Is this a violation of the fee regulations? Because it violated the Antimonopoly Act, standardized fee schedules for licensed professionals were abolished about 20 years ago, and fee-setting was liberalized. Some people might even try to haggle over consulting fees not covered by the old fee schedule, saying, “You’ll have your license suspended for violating the fee regulations.” Incidentally, some tax accountants have shifted their main focus from tax-return preparation to consulting, such as proposing tax-planning schemes. If you’re asking a tax accountant, why ask the question in the first place, only to turn on the female questioner in your follow-up? Complaining endlessly about an extra few tens of millions of yen on top of a principal amount of 100 million yen, casually breaking promises—you really have to wonder. Besides, the question itself is little more than anonymous graffiti in a bathroom, with no way to know whether it’s true.

I may be opening a can of worms here, but I’m not a tax accountant. In a deal I was involved with in the past, I charged both the papa (a male supporter) and the woman a 2% fee based on the property price (the statutory rate is 3%). I paid the tax accountant the prescribed fee separately. In my experience, legality is an absolute prerequisite, but trouble can come from the most unexpected places. Also, papas don’t seem able to keep quiet about having bought a condo for their mistress. It brings them absolutely no benefit.

If you understand that there are only three possibilities—A through C—then why did you ask your earlier question? Also, you said, “If the man changes his mind, there’s even a chance Aya could end up behind bars. If it were me, I’d be so worried I’d lose weight,” but I already find the first half of that statement rather strange. They ended up buying the condominium because they value their relationship of trust and want to make sure nothing like that happens between them. I honestly can’t imagine what kind of relationship would involve the possibility of the man changing his mind and the woman getting arrested. And I’m not sure what you mean by saying you’d lose weight from worrying about it. Are you assuming that you might come to hate your mistress someday? It sounds like a rather businesslike, cold relationship. That may be why the condominium is in your own name as well. From my perspective, my papa is the type who can seem almost unrealistically optimistic. All he can see is a bright—and slightly bittersweet—future for the two of us. He cares about me to a reasonable extent, and as a man, he has a strong sense of responsibility, for better or worse. Once he decides to protect someone—whether she’s his wife, daughter, or mistress—he’s the kind of person who will protect her completely. Although you make it seem as though you’re thinking about the woman’s future, isn’t the reason you ultimately put the condominium in your own name that you’re looking out for yourself rather than for her? But I think that’s perfectly fine. At the end of the day, papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan) supporters love themselves the most. That’s normal. As for your question, “Did the patron explain the details of the tax procedures to Aya?”—the answer is yes, he did. Thank you.

The questioner seems much scarier to me… If the woman sees you as someone she likes, respects, and considers an irreplaceably important man, I think you should stop relying on the power of money. You should also learn that money can be used on things that truly matter to her—or on things you genuinely want to do together—as if you were sharing the same wallet. When it comes to things anyone could do simply by paying a large sum of money, such as buying a condo, the gratitude involved is ultimately limited to what falls within that price range—even if she accepted it because you wanted to give it to her, and even if she didn’t necessarily need it. Are you satisfied yourself? Will that satisfaction keep escalating? Can you notice what the woman actually wants? In a relationship where you give her an allowance, I think she’ll be happy even with the smallest thoughtful uses of money. Small considerations that don’t necessarily reflect your own sense of money can also resonate with her or move her emotionally. The idea in A comes across as stingy, and the way you frame the question is far too arrogant. I think you’d enjoy the relationship much more if you thought more sensitively and prioritized her feelings. In the end, saying that you’re letting her live in your condo is practically no different from saying you haven’t really done anything for her. The wording is just ego-driven, and it reduces the situation to “she simply happens to be living there.” Instead of buying the condo, it might have been better to give her the full amount upfront as rent—or as an advance on her allowance—so she could live wherever she wanted. But from the way you describe it, it sounds like the two of you didn’t have that kind of relationship to begin with.