(10) On January 20, 2014, as part of the tax appeal, Ben-Eliezer testified on behalf of the defendant, and gave a version that ostensibly supports the claim that he was a man whose center of life was in Russia. Ben-Eliezer was asked whether, in light of the close relationship described by him, he had received financial support from the defendant in an election campaign at some point, and he answered in the negative, and thus ruled out the possibility that the defendant had been enlisted to help in other projects in Israel besides the gas exploration. It should be noted that in addition to Adv. Slomonovich, the defendant in the tax appeal will also be represented by Adv. Ziv Sharon (hereinafter – Adv. Sharon), and also by Adv. Meir Porat (hereinafter – Adv. Porat).
(11) On January 28, 2015, the Beer Sheva District Court rejected the tax appeal, and ruled that in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance The defendant should be regarded as a resident of Israel. Later, the Supreme Court adopted these rulings.
The Arena of the Dispute and the Summary of the Parties' Arguments
- Since the main factual structure is not in dispute, the parties' arguments focused mainly on the conclusions that can be drawn from the conduct described above in relation to the purpose underlying the transfer of the money.
According to the method of prosecution, it should be determined that beginning in 2009, when the tax proceedings began, the defendant expected that the issue of tax liability would reach litigation, and this expectation was indeed realized when the assessment order was filed in December 2011. It was argued that since the court's decision on the question of residency had a significant impact on the tax liability, the significance of accepting the defendant's appeal was enormous tax savings. The decision to bring Ben-Eliezer's testimony before the court in the tax appeal was not casual or random, but stemmed, inter alia, from Ben-Eliezer's dependence on the defendant, in view of the enormous sum that Ben-Eliezer transferred to him and was not returned, and from the assumption that the testimony of a person like Ben-Eliezer would "do the job" and convince the court that the defendant's center of life was in Russia. In summarizing this part, the prosecution noted that in transferring the money to Ben-Eliezer, the defendant sent his bread, and in a short time, they found it.