Summary of the Respondent's arguments:
- The arguments regarding the amendment of the assessment:
- In the case at hand, we are dealing with a request to amend, and in fact to cancel, the self-assessment. The appellant did not prove the existence of an "error" that justifies correcting its own assessments, and in any event, this is not a mistake according to Section 85(a)(3) to the law.
- Since In practice, this is a request to amend a self-assessment, it must be examined sparingly and should only be approved in exceptional cases, if at all, when in the appellant's specific circumstances - The required conditions are not met. It is necessary to examine when and on what grounds there will be room to allow the taxpayer to amend, if at all, his declaration, let alone revoke it.
In examining a request to amend a taxpayer's self-assessment, it is necessary to determine, as a matter of policy, principles for examining such an application, similar to those set forth in case law and the execution instructions regarding the handling of requests to amend income tax reports in accordance with Article 147 to the Income Tax Ordinance. In other words, the taxpayer does not have a statutory or automatic right to amend the reports, because permitting the amendment of a report will not be done as a matter of routine except sparingly and in exceptional cases, and that it will not be possible to amend a report that is nothing but an error in the profitability of the transaction, and even this only due to a mistake in good faith.
- The appellant filed the motions to amend the assessment without explaining why she submitted the self-assessment and reported the purchase of a "right in real estate" and now wishes to retract the report.
In the application form, it was indeed marked that the appellant wishes to amend the assessment in accordance with section 85(a)(3) of the Law, but in the body of the application no reason was found for the mistake that occurred in her, as it were, prior to the reports that caused her to report as she reported, and that this happened in good faith. The appellant should have provided a reliable factual basis that she made a mistake in good faith in the classification of the transaction, which she did not know and could not have known about prior to the submission of the self-assessments, and which can establish justification for allowing her, in an exceptional and rare manner, to amend her statements. This is a factual burden placed on the appellant's shoulders to prove what mistake was made in her reports, why the motions to amend the assessments were filed on the date they were submitted, and what led to the change in the legal position underlying the requests, and that everything was done in good faith.