The Respondent is also of the opinion that a distinction should be made between an assessment amendment requested by a taxpayer and an assessment amendment that is carried out at the Respondent's initiative.
- I will preface by saying that I cannot accept the preliminary arguments raised by the respondent against the appellant regarding the existence of a cause for filing the application to amend the assessment, as well as with regard to the conditions that the respondent believes should be set to the appellant as a preliminary condition for the hearing of the application to amend the assessment.
In my opinion, the appellant's position should be accepted in all matters relating to and relating to the request to amend the assessment, and it should be determined that the appellant meets the conditions of section 85(a)(3) of the Real Estate Taxation Law, and that she has grounds for amending her own assessments.
- Before discussing the preliminary arguments raised by the Respondent in relation to the request to amend the assessment, I will note that I reiterated and suggested to the Respondent, at least twice (see what is stated in the minutes of the hearing of December 23, 2024, page 205, lines 2-7, as well as the minutes of the hearing of September 7, 2025, at page 271, lines 21-27, pages 272-275, line 2), not to address the preliminary arguments that he raised in his summaries in relation to the request to amend the assessment – arguments that were not included in the decision in the motions to amend the assessment.
On each of these occasions, the respondent's counsel stated that the respondent would examine and consider the committee's proposal to concentrate on the argument on the merits of the matter, but unfortunately the respondent did not even bother to file any notice with respect to the committee's aforementioned proposal.
- It should be clarified that it is not for nothing that the Committee reiterated and recommended to the Respondent not to address the preliminary arguments in relation to the request for amendment, since not only are these claims, as stated, not included in the Motions to Amend the Assessment in the framework of the decision, but also, and mainly, because most of them are not claims that are consistent with the customary and binding case law, with regard to the amendment of the assessment under Article 85 of the Real Estate Taxation Law. In fact, these arguments also contradict the respondent's interpretation provisions and the positions presented by the respondent in previous cases of requests to amend an assessment, including those discussed in case law, certainly with respect to assessment amendments that were carried out on his own initiative.
- The respondent's attempt to create in the framework of the appeals in question a distinction between the amendment of an assessment initiated by the taxpayer and an amendment of an assessment initiated by the respondent, or to create a distinction in relation to the type or nature of the amendment requested, or to establish preliminary conditions for the purpose of hearing a request for amendment – all of these have no basis in the language of the Article 85 The Real Estate Taxation Law has no precedent in the rulings of the appeals committees and the rulings of the Supreme Court.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that there can be no dispute that the issue of the meaning and interpretation of the "Buyer's Price" tenders in the field of tax law has not been discussed so far in case law, and even if the Respondent believes that the Appellant is wrong in her interpretation of the documents that she signed after winning the "Buyer's Price" tenders, the principle that should stand at its feet is the principle of true tax collection. This principle is given additional validity and importance in the present case, due to the need for clarification Basic Question - Regarding the existence or non-existence of the acquisition of a "right in real estate" in the sense of Real Estate Taxation Law. All the more so in light of the quantity and scope of the appeals that were submitted to the appeals committees throughout the country on the fundamental issue that is the subject of the appeals at hand and the significant lateral ramifications of the substantive hearing before the Appeals Committee here.