(b) The Director may, within eight months from the date the declaration was given to him, examine it and do one of the following:
(1) Confirm the self-assessment;
(2) If he has reasonable reasons to assume that the statement is incorrect - to determine to the best of his judgment as stated in section 79A, the date of sale, the value of the sale, the date of purchase, the value of the purchase, the amount of the betterment, the additions, the exemptions permitted from the betterment under any law and the applicable tax; Assessment under this paragraph may be done in accordance with the agreement that was conducted with the seller or the person doing the action, as the case may be;
(3) If it is convinced that there has been an error in the assessment as stated in paragraph (1) or (2) – to be corrected, on his own initiative or at the request of the seller or the person who performs the action; If the Director amends an assessment that was approved in accordance with paragraph (1), it will continue to be regarded as a self-assessment.
(c) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall apply, with the necessary changes, to the declaration of the purchaser of a right in real estate or a right in a real estate association, according to section 73(c). "
- In the case at hand, the appellant submitted to the respondent declarations and self-assessments after winning the three tenders that are the subject of the appeals in question, in the framework of which it declared the acquisition of a right in the land, and the respondent approved the aforementioned self-assessments according to Section 78(c) of the Real Estate Taxation Law.
Thus, there is authority under Section 85(a) to the Real Estate Taxation Law to amend the self-assessments submitted by the appellant and approved by the respondent according to the Section 78(c) to the law.
- The legislature did not see fit to make any distinction between the amendment of a self-assessment and the amendment of an assessment according to the best judgment, nor did it see fit to distinguish between the amendment of an assessment requested by a taxpayer and the amendment of an assessment initiated by the respondent. In fact, the language of the clause 85 (a) The Real Estate Taxation Law attests to the identity of possibilities for correction when it comes to self-assessment and assessment according to the best judgment and symmetry between the respondent and the taxpayer in all matters related to and relating to the amendment of the assessment.
In this context, it should be noted that the language used in the section according to which the director is entitled to amend the assessment according to the taxpayer's "demand" implies the power of this requirement, so much so that it can be believed that we are dealing with one of those cases in which the authority given to the manager ("may" to amend the assessment) should be interpreted as closer to the "obligation" than an ordinary authority (see: High Court of Justice 242/61 Aharon Bergstein v. Commissioner of Wage Collection (December 27, 1961)). In any event, the force of this "requirement" is certainly not inferior to the "initiative" of the Director to amend an assessment, and provided, of course, that the conditions set forth in section 85 of the Law are met.
- Hence, the language of the law is clear and does not support the respondent's argument at all, and this is sufficient to reject this argument of the respondent, since the case law has repeatedly clarified that when the language of the law is clear and explicit, it is sufficient and it is the one that determines the boundaries of interpretation.
See in this regard, the position of the Honorable Justice Mintz Other Municipality Applications 9817/17 Tel Aviv Real Estate Taxation Administration v. Meital Avivi Reich et al. (February 21, 2021) (hereinafter – the Avivi Reich Judgment), which dealt with the interpretation of section 107 of the Real Estate Taxation Law and the question of whether it is possible to extend the period of 4 years prescribed in section 85(a) of the Law.