The Honorable Justice Mintz ruled as follows in paragraphs 14 and 17 of the Avivi Reich judgment:
"I recently discussed the principles of the theory of interpretation of legislative words as a whole in the framework of Civil Appeal 450/17 S.B.N. Apparel in a Tax Appeal v. State of Israel Tax Authority (October 29, 2019). This is most appropriate for our case:
"As is well known, the task of interpreting a law rests first and foremost on the language of the law, and it must give the law only a meaning that its language can bear (Civil Appeal 4096/18 Hacham et Or-Zach Advocates v. Acre Assessor, para. 18 (May 23, 2019); High Court of Justice 7755/14 Zalul v. Commissioner of Petroleum Affairs, para. 9 (December 28, 2016); Aharon Barak, Interpretation in Law – Interpretation of Legislation 81-82 (1993)). The language of the law determines the boundaries of interpretation, and only if these boundaries include different possible meanings, the purpose of the legislation must also be examined (High Court of Justice 2257/04 Hadash faction - Caspi Case - Supreme Court v. Chair of the Central Elections Committee for the 17th Knesset, 58(6) 685, 701-704 (2004); Civil Appeal 8096/17 Skov v. Isakov, paragraph 14 of the judgment of Justice Willner and paragraph 5 of the judgment of Justice Stein (February 3, 2019)). The section we are dealing with, in my opinion, does not raise an interpretive question at all, since its language is clear and it does not contain different meanings." (ibid., paragraph 7 of my opinion; see also: Application for Administrative Leave to Appeal 6878/17 Rishon LeZion Municipality v. Nahum, paragraph 26 of my judgment (May 6, 2020).
...
The language of section 107 of the law is clear and sharp. It is possible to "extract" from it a single, clear and simple meaning. This is not ambiguous language or one that entails a number of different meanings. The legislature determined that the administrator may extend "any date" prescribed by law. According to the plain meaning of Scripture, the word "all" means the full extent of the object of the matter being measured. A total of all items included in a minyan. Not a part, not a minority, but a whole. Therefore, when the object of the matter being measured is the festivals, the concept of the whole includes all the festivals. The legislature did not qualify and determined that certain deadlines set by law cannot be extended. Indeed, notwithstanding the aforesaid, the appellant's argument is that the language of the section suffers from a restrictive interpretation, according to which the legislature referred only to procedural deadlines and not to dates that establish a "substantial statute of limitations". However, this argument lacks any anchoring in the language of the law. The appellant's attempt to point to another date prescribed by law to which section 107 does not apply, in accordance with the case law, was also unsuccessful." [Emphasis added]
- This is also true for our case. The legislature has not set preconditions or limitations for the types of amendments that a taxpayer may request in relation to his self-assessment, except that the cause of action will be one of the three fixed alternatives In section 85(a) to the law. This is the situation with respect to the amendment initiated by the respondent.
The respondent argues in the framework of the appeals in this case that an interpretation should be adopted that will restrict taxpayers and limit the type of correction of their self-assessment that they can request. However, I did not find in the language of the law support for this argument.
- In fact, the case law held that, in accordance with the language of the Article 85 The law has a balance of interests and equality between the taxpayer and the respondent, with regard to the grounds and possibilities for amending the assessment, as well as the period within which the taxpayer and/or the respondent can request and amend the assessment.
See: Words of the Honorable Judge Y. Danziger Other Municipality Requests 5461/11, Moshe Hachami v. Jerusalem Area Real Estate Taxation Administration [5.2.2013] (hereinafter – The Judgment of the Sages), in paragraph 7: