"The question of whether section 85 justifies a deviation from the general rule is essentially an interpretive question. The language of the section teaches, at least prima facie, that the power to correct an error does not relate to a particular type of error, but to an error of any kind. Legislative history is also not directed at the narrow interpretation that the appellants claim. Section 85(3) of the Law was amended in 1986 (see section 26(2) and section 35(12) of the Income Tax Ordinance Amendment Law (No. 71) 5746-1986), and instead of the phrase "a clerical error was discovered in the assessment" it was written "an error was discovered in the assessment". In the framework of a discussion held in the Knesset, MK Artzi, on behalf of the Finance Committee, explained that:
"In section 26(2) we allowed the Betterment Tax Administration to correct not only clerical errors but also other errors in his assessments, all within four years from the date of the assessment being issued."
Although here too it is not explicitly stated that the reference is also to legal errors, but it can be concluded from this that the legislature, in amending the law, wished to expand the powers of the director to amend assessments."
- In the judgment in the Appeals Committee 26967-11-21 Schwartz et al. v. Haifa Real Estate Taxation Administration (31.1.2023) I clarified that the clear purpose of the Article 85 The Real Estate Taxation Law is to bring about the result of the collection of real tax, and that the provisions of the Section 85(a)(3) The law does not define the type of mistake for which an assessment can be corrected.
"We will further note that the clear purpose of section 85 of the Real Estate Taxation Law is a purpose that is intended, both on the part of the taxpayer and on the part of the tax authority, to bring about the result of the collection of real tax.
The provision in section 85(a)(3) of the Law does not define the type of error for which the respondent is entitled to correct an assessment, whether at the request of a taxpayer or on his own initiative. The ruling of the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal 736/87) has long held that the mistake for which the respondent is entitled to correct an assessment may be both a factual error and a legal error."
- I did not find in the respondent's summaries a real reasoning for the argument that a distinction should be made between types of repairs and a distinction should be made between the identity of the repairer/the repairer.
This argument contradicts the rulings of the Supreme Court and the rulings of the appeals committees. Moreover, the Respondent referred in section 67 to his summaries to case law and execution instructions relating to the matter of amending reports and assessments in the Income Tax, but for some reason the Respondent ignored the provisions of the Income Tax Law, which deal with "Section 85: Amendment of the Assessment", Commentary File to the Betterment Tax Law, at p. 521 (hereinafter – the Provisions of the Tax Board).