"I hereby inform you that in accordance with my authority under section 85 of the Law, I have decided to amend the assessment, and the following are the reasons for my decision:
"Following our telephone conversation, I decided to amend the assessment under section 85(3) of the Real Estate Taxation Law, due to an error in the assessment, so that the additional development expenses were not subject to full purchase tax. ..."
- In an affidavit filed on February 18, 2025 on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Raphael Bates, it was claimed in paragraph 10 of the affidavit that he did not remember exactly the background to the execution of the assessment amendment. It was further claimed in paragraph 11 of Mr. Bates' affidavit that prior to amending the assessments, he held a detailed telephone discussion with the representative of Shmuel Baruch and explained to him the respondent's position, and only afterwards was the assessment corrected.
- The Appeals Committee has already expressed its position clearly and unequivocally on more than one occasion on the issue of the respondent's conduct in holding a "telephone hearing" and the question of whether it is a matter of lawfully granting the taxpayer the right to a plea.
See in this regard: Appeals Committee 53364-04-22 Arbatman v. Haifa Real Estate Taxation Administration Appeals Committee 53376-04-22 Mendelsohn v. Haifa Real Estate Taxation Administration [June 16, 2025] (hereinafter: The Arbatman Mendelssohn case); See also Appeals Committee 35404-06-23 Kfir Holdings & Building (1991) in Tax Appeal v. Real Estate Taxation Administration (19.5.2024).
In the matter Arbatman Mendelssohn I held in the matter of the respondent's claim there that a hearing of the objection should be held by means of a "telephone hearing" and that in a situation where no protocol was prepared for that "hearing", see paragraphs 101 to 117 of the judgment in the matter Arbatman Mendelssohn, where in paragraph 115 the main points were summarized: