"In my opinion, a telephone hearing cannot as a matter of routine constitute a lawful hearing of an objection, certainly in circumstances in which there is no legal authority to hold a hearing in such a format and when no request was made and consent was given on the part of the taxpayer to hold a hearing in such a format.
Moreover, if there had been a proper record of the course of the hearing, as was lawfully required to be maintained in the minutes, nothing would have been speculated. This is supposed to be written in the minutes of the hearing, as to what documents are required, and for what purpose.
Needless to say, when additional documents are required, it is appropriate and required to allow the taxpayer to respond to the documents, as well as to allow a response to the position or conclusion that the respondent believes should be inferred from them – and all before the decision is made in the objection. This is the essence of discussing the objection."
The aforesaid is also relevant to our case.
- In his affidavit, Mr. Bates notes that he held a "telephone discussion" before he made the assessment corrections to which Ms. Baruch's affidavit relates. However, beyond the fact that according to the law a "telephone hearing" does not constitute the lawful granting of the right of argument to the taxpayer, the minutes of that "hearing" were not attached, nor was it stated in Mr. Bits' affidavit when the telephone conversation was made and what was said in it as to the background and reasons that led to that "mistake" that necessitated the correction of the assessment, at the time when it was carried out, and it is certainly impossible to know what was the position of Shmuel Baruch in relation to the intention to amend the assessment as aforesaid. On the face of it, it appears that she was not given the right to plead as required by the rules of administrative law.
It is also superfluous to note that as it appears from the decisions to amend the assessments that were attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to Ms. Baruch's affidavit – the amendment of the assessments added an amount of almost NIS 6 million to the value of the sale – a significant matter for the tax assessment, by all accounts.
- Therefore, the conclusion deriving from the additional evidence that was brought before us in the framework of Ms. Baruch's affidavit is that the respondent himself does not at all explain and explain the reasons for the occurrence of that "mistake", for which he is making an assessment correction initiated according to Section 85(a)(3) of the Real Estate Taxation Law. The respondent merely states that there was a "mistake" and turns to the description of the correction that he is performing.
It therefore follows that in the appeals before us, the respondent's argument regarding the preliminary conditions to which the appellant must be obligated is in the form of "a good demand but not a proper fulfillment". This is despite the fact that according to the Respondent's own execution instructions, as detailed above, it is required He, in order to preserve the good name of the Real Estate Taxation Division of the Tax Authority, and to prevent injustice from taxpayers – to explain the reasons that led to the amendment of the assessment, when a laconic argument regarding a "mistake" is not enough.