I cannot fail to comment on this point, but although it is important to him for the respondent to maintain "the good name of the Real Estate Taxation Division and to prevent injustice from taxpayers", he should not have addressed his arguments regarding the amendment of the assessment as recommended by the Appeals Committee. The impression that has been created is that the respondent's insistence on his preliminary arguments is intended to prevent a substantive discussion of the legal issue on its merits, despite the duty imposed on him to strive for a true tax assessment. Needless to say, as a public authority, the respondent's duty to strive for a true tax assessment is no less than the corresponding duty imposed on the taxpayer, and it is precisely the respondent who in this case is trying to avoid examining the correctness of the assessment.
- Moreover, and as will be detailed below, my position is that the correct and proper interpretation of the Section 85(a)(3) The Real Estate Taxation Law is each party – Whether the taxpayer or the respondent - The person who wishes to correct an assessment on the grounds of "error" according to Section 85(a)(3) The law is required to explain what mistake occurred before it and how it occurred. It is not enough to merely state the existence of an error, but it is required that the person requesting or making the correction present the context and the circumstances that led to the creation of the error.
- In light of the above, the question therefore arises, why does the Respondent think that there is room for the Appeals Committee to accept his position and distinguish between an assessment amendment initiated by him, which is carried out by him, and an assessment correction requested by a taxpayer, in such a way that the Appeals Committee will weigh heavily on taxpayers on the one hand, and make it easier for the Respondent?
The "weight" of the substantive issue discussed in the appeals in this case cannot constitute a consideration in determining whether the preliminary conditions for accepting an application to amend an assessment should be hardened, since, as we saw above (see Ms. Baruch's affidavit), assessment amendments made by the respondent may also be "weighty" for the taxpayer and lead to a tax assessment that is significantly higher than the original assessment, which is the subject of the amendment.
- Even the argument taken by the respondent in an attempt to substantiate his claim that an asymmetry should be created between the taxpayer and the respondent (see section 66(b) of the respondent's summaries), according to which the taxpayer must formulate his position "in all its parts and components" before submitting the declaration and report, whereas the respondent "only" examines the declaration – I cannot accept.
Indeed, a taxpayer is required to carefully examine the components of the transaction in which he has entered, declare and report it duly and in accordance with the provisions of the law. However, it is not possible to ignore the fact that the legislature has explicitly determined that a taxpayer can also request an assessment correction due to a "mistake", and that according to the law it is possible to request an amendment of a self-assessment, when the case law clarified that the mistake to which it relates Section 85(a)(3) The law has all kinds of mistakes, both factual and legal errors.