Hence, acceptance of the respondent's position will lead, in effect, to the emptying of the cause of action of section 85(a)(3) of the Law of any content, in all that relates to and relates to the taxpayers. Since, according to the respondent's approach, the possibility of a taxpayer making a mistake should not be recognized, even though the legislature and case law have determined that the grounds set forth in section 85 of the Law apply to both taxpayers and the Real Estate Taxation Administration.
- Moreover, the respondent is not only a person who examines the declaration that was submitted to him. It seems to me that this definition dwarfs and greatly reduces the essence of the role of the Real Estate Taxation Administration, who is responsible for examining a self-assessment and the powers granted to him by law.
The respondent has knowledge, experience, tools, means and information that is no less than the information in the taxpayer's possession, and in my opinion, certainly in everything related to the field of real estate taxation – even exceeds it.
The respondent does not rely only on the information presented by the taxpayer, but is entitled and can lay his hands on more, more comprehensive and varied information, in order to determine a position as to the self-assessment that was submitted to him and whether there is room to issue an assessment according to the best judgment. Thus, certainly where we are dealing with a legal-tax issue, let alone an issue that has broad and relevant effects on many transactions, and even more so when we are not dealing with transactions between private individuals, but rather transactions in which the state is a partner, which are a result of government policy and decisions, and the documents relating to them are drafted and dictated by the state.
Hence, the attempt to distinguish between the abilities of a taxpayer and the capabilities of the respondent with regard to reporting or issuing an assessment, in the context of exercising the authority under Article 85 The law is doomed to be rejected.
- The argument that the strict preliminary conditions should be set in relation to the type of requests to amend an assessment, such as the appellant's request here, which means the cancellation of the declaration of the purchase of a right in the land, and its comparison with the case law in the matter Article 147 The Income Tax Ordinance is not correct in my opinion.
I would like to emphasize once again, the denial of the possibility or hardening of the conditions for filing a request to amend an assessment, in which it is argued that the self-assessment should be amended in such a way that it will be determined that it is not a matter of purchasing a "right in real estate" within the meaning of the law, since that there was an error in the taxpayer's declaration in this matter - It is like a determination that the taxpayer does not have the cause of a legal error, and not even a clear legal error such as that relating to the question of the very existence or absence of a "right in real estate", as a ground for amending an assessment. The language of the law and case law do not support such an interpretation.
- In addition, the existing execution instructions in the field of real estate taxation and relate to Section 85 To the law - They are not deal with a rule of preconditions that must be set for the taxpayer requesting the correction of an assessment according to Article 85, or in creating a parallel between the correction of an assessment according to Article 85 of the Real Estate Taxation Law and the amendment of a report or the amendment of an assessment according to the Article 147 to the Income Tax Ordinance. And for good reason.
- The earlier ruling of the Supreme Court also took a lenient approach in the matter of assessment amendments according to Article 147 For the Ordinance - see the judgment of the Honorable Justice A. Vitkun Other Municipality Requests 264/64 Ben Zion et al. v. Tax Assessor Civil Case 4, PD 19 (1) 245 (hereinafter – The Ben Zion Judgment), which discussed the question of whether the Income Tax Commissioner is authorized to exercise his powers under Article 147 to the Ordinance, when no new facts were discovered to him after the assessment was made and when it came to opening an assessment in the agreement, and when the only thing that has changed is the legal approach of the Commissioner. In the judgment Ben Zion The Honorable Justice Vitkon held that:
"Like the learned judge, I am also of the opinion that the Commissioner was authorized to act as he did, despite the fact that in that dispute an agreement was reached between the Tax Assessor and the taxpayers, and that nothing was changed or renewed except for the Commissioner's legal approach. Needless to say, such a thing is undesirable and should be avoided as much as possible, but the authority exists and sometimes there is no choice but to use it.