Caselaw

Appeals Committee (Haifa) 26310-08-21 Ashdar Construction Company Ltd. v. Haifa Real Estate Taxation Administration - part 35

February 5, 2026
Print

                        ... 

                        Section 147 of our Ordinance does not include any restriction – other than the limitation – for the exercise of the Commissioner's authority, and in particular there is no need for any "disclosure".  Dr. Lapidot rightly noted, on behalf of the respondent, that the Mandatory legislature chose a very broad wording for defining the commissioner's authority – a wording even broader than that of the "model ordinance" – in order to grant the commissioner the power to audit the tax assessors.  The legislature saw, among other cases that justify correcting a distortion, also cases in which the tax assessor knew all the facts, but made a legal mistake or simply did not fulfill his duty."

  1. However, this approach has been changed over the years in later case law, and the issue of the scope of authority according to Article 147 The ordinance was again discussed in the Supreme Court, including other municipal requests in the judgment 976/06 Dan Marom v. Income Tax Commission (6.11.08) (hereinafter – The Marom Judgment), where the Honorable Justice S.  Jubran in relation to the scope of authority under Article 147 to the Ordinance that:

                   "It is true that this is a very broad authority of the tax assessor, but it cannot be said that it is an unlimited authority.  In the past, the commissioner's authority to open an assessment was interpreted according to Article 147 Broadly (See Civil Appeal 264/64 Ben Zion and Meron v. Tax Assessor Tel Aviv 4, IsrSC 19(1) 245, 248 (1965)) and it was held that the fact that the Commissioner disagrees with the Tax Assessor factually or legally is sufficient for him to exercise his supervisory authority.  However, this trend has changed in the rulings of the courts, which saw fit to set conditions for reducing the commissioner's authority (See the words of Justice H. Cohen (as he was described at the time) Other City Requests 669/69 Rasko Plantations in Tax Appeal v. Peshmag, IsrSC 21(1) 142, 145 (1967)); and Civil Appeal (Tel Aviv District) 167/97 Argov v. Tax Assessor, Civil Case 3 ([published in Nevo], October 22, 2000)). 

Previous part1...3435
36...126Next part