This position is acceptable to me, since it is consistent with the reasons and reasons that I have detailed above, and for which, from time immemorial, the interpretation of the amending authority has always been Article 85 The law has a broader and more lenient interpretation – for both parties, the taxpayer and the Real Estate Tax Administration, alike.
- Therefore, even when it comes to a legal error, which stems from erroneous judgment, the precedent held Jakubowitz that an assessment can be corrected according to Article 85 to the law.
See also: Appeals Committee 9094-08 Eyal Ezer v. Real Estate Tax Administration (Thus in the original – A.W.) (February 11, 2010), where it was held:
"Prima facie, this is not an error in the assessment, but rather an error in the appellant's judgment. In light of the elaboration that arises from the Yakubovich judgment, it is possible to include this error within the framework of section 85(3) of the aforementioned law. "Any mistake" includes a "legal error", an economic error, an error in profitability, and also an error of judgment.
- As to the respondent's argument that the appellant must prove the mistake that occurred and the reason for the mistake – as I noted above, I am of the opinion that Any Factor The person who wishes to amend an assessment, whether he is the respondent or the taxpayer, is required to indicate and explain the mistake that occurred on his part, for which he wishes to make use of In section 85(a)(3) of the law, and it must be noted how the mistake occurred. This is so that the possibility of amendment under this section will not be misused by any of the parties, for example, as a means of overcoming the time limits set by law for filing an objection or issuing an assessment according to the best judgment, as well as the four-year limit set by law. In section 85 to the law.
In addition, my position is that this condition of detailing the mistake and the reason for its creation will assist in formulating norms of conduct and correct and better standards of appraisal conduct – both on the part of the Real Estate Taxation Administration and on the part of the taxpayer. In this way, the Real Estate Taxation Administration will be required to conduct more orderly, meticulously and responsibly in approving assessments or issuing assessments, and the taxpayer will also be required to be meticulous in his reports, consult with professional bodies and locate and produce all the required documents in a timely manner, all with the understanding that in order to correct the assessment due to an error, by any of the parties, it will not be enough to make a mere statement of a "mistake".
- The appellant is of the opinion that there is no reason to determine in the case of a legal error that it is necessary to prove what the mistake was and what caused the error. According to her position (see 40-45 for the summaries of the reply), a legal error is a situation in which there is a difference between the correct legal situation and the legal situation according to the report, and therefore, in order to decide the question of whether there was indeed a legal error in the appellant's reports, the appeals must be decided on their merits, and if the appellant's legal position is accepted, then in any case there is no need to discuss the question of how the legal error occurred in the report.
- As I noted above, I do not believe that such a determination should be made, certainly not in a sweeping manner as the appellant claims.
As stated above, my position is that the applicant for the amendment (if it is a taxpayer) or the person making the amendment (if it is a respondent) must present the mistake that occurred on his part and explain how and why it occurred, in order to prevent the abuse of the possibility of amendment on the grounds of section 85(a)(3) of the Law and in order to improve the assessment procedure.
- However, contrary to the position presented by the respondent in his summaries, I am not of the opinion that the appellant should prove that she made a legal error "about which she could not have known" prior to the submission of the declaration and self-assessment, or that the appellant should be placed with a heavy and unusual burden of persuasion, because the meaning of the requested amendment is the cancellation of the purchase tax paid by her. On the face of it, this is an unreasonable condition that completely negates the possibility of the taxpayer claiming the existence of a legal error, as I have already noted above.
- It is possible, and I do not make any conclusions in this matter, that in the context of a request to correct an error Factually, as opposed to legal, There may be room to examine the question of whether the applicant for the correction (taxpayer) or the person making the correction (the Real Estate Taxation Administrator) did not know (subjective aspect) and could not have known (objective aspect) about a certain fact, before he submitted his self-assessment (taxpayer) or before he issued the assessment according to the best judgment (the Real Estate Taxation Administration).
- However, each such case of correcting a mistake must be examined on its own merits Factual, in light of the specific circumstances thereof, and with a balance against the central and guiding principle of determining a true tax assessment, when the Appeals Committee will be required to address the question of whether the possibility of correction should be denied only due to the negligence of a taxpayer or the Real Estate Tax Administration in locating and clarifying the facts prior to reporting or issuing the assessment. In my opinion, the existence of an extreme and exceptional state of affairs will be required in order to qualify the central principle of determining a true tax assessment.
- On the other hand, in the case of correcting a mistake Legal There is no room for such an examination of the question of whether the taxpayer or the Director of Real Estate Taxation knew or could have known about the legal error prior to reporting or issuing the assessment.
It is clear that if the party requesting or making the amendment had known about the correct legal situation, in his view, prior to the assessment, there can be no doubt that he would have reported or issued an assessment accordingly.