The CFO is subordinate to the appellant's CEO, who testified before us. My impression is from Mr. Friedman's testimony that he declared and testified about the facts as they are in all matters related to and relating to the factual situation related to the reporting to the Respondent after winning the "Buyer's Price" tenders. The same applies to to the situation that arose after the appellant received tax advice from external experts, which is not the usual legal advice in which the appellant is accompanied.
- I found no reason not to trust Mr. Friedman's testimony, certainly when his testimony remained consistent throughout his cross-examination. All the more so, when it is not clear what benefit would have arisen for the appellant from the filing of the amendment application, a real-time report was replaced by a real-time report that it was not a matter of the acquisition of a "right in the land".
It should be said that the respondent occasionally mixed up his arguments with a claim of good faith, but simply did not explain what bad faith conduct he wishes to attribute to the appellant in filing the motion to amend the assessment. As for myself, I did not find a lack of good faith that could be attributed to the appellant due to the filing of the motions to amend the assessment, the timing at which they were filed and the reason on which they were filed. After all, the amendment requests were filed within the framework of the fixed four-year period In section 85 to the law, and in fact about a year and a half after the self-assessment. It cannot be said that the appellant Zemach has an advantage over the other bidders in the tender, due to the request for amendment, since she made her bid in relation to the price of an apartment square meter under the "erroneous" legal situation, according to her, and actually paid purchase tax.
And if the respondent meant that the appellant was striving to receive a refund of the purchase tax paid by her, and this is the lack of good faith that he wishes to attribute to her, then this argument is also subtle, since every taxpayer who seeks to amend an assessment strives to reduce or cancel the purchase tax that he paid, and it is not possible to attribute a lack of good faith solely because of this.
- It should be added that the fact presented to Mr. Friedman that the appellant filed a request to amend an assessment in July 2018 for the purpose of receiving a refund of 1% purchase tax (after the issuance of the building permit) does not refute or contradict the appellant's version, since Mr. Friedman declared and testified that only during 2019 did the appellant receive different tax advice, and his testimony was not refuted.
See his testimony on this matter on page 33, lines 3-21: