Ultimately, Mr. Friedman testified frankly, that:
A: I would have been very happy if this had happened immediately upon the initial report and we did not have to ask for the assessments to be corrected.
The Honorable Judge: [Nodding]
A: But that didn't happen. These are the facts."
(Page 42, line 23, page 43, lines 1-3)
- The respondent's position in his summaries is that the appellant did not make a mistake in submitting her report and self-assessment, since She was represented by the Firon Law Firm, which accompanied her in real estate transactions as a routine matter, and therefore when she reported the purchase of a "real estate right", she reported lawfully, in accordance with the legal advice given to her in real time, and hence her case does not fall within the scope of Section 85(a)(3) to the law.
However, this argument is a circular argument, and at least in the sense of "assuming what is sought".
- The Respondent argues that the Appellant's winning of the "Buyer's Price" tenders and its signing of a lease contract constitutes the purchase of a "right in real estate" within the meaning of the Law. On the other hand, the appellant argues that the question of the relationship between the documents that she signed after winning the "Buyer's Price" tenders, their interpretation and their true legal-economic significance – were not matters examined by her prior to the submission of the self-assessments, and therefore she erred in thinking that this was a matter of the purchase of a "right in real estate", when in practice, according to her, it was not a matter of purchasing a "right in real estate" within the meaning of the law.
The appellant does not claim that she did not know all the facts that would give her a legal argument that this was not the purchase of a "right in the land". The appellant's argument is that she does not dispute the existence of all the relevant documents – the lease contract, the construction contract, the appendix to the special conditions and the documents sent by the control company. Her argument is that she did not "make the correct connection" between the totality of these documents, and did not consider their correct legal interpretation, according to the correct ratio that was determined for each of them in relation to the other. This is how the legal error was created.
- Thus, the Respondent's entire argument is centered on the fact that the Appellant was represented by the Firon Law Firm at the time she reported and submitted her self-assessments, and therefore, according to the Respondent's approach, if she reported the acquisition of a "right in real estate", then she did so after consulting with her legal advisors, and receiving different legal advice is not a reason for amending the assessment on the grounds that according to Section 85(a)(3) of the law, regarding an error discovered in the assessment.
I cannot accept this argument.
- However, it is clear that the fact that the taxpayer was represented by an attorney at the time he submitted his self-assessment to the respondent does not negate a priori request to amend the assessment due to a legal error.
Indeed, the initial tendency is to think that when a taxpayer is represented by a lawyer, he has received appropriate legal advice, and therefore a claim of legal error should not be accepted, but because he has changed his representation, or added an expert to represent him.