It seems to me that the respondent does not strive for such a result, and I do not believe that such a ruling should be made. As I have already clarified above, the governing principle is the principle of determining a true tax assessment, and even if it appears that the party requesting/making the correction was negligent in not consulting properly, or that he, or his attorney, exercised erroneous judgment – the true tax assessment prevails.
- An example of a situation similar to our case is found in Parashat Dagon (Appeals Committee 1419-12-08 Dagon Silos Houses of Israel in a Tax Appeal v. Haifa Betterment Tax Administration (April 22, 2010), on which an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court in this regard, other municipal requests 5865/11 Haifa Real Estate Taxation Administration v. Dagon Silo Houses for Israel in a Tax Appeal (August 14, 2014)). Dagon The Appeals Committee examined the question of whether the return of land at the end of a lease for generations constitutes a "sale of a right in the land". Dagon had a lease right for generations in the land in Haifa where it built and operated grain silos houses.
According to the agreements between Dagon and the state, at the end of the lease period, the entire factory will be transferred to the state without consideration, free of any lien, and Dagon will be paid compensation for all the investments made by it in accordance with the terms set out in the agreements. At the end of the lease period, an agreed appraiser determined the value of the factory, while a self-assessment conducted by Dagon was rejected. The Real Estate Taxation Administration issued Dagon a temporary assessment notice and set the sale value at NIS 61,866,000. Dagon filed an objection to this assessment and asked to amend the assessment notice, but her objection was rejected. Subsequently, the Real Estate Taxation Administration announced that an amended assessment would be issued to Dagon in accordance with Section 85 of the Real Estate Taxation Law, in which he determined that the return of real estate at the end of lease contracts does not constitute a "sale of a right in real estate" and that the payment of compensation for investments in the property is subject to capital gains and not betterment tax. Dagon appealed this decision.