The Appeals Committee rejected Dagon's arguments regarding the amendment of the assessment and ruled that the authority to correct an error relates to an error of any kind, and therefore the respondent was entitled to change his decision when it became clear in his opinion that he had made a legal error in understanding the significance of the return of the land to the lessee at the end of the lease period. I will note that on the merits of the matter, the Appeals Committee did not accept the respondent's position there, and an appeal was filed to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Haifa Land Taxation Administration – an appeal that was accepted.
Thus, with regard to the amendment of an assessment under section 85 of the Law, the determination of the Appeals Committee, according to which the respondent is entitled to change his decision and amend the assessment on the grounds of a legal error, due to the fact that there was a "misunderstanding of the transaction" – remains in place.
- Therefore, and in light of all of the above, I determine that the appellant has met all the preliminary conditions for filing an application to amend an assessment under Section 85(a)(3) to the Real Estate Taxation Law: The amendment request was submitted within the four-year period from the date of submission of the self-assessment; The claim that the appellant erred, in its approach, in understanding the taxation significance and interpretation of all the contracts and documents that it signed after winning the "Buyer's Price" tenders, and therefore reported the acquisition of a "right in real estate" within the meaning of the law.
In addition, I accept the appellant's argument that only after about a year and a half did she receive external advice from tax experts, following which she understood the correct taxation significance of all the contracts she signed. In addition, I do not believe that the initial reporting of the transaction as a transaction for the acquisition of a "right in real estate", as well as the request to amend the assessment that was submitted after receiving the tax advice, were tainted by bad faith or were made in an attempt to abuse a legal proceeding.