As stated, I also reject the respondent's arguments regarding the creation of a distinction and a different interpretation of a request to amend an assessment on the grounds of a legal error by a taxpayer, which means changing the classification of the transaction to one that does not fall within the scope of Real Estate Taxation Law, and I do not accept the comparison that the respondent sought to make in the matter of amending the assessment according to Article 85 to the Law vs. the Provision of Article 147 to the Income Tax Ordinance.
I have not found in all the other arguments of the respondent on the subject of the preliminary argument regarding the existence of a cause for amending the assessment according to Article 85 to the law in order to change these determinations.
III. The Estoppel Claim:
- In the framework of the presumptive arguments raised by the respondent against the appellant, he argued in paragraphs 24-28 of the amended reply and in paragraphs 62-63 of its summaries, an argument for the existence of judicial estoppel, which, in his view, necessitates the dismissal of the appeals in limine. The Respondent is of the opinion that there is judicial estoppel on the Appellant's claim that she did not purchase a "right in real estate", because after winning the "Buyer's Price" tenders that are the subject of the appeals, she reported to the tax authorities, including the Respondent, tens or hundreds of declarations regarding the sale of apartments to those entitled to the Ministry of Housing, and these reports were taxed accordingly by Real Estate Taxation as the sale of a "right in real estate". In addition, the appellant was issued certificates by the tax assessor under Article 50 to the Real Estate Taxation Law regarding the sale of apartments to those eligible.
The Respondent argues that the Appellant did not request the cancellation of the reports on the sale of the apartments to the beneficiaries, nor did it request the cancellation of the approvals according to Article 50 to the law.