See the judgment of the Honorable Justice A. Vitkon Other Municipality Applications 487/77, 503/77 Betterment Tax Administration v. Barkai Brothers Building Ltd., IsrSC 32(2) 121 (March 19, 1978) (hereinafter – the Barkai Case):
"The principle of true economic essence as the basis for an assessment is a guiding principle in tax law in Israel. This principle cannot be used only as an anti-planning tool of the Tax Authority. Similar to American law, the taxpayer should be allowed, to a controlled and careful degree, to claim economic essence over form, while imposing an increased burden of persuasion on the taxpayer who claims to do so. Normally, when a taxpayer chooses to enter into a transaction in a certain way or to present it in a certain way, the tendency will be not to allow him to argue against it. However, sometimes these and other constraints, such as regulatory constraints or even business constraints, can serve as a basis for the taxpayer's claim that despite the way the transaction was designed, its essence for tax purposes is different. Thus, for example, when the taxpayer proves that due to a power disparity between the parties to the transaction, he must agree to the drafting of the contract in a certain way, which does not necessarily express the true nature of the engagement between the parties."
- I will now examine the entirety of the agreements signed by the appellant after it was declared the winner of the "Buyer's Price" tenders that are the subject of the appeals in this case, in order to determine whether the appellant was granted the right to benefit financially from the land in the maximum and optimal manner, as well as the degree of possession and use it received, and in order to determine whether there is a basis for the appellant's claim that it did not acquire a "right in the land" within the meaning of the law.
- In terms of planning and building rights, it was determined in the terms of the "Buyer's Price" tender that the winner of the tender (the appellant) is not entitled to make a change in the existing zoning plan and if a change is made in the zoning plan by a party other than the winner - the winner will not be able to exercise the additional rights unless the ILA gives written approval to do so, see in this regard clause 2.1.3 and clause 2.1.4 of the Tirat Carmel tender booklet. Appendix 1 to Mr. Friedman's affidavit, where it was stated:
"2.1.3 The winner (or anyone on his behalf) will not be allowed to make any changes to an attack plan or to promote a new plan, except for a request for relief under section 147 of the Planning and Building Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: the "Planning and Building Law").