Thus, the Supreme Court has already expressed its position regarding the nature of the engagement between the State and the contracting companies that won the "Buyer's Price" tenders. This determination of the Honorable President Y. A relevant colleague in our case in the framework of these real estate tax appeals, as it testifies to the examination and broad view of the entirety of the agreements and the true legal essence deriving from them, and the taxation result in terms of purchase tax – accordingly.
- It should be noted here that in the framework of the evidentiary hearing in the appeals in this case, the Appeals Committee made it difficult for the Appellant in all matters relating to and relating to this matter of the transfer of the "Buyer's Price" apartments from the Appellant to the eligible apartment buyers (see pages 52-54 of the minutes of the hearing of November 2, 2022). Essentially, the committee was asked what right the appellant sold to the eligible tenants, given the appellant's position that she did not purchase a "right in the land" from the state. However, at the end of the day, it seems that the answers given by Mr. Friedman are satisfactory and are consistent with the legal and economic nature of the agreements as analyzed in detail above (page 52, lines 16-23, page 53, lines 1-5):
"The Honorable Judge: It's at the most basic level. So at the most basic level, what did you sell to the buyers?...
- We sold the same contract that the state dictated for us to sign with the winners.
The Honorable Judge: It's okay, we've put it aside.
- What, to write something different there for the winners? To involve them in the dispute we have with the state on the issue of the purchase tax, to write to them that they are buying from us only the right to build and at the same time that the state will not sign an agreement with them on the sale of the right to the land? This means that it is either to stop everything and not sign contracts with them, no one will let us sign contracts with the buyers that are different from what the state dictated to us, the state will not allow us to split the contracts with the buyers, certainly not under the circumstances that there is still no decision here and say - yes, there is no problem that we the state will sell the land to the buyers and you will sell them the construction services, That's the only other meaning I can sell to the buyers of the apartments, and not as the sale of a full apartment."
- In addition, I will emphasize the obvious that the contractual format, in all its parts, was drafted and determined by the state in the framework of the tender. It was the state that determined the contractual legal fabric of the "Buyer's Price" project, and formulated it in accordance with its needs and convenience. The appellant was required to sign the agreements and other legal documents, without any ability to change them, and this fact must be given real weight (see Parashat Barkai).
Therefore, the entire argument found in the respondent's summaries (see from paragraph 166 of the respondent's summaries to paragraph 171), according to which according to the case law a taxpayer is not entitled to reclassify his transactions for tax purposes and that this authority is given only to the respondent – has no substance in the concrete circumstances of the appeals at hand. This is because the appellant was not a party to the drafting of the legal documents and agreements that she signed, and these were drafted by the state alone, and therefore there is no room in law to deny the appellant the possibility of arguing in relation to the legal interpretation of the contractual terms to which she signed. As will be recalled, for this reason I also did not find that the respondent has a claim of "judicial estoppel".