The fact that the purchase tax is also mentioned in the aforementioned clause in the tender does not mean that there is an obligation to pay purchase tax or that the appellant undertook to pay purchase tax, when according to the law there is no obligation to pay purchase tax. However, it is clear that a taxpayer cannot be obligated to volunteer to pay tax, if this tax is not imposed on him by law.
- The Respondent also argued that accepting the Appellant's position and determining that it did not acquire a "right in the land" and is not obligated to pay purchase tax, would lead to the result of a violation of equality in relation to the other bidders in the "Buyer's Price" tenders, who assumed that there was a liability to pay purchase tax and took this figure into account in the framework of the proposal they proposed in the tender.
In this matter as well, I did not find any substance in this argument of the respondent (which in any case was argued in laconic and weak language), for a number of reasons:
First, The Role of the Appeals Committee According to Real Estate Taxation Law It is to examine and interpret the contractual system to which the appellant was signed and to determine whether it derives from it a conclusion regarding the acquisition of a "right in real estate" within the meaning of the Real Estate Taxation Law. This determination cannot and should not be affected by the question of whether it will constitute a prima facie violation of equality vis-à-vis the other bidders in the "Buyer's Price" tenders. The obligation to pay purchase tax will not be affected by an argument in the realm of tender law, but it will be determined in accordance with the tax laws;
Second, and most importantly, - Each of the bidders in the "Buyer's Price" tenders could have examined the question of purchase tax liability by himself and/or through tax experts on his behalf and reached an independent conclusion whether such liability exists according to the law, or not, and to take into account this figure of purchase tax liability or absence of liability in his bid in the tender. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no violation of equality due to the fact that the appellant requested to amend an assessment according to Article 85 and argues in the appeals in this case that it is not obligated to pay purchase tax, and certainly it should not be obligated to pay purchase tax only for such a reason.
- I also considered the respondent's argument that the appellant gave the buyers of the "Buyer's Price" apartments guarantees according to The Sale Law (Apartments) (Securing Investments of Apartment Buyers) 5735 - 1974 (hereinafter - Apartment Sale Law) This matter constitutes an indication that it has a "right in the land" in the sense of Real Estate Taxation Law. I do not believe that the law is with the respondent on this issue.
The definition of "seller" in the Sale of Apartments Law states: