Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 22187-01-24 Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality v. Ben-Zion Kadishman

1. This is the demand of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality - On behalf of the Local Planning and Building Committee - To oblige the defendants, who are brothers and sisters, to pay her betterment levy. On the other hand, the defendants are of the opinion that they are not obligated to pay the levy at this stage, because the transfer of the rights in the land between them was carried out - According to them - "No Compensation."  In addition, the defendants petition for amending their defense and in the same breath - to delete the claim due to errors that occurred in the levy assessment - In light of a judgment that was published after the last hearing that took place before me.  The parties also disagree on two preliminary questions, in connection with the date of the presentation of the assessment to the defendants and the date of filing the claim.  After Browse 2The Parties' Arguments, which authorized the court to rule on the claim without the need to hear witnesses and according to their legal arguments, and following extensive legal research, I have come to the conclusion that Claim This must be accepted.
2. The story of the facts is short: the defendants' late father gave them, during his lifetime, three residential apartments in the city of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. The two were registered as joint owners of the apartments, and so they were along-Quite a few years.  The defendant owned the one apartment alone, the defendant in another, while the third apartment was used by the Both.  In July 2017, the brother and sister decided to separate the ownership of two of the three apartments and to assign each of them to one of them.  The dissolution of the partnership was done in the agreement (Appendix C to the statement of claim), which anchored a transfer-Mutual rights – the sister of his share in the ownership of one apartment, the brother of his share in the ownership of the other.  This is so that at the end of the day, each of them will have "exclusive and exclusive ownership" of his apartment and will be able to perform a "full and absolute owner's custom" in the apartment "without the need for the consent of the other party" (Name).
3. The municipality saw the change The aforementioned of the registration "Realization"-Rights" as defined by law. There is no dispute that the poorNanan of The Apartments There was a cause for betterment.  There is no dispute that following this ground arises a fundamental obligation to levy betterment.  Rather,, that the parties disagree on the question of whether The date on which the charge is realized, i.e., for the actual collection of the levy.  This is the main issue before me, but before I address it, we must discuss the preliminary questions and the defendants' late motion.

The claim is not delayed and the assessment is not final

4. This claim was filed with the court in January 2024, and it relies on an assessment for which a payment voucher was issued as early as February 18, 2018. As appears from the municipality's own documents (Appendix F to the statement of claim, it is also Appendix 2 to the "clarification on behalf of the plaintiff" dated May 12, 2025), the payment voucher was sent to the defendants' attorney shortly after it was issued - But "the mail is back."  Afterwards, it was claimed, in a telephone conversation, someone on behalf of the defendants announced that he would come to collect the voucher.

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916 Years later, on November 3, 2022, the defendants' counsel was sent a "notice of the charge of betterment levy", to which an updated payment voucher was attached (Appendix 1 to the "Clarification on behalf of the Plaintiff" dated May 12, 2025).  Already on November 24, 2022, shortly after receiving the notice from the defendants' counsel, a response was sent to the municipality (Appendix 5 to the statement of claim).  It was argued that the defendants did not need to pay the voucher that was sent to them, both because it was not an "exercise of rights" as defined in the law, and because the demand for payment was issued with delay, in contravention of the Attorney General's Directive No. 7.1002: Administrative Collection Proceedings under the Tax Ordinance (Collection).  The municipality gave its response to this question about a year later, on December 17, 2023 (Appendix F to the statement of claim).  In this response, the Municipality insisted on the obligation to the body of matters, and argued that the payment voucher  had been sent to  the defendants as early as 2018 and that the Attorney General's directive did not relate to betterment levies.