See Family Appeals Authority 58426-12-22 Anonymous Company in Tax Appeal v. Anonymous (Nevo, April 19, 2023), in which the Honorable Vice President, the Honorable Justice Shochat ruled (as he was then called) that even if the spouse entitled to receive half of the value of the corporation can be regarded as entitled to her rights not being deprived, she has a heavy burden of proving that this is indeed discrimination. In that matter, it was determined that the burden required for this purpose had not been lifted.
- In the matter before us, an examination of the remedies at hand leads to the conclusion that in light of the existence of prima facie evidence regarding an attempt to conceal information regarding the assets of the corporations, there is room to issue injunctions that will prevent the smuggling of the assets, as opposed to the appointment of a special manager or receiver that is liable to completely collapse the companies, all as will be detailed below.
- With regard to the requirement of prima facie evidence, as required by Regulation 95(b), a review of all the data shows that the transfer of the rights of the parent company in a tax appeal to the foreign company established XX Ltd may indeed make it difficult for the applicant to trace its actions.
The man's claim that this was a pre-planned business move raises a difficulty, since the establishment of XX Ltd was made in March 2025, close to the date on which he left home and moved to live in luxury hotels (as claimed in paragraph 3 of the request for temporary relief in the dispute resolution proceeding that was opened in May 2025). Therefore, it is difficult to accept his argument that this was a move that was carried out without connection to the proceedings.
His claim that this is a business move that is intended to improve the situation of the other companies only in terms of taxation and in terms of recruiting investors, also raises a difficulty. If this is indeed the case, why was it done in the dark and in contravention of the foreclosure order? The respondent could have easily approached the court with a request to convert the foreclosure imposed on his own shares in AA in a tax appeal into a foreclosure that would be imposed on his shares XX Ltd. Ltd. Since he did not do so, there is a violation of the foreclosure order.