The picture that emerges is that all of Hasarmeh's family and social ties were and remain in the village of Ba'ana, where he was the center of his life. In light of the above, in light of the meager factual basis that Hasarmeh laid before the court, I am of the opinion that he did not meet the burden of proving that during the period when he played for the team he moved his center of life to Kiryat Shmona. If my opinion is heard, then Hasarmeh's appeal should be rejected.
Abed's Appeal (Civil Appeal 7730/21)
- Abed played In the Kiryat Shmona Municipal Football Team for seven years, and his appeal focuses on the tax years 2011-2013.
Abed Born and raised in Nazareth andHis family lives there to this day. The distance between Nazareth and Kiryat Shmona is about 80 km, and the travel time is about an hour and a quarter. BashanTax 2013 Abed became engaged andMarried in 2014 to a resident of Nazareth. Like Hasarmeh, Abed did not commit in the agreement to live in Kiryat Shmona, and it was not stipulated that if he did not do so, it would be Disciplinary Offense. Abed Be a member ofHealth Fund Branch in Nazareth; His bank branch remains in Nazareth; Also Did not present electricity, water and gas bills for the housing unit in Kiryat Shmona He did not present any written evidence that could testify that he had shopped in Kiryat Shmona or any evidence that could attest to the extent of his stay in Kiryat Shmona, and the court also noted about him that "Systematic avoidance of attaching documents". Like Hasarmeh, Abed was also there during vacation days and during the vacation period in Nazareth, so that whenever he is not required to stay in Kiryat Shmona for his work On the soccer team, He chose to go to Nazareth, To his fiancée, his family and his friends. Abed himself confirmed in his affidavit that He traveled a lot to Nazareth to visit his fiancée and her family, and that Sometimes he stayed overnight at his parents' house, even since who began building his house in Nazareth. Like Hasarmeh, Abed presented residency permits that were issued retroactively, and the trial court noted that they raised questions about their reliability.
- In my opinion, all of this indicates that the center of Hasarmeh's life remains in Nazareth - That's where he was born, where he grew up, where his extended family is, where he started a family, where he built his home.
At the very least, and with the most lenient assumption with Abed, it is possible to reach the conclusion reached by the trial court, according to which "The center of his life is where his family lives and where most of his affinities are Or at least, because it is a double center of life". But even assuming that Abed had a double center of life in the relevant years, this does not exonerate him On the benefit ofS's יישוב Better. The taxpayer must show that his center of life The only one He is in the beneficiary's settlement. Where the taxpayer Admin At the same time, "Double Life" inTwo Life Centers And he has the option Leave the settlementBetter and move To the Second Yishuv, he should not be seen as fulfilling the purpose at the base The tax benefit. This was determined in the case law and Abed did not even dispute this in his appeal (see the Zucker-Lugasi; עניין Najib; עניין Decoar; Civil Appeal (Hai District) 858/06 Hershko v. Acre Tax Assessor, Paragraph 2 [Published in Nevo] (15.6.2009); In Tax Appeal (Hai District) 880/08 Helfman v. Hadera Tax Assessor, paragraph 8 [Published in Nevo] (10.8.2010); A.H. (Hai District) 46/93 Sader v. P.S. HaifaTaxes H/5 118 (1994); And compare also toTax Appeal (Nez District') 21/72 Halpern N' פ"S Afula, פ"IV and 341 (1973), where it is stated that "a person cannot live continuously at the same time in two different places").
- In summary, the picture that emerges is that all of Abed's family and social connections were and remain in Nazareth, and at the very least, because he managed two centers of life. In light of the above, in view of the meager factual basis that Abed laid before the court, and if my opinion were to be heard, then Abed's appeal should also be rejected.
A note before finishing
- Since Hasarma and Abed were also included in the assessment of the deductions that were issued to the Kiryat Shmona Ironi Group, so it is clear that there is no room for double charge, and the group must be obligated or The Abed and Hasarma. It is not needless to mention that Forms 101 were not submitted by the group, despite its obligation to do so as the employer of the two. My colleague considers this a technical failure, but since the employer must rely on resident permits submitted by the employee, a special form for the purpose of receiving an income tax discount (Form 1312), and given that these certificates were not submitted by Hasarmeh and Abed in real time (but were issued retroactively in a puzzling manner), I do not believe that this is merely a technical failure.
- I join the judgment of my colleague the judge א' שטיין With regard to the rejection of the group's appeal.
As for the fines imposed - Notwithstanding the result I have reached, and since a bona fide dispute arose between the group and the tax assessor, I join my colleagues in this matter as well.