(1) In order to determine the location of an individual's center of life, the entirety of his family, economic and social ties shall be taken into account, including, inter alia:
(a) the place of his permanent residence;
(b) the place of residence of him and his family members;
(c) his usual or permanent place of occupation or his permanent place of employment;
(d) the location of its active and substantive economic interests;
(e) His place of activity in various organizations, associations or institutions;
(2) The presumption is that the center of life of an individual in the tax year is in Israel-
(a) If he resided in Israel for 183 days or more in the tax year;
(b) If he resided in Israel for 30 days or more in the tax year, and the total period of his stay in Israel in the tax year and the two years preceding it is 425 days or more;
For the purposes of this paragraph, "day" - including part of a day;
(3) The presumption in paragraph (2) can be contradicted by both the individual and the tax assessor."
- On the other hand, the definition of "resident in a particular locality" in section 11(a) of the Ordinance adds nothing to the general words that speak of "an individual whose center of life is in that locality".
- As you can see, the definition of "resident of Israel" is essentially identical to the definition of "resident of a particular locality." Both definitions speak of a taxpayer whose center of life is in Israel/the same locality. However, within the scope of section 1 of the Ordinance, the legislature did not suffice with a general definition and understanding of the judicial discretion - and the quasi-judicial discretion of the tax assessors - in relation to the application of the definition of "the center of his life". This construction of discretion includes a list of connections to Israel that must be taken into account when determining the taxpayer's center of life ("the entirety of his family, economic and social ties"); as well as an inexhaustible list of connections that must also be considered ("the place of his house", "the place ... his family", "his place of occupation", "the place of his economic interests", "his place of activity in organizations"). In addition, the legislature established two rebuttable presumptions that presuppose - tentatively, until proven otherwise - that the center of life of a single taxpayer is in Israel. On the other hand, in the case of a "resident of a particular locality", which section 11 of the Ordinance speaks of , the legislature made do with a broad definition of "the center of his life in a particular locality" and chose not to construct the discretion of the Tax Authority and the courts.
- I am of the opinion that the legislature's decision to refrain from structuring discretion in the definition of "center of life" in section 11 of the Ordinance should affect the application of the "center of life" test within the scope of the section. In more detail: I am of the opinion that in applying the "center of life" test within the scope of section 11 of the Ordinance, the Tax Authority - and we must also - take into account the purpose of the benefit that the section grants to the taxpayer as a central and decisive consideration. This approach in the matter of residency was adopted by Justice Melcer in the High Court of Justice case 2123/08 Anonymous v. Anonymous, IsrSC 62(4) 678, 708-709 (2008) - the judgment that revolves around the interpretation of the phrase "center of life" which appears in section 4A of the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction Law (Marriage and Divorce), 5713-1953.
And these are the things that the judge said Waiter In the same parasha: