"The expression 'center of life' as an alternative to 'place of residence' appears in several laws in Israel in various legislative contexts. The concept is based on the totality of the connections and the degree of strength of the connections (subjective and objective) that a person acquires in relation to the State of Israel, and from which it can be learned that the center of a person's life is in Israel. Here is the place to note that in other cases the legislature considered the detail to be a list of non-exhaustive affiliations in the context of the expression "center of life". This is what it did, for example, by defining residency for taxation purposes under the Income Tax Ordinance (in Amendment No. 132 to the Income Tax Ordinance, of 2002), where a subsection was added under section 1 of the [...]
In other legal provisions - As in the provision of the law before us [as well as in the provision of the law in our own case - A.S.] - There is no definition of the phrase "center of life" [...] In such cases - in which the legislature simply did not interpret the provision of the term "center of life" - it should be interpreted in accordance with the legislative purpose underlying the specific normative arrangement. The connections relevant to the definition of the center of life and the strength of the various connections will vary from one legislative context to another. Thus, to illustrate, in matters of tax residency, central weight may be given to business relationships - On the surface of his family's residence" (emphasis added - A.S.).
- My opinion, as stated, is the same as that of Justice Meltzer, and I adopt here his interpretive approach with respect to residency. As is customary in our places, this approach should be followed whenever the language of the law is not clear and does not provide a solution to the issue before the courts - this is especially true in tax matters (see: Civil Appeal 3012/18 Haifa Land Taxation Administration v. Twenty Hands Nahariya Ltd., paragraphs 29-36 of my judgment, and references therein; as well as paragraphs 5-6 of the judgment of Deputy President Meltzer; and paragraphs 1-2 of the judgment of President E. Hayut) [published in Nevo] (July 4, 2019)).
- I will therefore turn to the social purposes of a beneficiary settlement benefit that is granted to taxpayers within the framework of section 11 of the Income Tax Ordinance.
- It is well known that these purposes include providing assistance to the communities in the periphery, and in particular to the communities on the line of military confrontation with our enemies, providing economic support to the residents of these communities, and attracting a population to the aforementioned communities (see: Balatinsky, para. 18).
As the judge summed it up A. Weinstein In one of the tax appeals heard before her: