And the words of the accountant on behalf of the appellant in the pre-trial hearing:
"CPA Cohen: True, but in his calculation he said, 'If the doctor gave you with a full tax appeal, the logic behind this calculation, if the hospital or the person who provides the service gave a full tax appeal, as far as I'm concerned, the transaction with a full tax appeal is also true,' and that's not true.
The Honorable Judge Seroussi: So what do you say that the invoice is invalid?
CPA Cohen: I didn't say improper, the doctor decided for his own considerations that he doesn't want to get into trouble, a tourist, not a tourist, he takes out a full tax appeal, I'm indifferent here, it's supposed to be because I'm deducting these inputs. But on the other hand, tax appeal authorities came into this calculation and said, 'If the doctor gave you an invoice with a full tax appeal, I want the income from a full tax appeal as well,' but this is a service that can be given to a tourist by way of hospitalization..." (p. 13, paras. 3-11 of the transcript of the pre-trial hearing).
- In other words, even before the evidentiary stage, in the framework of the second objection and before the trial, the appellant raised the argument that the invoices on the basis of which the assessment was issued did not reflect the legal situation, and that they were taxable at a zero rate. What was necessary, then, was to prove during the trial that those invoices did indeed meet the conditions of section 30(a)(8)(g) of the Law, but the appellant, for her own reasons, did not do so.
- It should be emphasized that if the appellant had done so, the respondent would have examined the issue and reduced the assessment accordingly:
"The witness, Mr. Hershberg: ... If they would come to me and show me with the references and evidence that you would hear from a surgeon, they talked here about Tepper or about not knowing, they gave examples of all kinds of doctors that Dr. Tepper came and operated on, she issued a tax invoice at a full tax rate and it had to be neutralized, so I would take it into account and lower my assessment, I was not shown the evidence, they brought me a sea of work with numbers... In the problematic aspect, we were not shown, we were not shown that 100 shekels out of this sum or a million shekels out of this sum was in the hospital, which was when a surgeon came and operated on" (p. 53, paragraphs 10-14 and 29-31 of the minutes of the evidentiary hearing).