Mr. Meisler further testified that when they saw that the defendant did not intend to pay the debt, they canceled the invoices temporarily with the tax appeal authorities in order to minimize the plaintiff's damages in accordance with the professional advice they received from the lawyer and accountant, according to which as long as the defendant does not approve the cancellation, it is not possible to apply to the tax appellant to cancel the transaction. Therefore, as stated, the invoices were temporarily cancelled in an agreement with the VAT authorities, in such a way that the plaintiff received back the taxes she had paid for the cancelled invoices. Thus, he testified that the amount of the canceled invoices was approximately 1.7-1.8 million, and from this the sum of approximately ILS 270,000 should be deducted from the claim (in the transcript, p. 35, pp. 47, 9-21, 54, 21-31, and 55, 1-5).
Mr. Hodis also testified that they acted in accordance with the instructions of the legal team and the accountant (in the transcript at pp. 72, paras. 20-32; paras. 10), and claimed that the plaintiff canceled the invoices temporarily, in accordance with the instructions she received from the legal team and her accountant at the time in order to receive the appellant's money, taxes that they paid, for the purpose of minimizing the damages and preserving the company (in the transcript, pp. 72, 27-31 and 73, paras. 1-3). Mr. Hodis did not give a satisfactory explanation as to the nature of the temporary cancellation, but argued that it was not a case of cancellation of the transactions (in the transcript, p. 73, paras. 4-12).
Notwithstanding this version, I was not presented with a professional opinion by the lawyer and the accountant on behalf of the plaintiff, which indicates the feasibility of temporary cancellation of invoices and how the cancellation of the invoices does not indicate the cancellation of a transaction. Thus, there is no support for the version that the invoices were temporarily canceled and the transaction was not canceled. Moreover, it emerged from the testimony of Mr. Meisler that the cancellation of the transaction depended on the defendant's signature on a form, implying that the plaintiff considered the transaction to be canceled.