Application for Leave to Appeal 1975/24: The Leviathan Case
- We are dealing with an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs (Judge Shaked), which was given in administrative appeal 18618-12-22 [Nevo] on January 8, 2024. In the framework of this judgment, the appeal of respondent No. 1 in the application for administrative leave to appeal 1975/24 (hereinafter: Leviathan) against the decision of the Appeals Committee for Compensation and Betterment Levy Tel Aviv (hereinafter, respectively: the Appeals Committee Civil Case and the Leviathan Case) was partially accepted.
- The matter of the Leviathan case revolves around the obligation of Leviathan to pay betterment tax for the sale of his rights intwo apartments that he owns (hereinafter: the apartments) that are within the scope of the Quarter 3 plan: a detailed plan for the addition of building rights, which was prepared by virtue of section 23 ofTAMA 38. Leviathan appealed to the Appeals Committee in a civil case against the very fact that he was charged with betterment levy for the approval of the Quarter 3 plan; alternatively, he argued that for the purpose of calculating the betterment, the value of the land should be assessed "in the previous state", taking into account the impact of TAMA 38 on its values. The Civil Case Appeals Committee rejected his claims. The District Court accepted Leviathan's appeal in part: it was determined that the Quarter 3 plan grants vested rights, and therefore its approval requires the payment of betterment tax upon sale. At the same time, it was determined that when evaluating the value of apartments "in the previous state", one should follow the path of generalization. In other words, it is necessary to take into account the increase in the value of the apartments that resulted from the effect of TAMA 38 as part of the previous situation, while determining appraisal coefficients that will weigh the degree of uncertainty in the realization of the rights under the TAMA.
- The Tel Aviv-Jaffa Local Planning and Building Committee (hereinafter: the Tel Aviv Local Committee) did not accept the District Court's ruling regarding the contribution of TAMA 38 to the value of the apartments. According to the Tel Aviv Local Committee, the betterment levy owed by Leviathan should be determined by way of neutralizing the effect of the TAMA on the value of the apartments in their previous state; Hence the request for leave to appeal that the Committee placed before us.
Request for Administrative Leave to Appeal 25226-04-25: The Kalmanovich Case
- We are dealing with an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Jerusalem District Court sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs (Judge Ziller) given in administrative appeal 25955-11-22 on March 11, 2025. In the framework of this judgment, the Applicant's appeal in Administrative Appeal Request 25226-04-25, the Jerusalem Local Planning and Building Committee (hereinafter: the Jerusalem Local Committee), against the decision of the Jerusalem Compensation and Betterment Levy Appeals Committee (hereinafter, respectively: the Jerusalem Appeals Committee and the Kalmanovich Case), was rejected.
- In the framework of the Kalmanovich case, the Jerusalem Local Committee appealed the decision of the Jerusalem Appeals Committee to cancel dozens of betterment levy charges imposed by the committee in respect of the sale of land to which Plan 9988 applies – a detailed plan for increasing building rights in the area of the city's Rehavia neighborhood (regarding this plan, the Appeals Committee's decision stated, more than necessary, that from a material point of view, this is a plan that comes by virtue of section 23 of TAMA 38). This is because the Jerusalem Appeals Committee determined that the rights by virtue of Plan 9988 are "floating rights" for which it is not possible to charge betterment levy at the time of sale; that the effect of TAMA 38 on the value of the land "in the previous state" must be taken into account; and that, given the aforesaid, the existence of betterment by virtue of Plan 9988 has not been proven. The Jerusalem District Court, in contrast to the Jerusalem Appeals Committee, found that the rights by virtue of Plan 9988 are "quasi-vested" rights for which betterment levy should be charged in a two-stage format. However, the court ruled that in order to calculate the value of the land "in the previous state", the effect of TAMA 38 must be taken into account. In other words, the court preferred generalization over neutralization. In light of the aforesaid – and taking into account the findings of the Appeals Committee, according to which Plan 9988 did not lead to a separate betterment of the land – the court dismissed the appeal.
- The Jerusalem Local Committee did not give up and placed before us a request for leave to appeal the Jerusalem District Court's ruling. This application raises arguments in relation to the fundamental issue of the assessment of the "previous situation" as well as with regard to the additional determinations of the District Court regarding the nature of the rights by virtue of Plan 9988 and the betterment inherent therein. As will be explained below, these additional determinations are not worthy of a "third incarnation" discussion, and therefore I see no reason to deal with them within the framework of the present proceeding.
The parties' arguments