The witness, Mr. Peretz: Yes.
(pp. 95-96 of the transcript)
- The plaintiff also claimed that Uden Services was a partner of the other shareholder in Hasson Gesher, Shalom Hasson:
Adv. Weiner: The statement that there was an agreement that Auden would be a partner with Gesher Hasson is not a lie, the issue of the partnership with Gesher Hasson, right?
The witness, Mr. Peretz: There was a partnership
(p. 82 of the transcript, paras. 32-34).
- These words of the plaintiff indicate more than anything else the baselessness of his claims. It appears from the plaintiff's words that not only is there a partnership between him and defendant 1 - but it also exists between him and Mr. Shalom Hasson - within the framework of the Hasson Gesher company. This is despite the existence of a company in a tax appeal in which the parties operate, and without the plaintiff establishing even prima facie special circumstances that show that this corporate structure should be ignored.
It is clear that this view of the plaintiff, which completely ignores, as a starting point, a recognized corporate structure and basic legal rules should not be accepted.
I will also add in the context of Hasson Gesher that the plaintiff waived the testimony of Mr. Piso and Mr. Hasson, even though his request to summon them to testify was granted, without any explanation, and this refusal to testify is in accordance with his obligation.
E6 The parties acted vis-à-vis the tax authorities as companies and not as partners
- As is well known, reporting to the tax authorities as a partnership is completely different from reporting as a limited company.
The plaintiff testified that the reporting to the Income Tax was carried out as companies (p. 130 of the transcript, paras. 16-17). The plaintiff confirmed that he did not report to the Income Tax Authority about the existence of a partnership, not at all and not in an appropriate form as required (ibid., paras. 14-26 and N/19). When asked whether the tax authorities knew about the existence of a partnership, he replied that in his view, the tax authorities had proven the existence of a partnership in 2015 (ibid., para. 31). At that time, he was asked whether, at least that year, he had reported the existence of a partnership, and he answered in the negative, even regarding the period after his release from prison (p. 132 of the transcript, paras. 1-12).