This conduct of the plaintiff strengthens my conclusion that there was no partnership between the plaintiff and defendant 1, since there is a presumption of the parties whose reports to the tax authorities reflect the legal situation (and compare: the Bryce case, paragraph 100); Miscellaneous Applications Civil (Tel Aviv District) 18254/07 Adv. Kobi Shaked in his capacity as trustee of the debtor's assets v. Rotman, para. 11 (January 12, 2009)).
- The plaintiff claims that the interrogation of defendant 1 with the tax assessor reveals his admission of partnership and refers to the transcript of his testimony of January 18, 2015 (paragraph 87 of the reply and Appendix 2 thereto).
First, I will note that to the best of my knowledge, this document was not submitted as evidence, and its attachment to the statement of claims does not become evidence. Second, and at the very least, I will refer to the relevant passage:
"Q. Did you and Toby Peretz separate as business partners?
- During 2013, we began the process of separating our joint holdings. A complex process that at the end of Toby Bowden's holdings was diluted from 49% to 4%... Toby remains in his holdings in Oden Properties.....
- Why did you and Toby Peretz break up?
- ... Because the logistics activity that Toby concentrated has become a specific weight in business. There was no point in continuing the partnership.
An examination of the questions and answers shows that defendant 1, who is not a lawyer, did not mean "partnership" within the meaning of the Ordinance, but rather spoke of the lack of reason for "continuing partnership" in the joint holdings in the companies, as he did explicitly say in his testimony above.
- In paragraph 59 of his summary, the plaintiff argued that the issue of taxation may have an impact on the evidentiary level, but the manner in which the parties reported their profits has no derivative effect," as he put it, on the determination of whether there was a partnership. I do not accept this argument. The manner in which the parties reported is a direct indication of how they view the conduct of their business and therefore has an impact on the legal conclusion.
I gave my opinion to the Gilboa case, to which the plaintiff referred in his summaries, where the significance of a declaration to the tax authorities regarding the existence of a partnership, which one of the parties subsequently denied, was discussed. The court accepted the argument that the declaration of the partnership was intended only to reduce the tax liability, and together with the other circumstances in that matter that did not indicate the management of a partnership, it did not see it as conclusive evidence of the existence of a partnership. In our case, the situation is quite different: the manner of reporting to the tax authorities, which did not include the taxation of a partnership, is consistent with the other indications and evidence that do not establish a partnership, as stated above.