E7 The plaintiff did not prove the parties' participation in the profits and losses of the business
- As stated, one of the indications of the existence of a partnership is the partners' participation in the profits and losses of the business (the Bryce case).
- The plaintiff did not prove in any way that the parties together bore the losses of the alleged partnership. The plaintiff also did not prove that the profits of the alleged partnership were distributed according to the ratio of the parties' holdings, i.e., The plaintiff's evidence does not contain any calculation relating to this or any references to substantiate it. CPA Elron testified that each of the parties had an accounting card in each company and that they were managed as a separate legal entity, each of them (p. 197 of the transcript, paras. 16-27).
- Moreover, since the plaintiff did not prove which companies were included in the "business" that was claimed to be the partnership, it is not possible to examine this in any way.
E8 Additional Evidence of the Plaintiff's Knowledge of the Corporate Structure of Companies in the Tax Appeal and the Defendant's Testimonies 1
- First evidence: As stated, in 2014 the plaintiff and defendant 1 conducted negotiations for the separation of control of Oden Development. In this framework, a draft agreement was prepared, which was not signed (Appendix 11 to the plaintiff's affidavit), which included an accounting arrangement. The draft was not signed and the parties disagree on its validity.
In any event, the parties signed the minutes of the general meeting of Odan Entrepreneurship on December 3, 2014, according to which, inter alia, the share capital of this company was increased and the allocation of shares to defendant 1 was increased (Appendix 30 to the affidavit of defendant 1).
This conduct strengthens my conclusion that the parties acted within the framework of companies and not as partnerships, and that the plaintiff also saw it as such, otherwise he would not have signed such a document.
- Second evidence: An email sent by the plaintiff to Adv. Hayek on August 18, 2016 (Appendix 33 to the affidavit of defendant 1). Attached to the email was a table prepared by the plaintiff's daughter, Dana, according to which he is entitled to the sum of ILS 258,000. In the email, the plaintiff mentions various sums relating to the parties' calculations vis-à-vis the companies, including approximately ILS 97,000 owed by defendant 1 to Hasson Gesher as a "private debt" of defendant 1 (paragraph 3 of the email), as well as the sum of ILS 75,000 that appears in the table as the plaintiff's withdrawal from Hasson Gesher that was recorded in error, since the amount was due to him in a "private manner" (section 4).
It appears from this document that the plaintiff relates to the companies that are ostensibly included in the partnership as "autonomous" from an accounting-economic point of view, and not as part of an accounting relationship between him and defendant 1 as partners.