At the end of his remarks, the appeal to learn from the nature of the exceptions established by the legislature indeed strengthens the conclusion he reached. Similar words were made by the Honorable Justice H. Kirsch in the Hagag case, when he also sat on a similar bench, and he held there, in verse 21:
The provision is intended to ensure that the purchase tax relief will be given only once to each nuclear family, based on the assumption that the family members live together under the same roof (hence the need to exclude the provision "a spouse who lives permanently separately" as well as a "married child").
- The appellants rightly claim that since the judgment in the Ibn Ezra case, the perception with respect to the presumption of the family unit has changed. There is no denying that it is so. However, in my opinion, the respondent rightly insists on the distinction between the matters discussed in case law over the years - which dealt with the application of the presumption of the family unit to a couple, and the case under discussion here - which deals with minor children, some of whom, it was reported, toddlers of only a few years old.
Behind the important step led by the courts in their rulings on the presumption of the family unit were human distress as well as substantive purposes, which justified a deviation in a way that the courts did not conceal because it was not easily consistent with the simple "clear and clear" meaning of the provision established by the legislature (see, for example: para. 10 in the Blank case).
This human distress, which the courts did not want to stand by without providing a remedy, touched first and foremost on human situations - which became more common than in the past (when the law was enacted). As the Honorable Justice Danziger noted in the Shlomi case, paragraph 49:
However, alongside this family unit, there are other and more complex options from a legal perspective. For example, a couple may establish a family unit at a later stage of their lives, when each of them is already financially established and owns his own apartment. Another example: a couple may establish a family unit that constitutes a "chapter 2" for both of them, with each of them having their own assets and children, with all the complexity that comes with it. In both of these examples, there is a high probability that the couple will draw up a prenuptial agreement, in which property issues relating to the assets with which they came into the family unit will be settled. There may be, of course, additional categorical examples beyond those just mentioned, but what these examples have in common is that each spouse enters the family unit carrying "historical baggage" with him.