The appellants rightly claim that this argument contradicts the respondent's answer to a clear question that I posed to him in the pre-trial, and that it was the respondent's answer that paved the way for the waiver of the evidentiary hearing process. There is no room for expanding a façade of this kind, and I will admit that it seems to me that this is an incidental statement that the respondent himself did not attribute any real weight to it (and this is what emerges from its location in the summaries, and from the fact that the respondent himself did not give it real weight and did not base his arguments on it).
One way or another, this is an extension of the front that contradicts a clear notice that the respondent notified the court, and therefore it is rejected.
In light of this, from here on I will proceed from a point of departure - which has not been presented even a shred of evidence to show otherwise, that the purchases were clearly and fully financed from Mr. Shahaf's sources.
The Respondent's arguments:
- The Respondent does not dispute that the contractual outline created by Mr. Shahaf did indeed create a separation of property. However, the respondent is of the opinion that while the separation of property has been recognized in the court's ruling, in the case of a couple, there is no room to recognize this jurisprudential exception, when we are dealing with minor children living within the framework of the family unit.
- 00The Respondent argues that the reduced purchase tax benefit for a single residential apartment is intended for a social purpose, to make it easier for those who wish to purchase a single residential apartment for themselves and their family, and not for investment
The legislature established the presumption of the family unit in order to limit the tax benefit to a single apartment for each family unit, and in this case the minors belong to family units that already own a residential apartment.
In order to contradict the presumption of the family unit, it is necessary to first examine whether the application of possession violates a value worthy of protection, and only then to examine the separation of property in practice.
- The respondent emphasizes that separation of property in itself cannot contradict the presumption, but is only a necessary condition for contradicting it, when there is a material cause that justifies it. In this case, the apartments were purchased for minors (some of them toddlers) as an investment channel and not for residence, and this does not justify a deviation from the family unit's possession and its purposes.
- Executive Directive 6/2011 explicitly states that an apartment given as a gift to a minor by family members or relatives will be counted in the number of family unit apartments, due to the difficulty in tracing the transfer of funds and the fear that this will be exploited to increase the number of family unit apartments.
- Accepting the appellants' arguments will render meaningless the presumption of the family unit - with regard to minor children, and will allow each well-established family unit to benefit from the tax benefit in proportion to the number of people in it, and thus harm the social purpose of the law. The legislature took pains to reduce the presumption of the family unit in specific cases (such as minor orphans - in Amendment 103 to the Law, and a minor who married - an exception that had already been established in the section since ancient times), a fact that indicates that a general separation of property is not sufficient to contradict the presumption - with regard to minors.
Discussion and Decision
- After reviewing the arguments of the parties, I have reached the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed.
This determination stems from the way in which I understand the purpose of the legislation of the presumption of the family unit, and from the fact that the justification for determining the case law exception with regard to property separation - an exception that has been determined in case law in relation to spouses, is relevant and justified in relation to spouses, but not with regard to minor children.