In other words, while with regard to spouses, there are important and weighty justifications that necessitated, as determined in case law, to deviate from the language of the law and to establish the exception with respect to property separation, these justifications do not exist with respect to minors (or are significantly weaker). In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no room to deviate from the language and purpose of the law, and there is no room to expand the exception and apply it differently from that which has been done in case law to date.
With regard to minor children, the courts have not yet written "chapters in the ongoing story" - in a manner that favors a deviation from the clear language of the law, and therefore I believe that it is appropriate to adopt the approach that the Honorable Justice Grosskopf advocated (if it were not for those "chapters" that have already been written - in relation to spouses) - and to leave the presumption of the family unit in relation to minors in accordance with the "clear and clear" language of the law (see: the Blank case, verses 6 and verses 27).
- I will not deny that the adoption of this approach - as stated above, is not without difficulties in my view, and that is why I have deliberated on the matter - out of recognition of the various approaches that have been expressed over the years on this issue, but in the end of the calculation, and as I will explain and reason, I believe that it is the correct and proper solution - with respect to the presumption of the family unit in all matters relating to minors. Changes in this context should be made by the legislature, and in the absence of them, there is no room to expand the judicial exception that was established in relation to spouses, even with respect to minors - and thus, and here the main thing, to clearly deviate from identifying the reason for which the legislature sought to allocate the tax benefits given to owners of a single apartment.
- In order to explain my conclusion, I will walk through two stations - the language of the law and its purpose. As stated, these two stations are not without difficulties, and it is possible that other conclusions could have been reached in their matter as well, but it is in my view that the permission of the presumption of the family unit - which the legislature established in relation to minors, and not its unraveling, is what justifies in my view the conclusion to which I have come.
The language of the law:
- For the convenience of reading, I will reiterate section 9(c1c)(4)(c) of the law, which establishes the presumption of the family unit:
A purchaser and his spouse, with the exception of the spouse who lives permanently separately, and their children under the age of 18, with the exception of a married child or an orphan child from one or both of his parents, shall be considered as one purchaser."