There is room to understand from this that the Supreme Court tended to adopt its following approach:"of the Honorable Justice Gorman in the "Undertaking on the part of the seller", because it was only according to which the appeal was decided before the Appeals Committee.
- At the beginning of this year, another judgment was handed down in the Central Lod District Court, this time by an appeals committee headed by the Honorable Judge S. Bornstein: Appeals Committee 2651-05-23 Michaeli v. Central Real Estate Taxation Administration, dated January 12,2026. In the matter Michaeli The seller of the rights in the land had previously entered into a partnership agreement with other landowners in the same complex for the purpose of constructing a large residential building. In the said venture, two alternative tracks were determined: a combination transaction with a contractor or an order for construction services from a contractor (without a partial sale of rights in the land). The seller chose the route of ordering construction services. Later, the seller sold all of his rights to the appellant. The Real Estate Taxation Administration claimed that the appellant had purchased "Residential Apartment". The Appeals Committee rejected this position and accepted the appeal.
The Honorable Justice Bornstein reiterated the difference between a combination transaction on the one hand and an agreement to order construction services on the other:
"... I did not find in the factual circumstances before me that the essential distinction should be deviated from... that between a combination transaction, which includes a clear element of the sale of rights in real estate, and a transaction for the order of construction services, which does not include the sale of rights in real estate and does not fall within the scope of the Real Estate Taxation Law, in the framework of which the landowner orders construction services on the land, the rights of which remain in his hands in exchange for payment of consideration to the contractor who builds for the service." (paragraph 48 of the judgment)