Without setting any precedents for this, I am of the opinion that there is difficulty in applying the presumption that was established in the matter Barnea In circumstances of the nature of the circumstances at hand: the said presumption is based on the assumption that "The vast majority of the receipts given to the employee by his employer are in any case work income"and therefore there is justification for imposing the burden on the taxpayer to prove otherwise (עניין Barnea Paragraphs 26-27 of the judge's judgment Y. Amit). On the other hand, when we are dealing with a receipt given not by the employer, but by a third party, to someone who is also an owner and manager, it is doubtful whether this assumption has any place (at least with the same intensity). It seems that this logic was at the basis of the judge's position A. Baron In the matter Gangina According to it, when it is not a receipt given in the framework of an employee-employer relationship, there is no application to the said presumption. Support for the aforesaid can be found in the judgment in the matter עמרם (Civil Appeal 550/22 Amram N' Jerusalem Tax Assessor 3, paragraph 17 of the judge's judgment Rabbi Ronen (29.8.2023)), in which the question of the applicability of the presumption established in the matter was discussed. Barnea In the context of "Reclassification" By Article 86 30Income Tax Ordinance, and not in relation to the classification of a receipt in respect of a non-compete agreement. In the same matter, it was held that: "The presumption established in the Barnea case is intended to apply in relation to payments transferred from an employer to an employee due to the existence of an employment relationship between them", and that there is difficulty in applying this presumption when the receipt was received not as a result of an employment relationship (ibid.).
However, there may be cases in which the fact that the receipt was not given by the employer but by a third party is nothing but "Technically", and in fact "The breach" To which the receipt was intended to compensate is nothing but wages that the employer would have paid. Therefore, there was room to ponder whether the said presumption should be applied in these cases as well, at least in relation to the portion of the receipt, which is "Wage Replacement" (In accordance with the judge's comment Y. Amit In the matter Gangina).