In view of all that has been said in this matter, my conclusion is that the opinion of CPA Damati does not substantiate the defendants' defense.
- According to the picture that emerges so far, there was a large amount of income from the motel, which was not declared or reported, with conduct that amounts to the use of fraud, deception and deception as stated in section 220(5) of the Ordinance – the absence of invoices in the years 2017 and 2018 at least, while some of the invoices submitted for the years 2014-2015 include only partial recording of the details, as well as the absence of rental contracts for the years 2017-2018.
- As to the proof of the mental element under section 220 of the Ordinance – the intention to achieve the goal of tax evasion, I will first relate to the defendant's case. In accordance with the defense's position, the defendant is the one who "handled the whole matter". The argument regarding the lack of income was rejected, as was the claim that all the information regarding the income was transferred to CPA Dotan and the latter refrained from reporting it. In other words, the defendant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his failure to report. In these circumstances, I determine that the mental element existed in the defendant's case.
- In the case of the defendant, the defense argued even more strongly that the defendant relied on the defendant's reports and did not have the awareness and intention required under section 220 of the Ordinance (achieving the goal of tax evasion). This argument should not be accepted. The defendant is also an accomplice in the denial of the income itself.
Thus, the defendant had reservations about the use of the term "motel" (she preferred the term "shelter home") and testified that in practice the defendants rented units in the motel "a few times" and that the long-term rental was only once. This is when the evidence shows otherwise, as described at length above. It is important to note that the defendant's wiretaps and log – along with the defendant's attempts to intervene during the defendant's testimony – indicate a high level of involvement of the defendant in the management of the motel. This involvement indicates an awareness of the factual situation and the fact that the defendant is not sincere in her claim that the rental of units in the motel was carried out only a few times. I will add that I am not at all convinced by the defendant's statement that a few minutes later she forgot what was said in her conversations with the defendant regarding the income from the motel because she did not write it down. These words do not inspire confidence, to say the least, certainly when it emerges from the evidence that the defendant kept a log of the hotel.