Real Estate
In the country
Have you inhabited and also inherited?
This is the price you will have to pay if you shake the system for free
After five different proceedings, the Supreme Court dismissed a citizen's claim against the Petah Tikva Municipality, after inhabiting a property without a Form 4 and suing the municipality for a demand for the payment of property taxes on the grounds that there was no need to pay.
Why?
"Because there is no Form 4 for the property"
Tags
Petah Tiqwa
David Rosenthal
Wednesday, 01 December 2021, 11:12 Updated: 11:51
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal filed by David Ritersky, against a ruling given in the Central District Court, in which the taxpayer's claims against collection proceedings taken by the Petah Tikva municipality in respect of absolute property tax debts that the taxpayer had were rejected.
At the Supreme Court hearing, all Supreme Court justices rejected all of the appellant's arguments during the hearing, and suggested that the appellant withdraw from the appeal, and so it was at the end of the day.
This is the fifth procedure that the appellant is conducting in front of the Petah Tikva municipal system.
More on Walla!
Chinese companies take over infrastructure?
The Supreme Court ruled
To the full article
(Photo: Reuven Castro)
Adv. Asher Ilovitch (Photo: Idan Malka)
Petitioner has a building in the industrial area of Petah Tikva, the building has not yet been given a Form 4 in the years 2016-207, which allows it to be populated. The foreclosure on which the petitioner complained in the lawsuit was for the purpose of collecting property taxes for the years 2016-2017 on two floors in the building, which the petitioner used and even rented offices there. He applied for cancellation of the property tax charge on the grounds that the building does not have a Form 4 and an occupancy permit - claims that were rejected by the property tax director, who checked that these properties are actually inhabited and rented and therefore the absence of Form 4 does not affect the charge in case the property is used. The petitioner appealed to the court against this decision, which did not accept the petition, and ruled that he was required to pay the property tax debts and that his conduct was in bad faith.
Initially, a petition was filed against the municipality in the Central District Court, in which it was alleged that the municipality's collection actions were carried out illegally, as these are not absolute debts, and that the municipality did not specify the taxpayer's obligations. In the response letter, the municipality explained and argued why in this case all the collection proceedings were done lawfully, since only the absolute debts of the taxpayer were forfeited, after the taxpayer knew throughout the years exactly what his debts were.
After several hearings on the subject, the ruling in the petition was given, in which the district court accepted all the municipality's claims, ruled that the taxpayer did act in bad faith, ruled that the taxpayer knew throughout the years what his debts were after they became final (after the ruling in the administrative appeal). And that the municipality did not have to start sending alerts and warnings once again.
The assessee did not agree with the district court's ruling and filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, and as stated above, in a hearing held on appeal in the Supreme Court, all Supreme Court justices unanimously explained to the General Court that there is no room for appeal since the appellant has no claims against the debt , And that the municipality acted flawlessly in the collection proceedings in question, and therefore agreed that the appeal would be struck out.
"There is importance to the critique that the assessee heard"
Judge Anat Baron said at the hearing: "There is no scope today for an appeal because the foreclosure has been exercised and the funds have been paid and there is no claim that there is no debt here.
The Petah Tikva Municipality was represented by attorneys Asher Ilovitch and Ariel Lieber of the firm Frisch, Schaferber, Reinhartz & Co., who state that: "He acts and acts lawfully in all the proceedings taken against him, and it is very important that the assessee himself heard the criticisms of the Supreme Court judges during the hearing that was directed against him."
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments