Anat Birn Lawyer, globes.co.il
Often, architects and rights holders agree to the requirements of municipal engineering departments, and in applying for permits, they list a very long list of reliefs, without examining whether each of the easements does constitute "relief" by law. This is done for the sake of saving time and future bureaucratic procedures.
Their assumption is that there is no point in arguing with the engineering department about any clause that is sought as a relief, because the argument can go on for a long time, may drag the permit applicant to lengthy proceedings in the appeals committees and courts, when "the clock is banging" and "time is worth a lot of money."
Indeed, the debate about whether this is a relief - yes or no - can take months and years, and therefore there is a great deal of logic in the practical consideration of accepting the municipality's requirements, assuming that even if unnecessary relief has been published, it is only a formal and technical matter and not a substantive one.
Conflicting rulings
However, anyone who chooses to take this route must consider that it may have a costly price - for whatever relief the local committee may impose on the applicant to pay a levy and that once the process has passed from the licensing stage to the taxation stage, the right to claim that it is not a relief at all - is doubtful whether it will be to the credit of Applicant.
The judgments discussed in this issue are many, varied and contradictory. Some favor the taxpayer and state that the levy is a separate procedure and therefore it is worth examining first whether there was any justification for requiring the taxpayer to publish relief. That is, the taxpayer is not bound to have agreed to the relief, and may at the tax stage raise claims against the need for relief, even after accepting and publishing the law.
On the other hand, another approach in the ruling states that once the reliefs are published, the right to raise the claim that the publication has been made above the necessity and that it is not a relief at all, will not be considered in the stage of discussions on the improvement levy.
Applicants will be discouraged
Recently, the Tel Aviv Appeals Committee, headed by Sylvie Ravid, issued a resolution stating that a taxpayer who agreed to publish relief at the licensing stage had an increased duty to explain why it was not a relief for the benefit levy.
This means that sweeping advertising to save time and bureaucracy at the licensing stage is finally in the applicant's mind at the tax stage. While on the other side of the coin it stands for the benefit of the Authority.
In fact, the applicant must be allowed to choose from one bad way to another: on the one hand, to avoid sweeping advertising, to delay the issuance of the permit for many years, and to be drawn into lengthy discussions in the local committee and the appeal committee, all in order to maintain his right to raise claims against the need for taxation relief. Alternatively, he may waive this right and pay the improvement levy as the price he should bear when he chooses to avoid a legal dispute in order to issue a building permit without legal proceedings.
Anyone familiar with licensing procedures is aware of the intricate bureaucracy and endless deadlines until obtaining a permit, in a reality where obtaining building permits has become a long, expensive, and uncertain challenge.
In such a reality, it was appropriate to disconnect between the reliefs as published in the application and the reliefs for which the levy may be charged.
A stance that those who have released bound relief in advertising and will be charged with a betterment levy for it conveys a problematic message: It encourages planning committees to expand the list of reliefs as much as possible, even when the very need for relief is questionable, and make it difficult for permit applicants to litigate on this issue.
As it becomes more difficult to ascertain the need for quick schedule relief, permit applicants will be discouraged from waiting. They will already choose to reach the tax stage even if it involves giving up their right to claim that it is not a relief at all, which will eventually lead to higher PA levies.