Company for Management and Trust Services v. Tel Aviv Local Planning and Building Committee — Court sought respondents’ position on vacating a valuation ruling inconsistent with binding precedent

Case
Company for Management and Trust Services Y.S.S. Ltd. et al. v. Tel Aviv Local Planning and Building Committee et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Israel (Israel)
Judge
Yael Wilner (Judicial Selection Committee of Israel, 2017)
Date Decided
September 24, 2026
Citation
בר”מ 27409-05-25
Topics
Betterment Levy; Property Valuation; National Outline Plan 38; Appellate Procedure

Background

The applicants sought permission to appeal a partial judgment of the Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court in Administrative Appeal 56975-09-23, issued on March 6, 2025. The District Court had ruled that, when estimating a property’s value in its “previous condition” for purposes of calculating a betterment levy, the increase in value attributable to National Outline Plan 38 (TAMA 38) must be disregarded.

After that judgment, the Supreme Court decided Tel Aviv Local Planning and Building Committee v. Livyatan, Administrative Leave to Appeal 1975/24, on October 16, 2025, and a further-hearing proceeding in the same matter, דנ”מ 67731-10-25, on July 5, 2026. Those decisions established the opposite rule: appreciation attributable to TAMA 38 must not be excluded when valuing the property in its previous condition.

The Court’s Holding

Justice Yael Wilner did not yet finally grant or deny leave to appeal. Instead, in light of the Livyatan rulings, she directed the respondents to state by October 8, 2026, whether they consented to the application being granted to the extent that the District Court’s determinations conflicting with Livyatan would be vacated.

The Court further indicated that, on that basis, the case would be returned to the District Court for an amended judgment. The order therefore initiated a procedure for conforming the lower court’s judgment to the controlling precedent; it was not itself a final merits disposition of the leave application.

Key Takeaways

  • Under the binding Livyatan precedent identified by the Court, appreciation attributable to TAMA 38 is not excluded when determining a property’s value in its previous condition for a betterment levy.
  • The challenged District Court judgment applied the contrary valuation rule.
  • The Supreme Court requested the respondents’ position on vacating the inconsistent portions and remanding for an amended judgment, but did not finally dispose of the application in this order.

Why It Matters

The order shows the practical effect of Livyatan on pending betterment-levy litigation: lower-court valuation rulings that exclude TAMA 38-related appreciation must be brought into conformity with the Supreme Court’s rule.

For property owners, developers, and planning authorities, inclusion of that appreciation in the previous-condition valuation can materially affect the calculation of taxable betterment. The precise financial consequences, however, were left for the District Court’s amended judgment rather than decided in this order.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top