A person leaving Israel who wishes to stop being an Israeli resident for tax purposes is judged by the centre of life. Section 1 of the Income Tax Ordinance defines an Israeli resident as a person whose centre of life is in Israel, and directs an examination of the whole of his family, economic and social connections, among them the place of his permanent home, the place of residence of himself and his family, the place of his regular or permanent occupation, the place of his active and substantial economic interests, and the place of his activity in organisations, associations or institutions.

Alongside the qualitative test stand two quantitative presumptions: presence in Israel of 183 days or more in the tax year, or presence of 30 days or more in the tax year where the total for that year and the two preceding years is 425 days or more. Both are rebuttable, by the taxpayer and by the assessing officer alike.

The starting point: the Gonen case

Gonen, the foundation of the centre of life test, settled three principles that still hold. The test is objective and looks at the whole of the connections in fact, and the taxpayer’s subjective intention is relevant but not decisive. A single connection, however strong, is not enough, and all of them must be weighed together. And the starting point is that an Israeli resident who goes abroad remains an Israeli resident, particularly someone born and raised here; the burden of proving severance lies on the taxpayer, and it is a heavy one.

On the facts of that case, although he spent a long period in the United States with his family, his centre of life was held to have remained in Israel. Weight was placed on his keeping a home in Israel, continuing national insurance payments, keeping active bank accounts, and registering at the Israeli consulate.

Six cases

Two comparisons that show what the presumptions do

Amit spent about thirty days in Israel in the tax year in dispute and was held to be an Israeli resident. Tzur spent forty two days in the first year and thirty one in the second, and was held to be a foreign resident.

Sapir spent 185 days in Israel in 2005 and was held to be a foreign resident. Refaeli spent 185 days in 2009, the identical figure, and was held to be an Israeli resident.

The presumptions set the starting point and who carries the burden. The decision is made on the whole of the connections.

What each case involved

Yael Tzur, severance recognised

The appellant worked in Hong Kong in a senior role and kept a rented flat there. Her home in Israel was let to others. In neither tax year did she spend more than 183 days here. On the second presumption: in 2006 it applied, since she spent 42 days and the three year total crossed 425; in 2007 it did not, since the total for that year and the two preceding years came to only 411 days.

The court accepted her case. A home in Israel let to others cannot be a permanent home where it is not available to her and her family; full-time work abroad with professional establishment there is a significant factor; most of her economic activity was in Hong Kong, including active bank accounts there; social activity was proved in Hong Kong and not in Israel; and she paid tax in Hong Kong.

Michael Sapir, severance recognised

Sapir was posted as a company employee to Singapore and lived there with his wife and children from 1994 to 1998, after which the family returned to Israel. He later went back to Singapore as a consultant, this time without his wife and children, who remained in Israel. He kept a flat in Singapore and ran businesses there, and visited Israel frequently. His days in Israel were 148, 166, 145 and 185 in the years 2002 to 2005.

The court held he was a foreign resident whose centre of life was in Singapore. The place of residence of the family unit matters, and it is uncommon for spouses to live apart, but that does not preclude a finding that the centre of life is in Singapore where most of the connections are shown to be there. It counted in his favour that he created no new economic connections to Israel after leaving: he bought no new assets and opened no new businesses here. His being a Singapore tax resident and paying tax there, albeit at a low rate, also supported his case.

Bar Refaeli, severance not recognised

She argued that she moved between countries for work without establishing a permanent home in any of them, and that in the relevant tax years she spent most of her time in the United States. Her days in Israel were 185 in 2009 and 131 in 2010.

The court rejected her case. Absent a clear centre of life in another country, and in the light of her substantial connections to Israel, she remained an Israeli resident. Presence of 185 days in 2009, above the 183 day presumption, strongly supported the finding, particularly because her days in Israel were not significantly fewer than in any other single place in the world. Her permanent home was held to be her parents’ home and later a rented flat, and she brought no evidence of a permanent home in the United States. Counting against her were the use of an Israeli credit card, companies managed from Israel, use of an Israeli health fund, reliance on Israeli advisers, and volunteer work in Israel.

Rafi Amit, severance not recognised

A professional poker player who spent most of his time at tournaments around the world. The dispute concerned 2007, in which he spent about thirty days in Israel. While here he stayed mainly at his parents’ home or in hotels. He kept a flat in Toronto. He was not a tax resident of any country in the world and held no citizenship other than Israeli. Between 2006 and 2010 he transferred twenty million shekels to Israel.

The District Court and the Supreme Court rejected his case. His parents’ home in Israel is not a permanent home, and staying there from time to time does not make it one; but Amit proved no centre of life in another country, acquired no other citizenship or residence, opened no tax file elsewhere, and established no permanent home anywhere. Substantial connections to Israel were retained: family, assets, bank accounts, and travel on an Israeli passport alone. Although holding assets in Israel is not a central consideration, since a foreign resident may hold Israeli real estate, the substantial transfers of money over a period showed that Israel remained his economic centre of life, particularly absent a real connection to another country. It was also held that unusual professions requiring global mobility do not remove the need to prove an alternative centre of life.

The anonymous case, severance not recognised

Married to an Israeli and the father of four or more children. From 1991 to 2002 he ran businesses in two foreign countries, and on his case he moved most of his activity to one of them in 2002. In each of the tax years considered he spent fewer than 183 days in Israel, but on the assessing officer’s count he spent 164 days in 2005, 158 in 2006 and 163 in 2007, so the second presumption applied.

He was held to be an Israeli resident. Presence for long periods is itself a strong indication, and here the frequent weekend and holiday visits were made to his home in Israel, where he stayed with his wife and children and which was available to him at any time, making it his permanent home. He deposited about a million dollars a year to run the household and kept a vehicle for his stays. The scale of his assets in Israel, about eighty nine million shekels, was treated as a significant consideration, and his argument that a quantitative balance should be struck between assets in Israel and abroad was rejected. His refusal to disclose details of his foreign assets counted against him, as did the fact that he was not treated as a resident or citizen for tax purposes in any other country.

Haim Tzach, remained an Israeli resident

The appellant left Israel in 1985 and from 1993 ran two large companies in Nigeria, in agriculture and in construction. He argued that he had been a foreign resident throughout the nine tax years in dispute and, in the alternative, a senior returning resident. The Tel Aviv District Court, per Judge Yardena Serusi, held on 1 June 2026 that he had been an Israeli resident throughout those years.

The 425 day presumption was met in every tax year in dispute, and the 183 day presumption in the years 2009 to 2015. Days in Israel ranged from 130 in 2017 to 257 in 2011. It was not disputed that the business ties were in Nigeria. But the Tel Aviv apartment registered half in his name, an art collection kept in it, a daughter living in Israel, annual transfers of one to two million shekels into the joint account, a car, a driving licence, a credit card, medical treatment and surgery carried out in Israel, a basketball season ticket and voting in an election together led to the conclusion that the presumption had not been rebutted.

Two contemporaneous statements weighed heavily. On a form filed with the Tax Authority on 5 June 2014 he declared that he was an Israeli resident and married, and did not tick that he was separated. In an application to the National Insurance Institute on 4 November 2010 he declared that his centre of life had been in Israel since August 2009. The court gave documents and statements made at the time more weight than evidence given in the appeal.

The alternative argument, that he was a senior returning resident, was also rejected. The day presumption was met in 2004 to 2008 as well, and no material factual difference was found between those years and the years under appeal.

The appeals were struck out and the matter returned to the assessment stage for the taxable income to be quantified, following an earlier decision that split the proceeding so that residence would be decided first. Costs of ILS 40,000 were awarded against the appellants.

What the six of them show

The reporting duty

An individual to whom one of the day presumptions applies and who contends that it does not apply to him must file a return setting out the facts on which the contention rests and attach supporting documents. The duty is in section 131(a)(5e) of the Ordinance, added by Amendment 223 of 2016, and the form is Form 1348, “Residence declaration for the tax year”, filed with the annual return. Exceptions exist. The filing is not a waiver of the contention; it is where the contention starts.

What to collect, and when

The centre of life question is decided on the facts. In practice, documents created at the time by a third party, for a purpose other than tax, tend to carry more weight than an affidavit drawn up after an assessment proceeding has opened.

What may change

In 2021 the committee on international taxation reform recommended moving to a two tier system with conclusive presumptions, seeking to reduce uncertainty and friction with the Tax Authority. Following the committee recommendations a draft bill memorandum was published, and after public comments a revised memorandum was published which is stricter than the committee recommendations. As at the date of this update it has not been enacted. Nothing should be planned on a text that has not been enacted, and the law described here is the law that applies.

Where to go next

Last updated: 5 September 2026

The content of this page is general information only. It does not constitute legal or tax advice and should not be relied upon in making decisions. The centre of life question is factual and turns on the circumstances.