27 June 2016, 20:37 · 20th Knesset · vote no. 24804
הצעת חוק לתיקון פקודת מס הכנסה (מס' 226), התשע"ו-2016Bill to Amend the Income Tax Ordinance (No. 226), 2016 · automatic translation · suggest a correction
אישור החוק
Law passed: 38 for, 30 against
68 of 120 voted — official Knesset result
What was put to the vote
«לקבל את הצעת החוק בקריאה שלישית»
Third reading: The final vote. A bill that passes its third reading becomes law. Glossary →
About the law and the debate
Official summary of the law (Knesset)
The Income Tax Ordinance (Amendment No. 226), 2016 (hereinafter - the Amendment), was passed in second and third reading on 27 June 2016. The Amendment is intended to enable an Israeli resident or Israeli citizen who is a resident of Judea and Samaria, who has income produced or accrued in Judea and Samaria, and who is entitled to a grant for the encouragement of capital investment in respect of the enterprise from which that income was produced or accrued under the administrative arrangement applicable in Judea and Samaria, to receive tax benefits under the terms and scope granted in Israel under the Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investments, 1959, and under the Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investments in Agriculture, 1980.
automatic translation · suggest a correction
Hebrew original
פקודת מס הכנסה (תיקון מס' 226), התשע"ו-2016 (להלן - התיקון), התקבל בקריאה השנייה והשלישית ביום כ''א בסיוון התשע"ו (27 ביוני 2016). התיקון נועד לאפשר לתושב ישראל או אזרח ישראלי שהוא תושב יהודה ושומרון, שיש לו הכנסה שהופקה או נצמחה ביהודה ושומרון, והוא זכאי למענק לעידוד השקעות הון בשל המפעל שממנו הופקה או נצמחה אותה הכנסה לפי ההסדר המינהלי החל ביהודה ושומרון, לקבל הטבות מס בתנאים ובהיקף הניתנים בישראל לפי החוק לעידוד השקעות הון, התשי"ט-1959, ולפי החוק לעידוד השקעות הון בחקלאות, התשמ"א-1980.
What was said in the plenum
Supporters saidautoThe law corrects an existing discrimination, since an Israeli resident in the area is liable for full taxes as an Israeli resident but does not enjoy the tax benefits granted under the Capital Investment Encouragement Laws, unlike the grants already given to him by virtue of an administrative arrangement.Speakers who made this point: 2Opponents saidautoThe law is another step in a systematic trend of granting benefits, grants and budgets to settlements and communities in Judea and Samaria at the expense of the periphery and the middle class in Israel.Speakers who made this point: 316 members spoke · 4 reservations
By party on the day of the vote
Coalition and opposition voted differently.
- for
- abstained
- against
Likudהליכודcoalition16 for · 0 against — majority for
Zionist Unionהמחנה הציוניopposition0 for · 12 against — majority against
- Michal Biranagainst
- Eyal Ben Reuvenagainst
- Yehiel Hilik Baragainst
- Eytan Broshiagainst
- Omer Barlevagainst
- Yoel Hassonagainst
- Yoseph Yonahagainst
- Merav Michaeliagainst
- Ksenia Svetlovaagainst
- Micky Rosenthalagainst
- Nachman Shaiagainst
- Itzik Shmuliagainst
Yesh Atidיש עתידopposition0 for · 8 against — majority against
- Karine Elharraragainst
- Yael Germanagainst
- Haim Jelinagainst
- Meir Cohenagainst
- Aliza Lavieagainst
- Mickey Levyagainst
- Elazar Sternagainst
- Ofer Shelahagainst
Kulanuכולנו בראשות משה כחלוןcoalition8 for · 0 against — majority for
Joint Listהרשימה המשותפת (חד"ש, רע"ם, בל"ד ותע"ל)opposition0 for · 6 against — majority against
- Talab Abu Araragainst
- Basel Ghattasagainst
- Hanin Zoabiagainst
- Abd Al Hakeem Haj Yahyaagainst
- Dov Kheninagainst
- Aida Touma Slimanagainst
United Torah Judaismיהדות התורהcoalition5 for · 0 against — majority for
Jewish Homeהבית היהודי בראשות נפתלי בנטcoalition4 for · 0 against — majority for
Yisrael Beytenuישראל ביתנוcoalition4 for · 0 against — majority for
Meretzמרצopposition0 for · 4 against — majority against
- Ilan Gilonagainst
- Zehava Galonagainst
- Tamar Zandbergagainst
- Michal Rozinagainst
Roll call (68)
Showing 68 of 68
Numbers and sources
- For
- 38
- Against
- 30
- Abstained
- 0
- Present, did not vote
- 0
Official result: 38 for, 30 against, 0 abstained — adopted. Taking that into account, the roll call matches the official result.
Only members with a record are counted. No record does not mean the member was absent.