A: Okay, but these properties are listed there.
Q: But it was still displayed as inventory and yet you are trying to deduce something from it that it was presented as inventory.
A: I also deduce this from the explanations that relate to this, that the company continues to operate in the Mehir LaMishtaken complexes.
Q: What's the problem with the company continuing to operate...
A: - No problem, so I'll say that,
Q: Why don't you act at a price... Why... Even if it's not a right in real estate, why won't it continue to engage in,
A: Yes, but it sits in its portfolio of assets, and if there was a property here that was leased for three years, it wouldn't sit where these assets sit on the balance sheet, that's all.
Q: And how can you say such a thing?
A: From the height of my years of experience."
- As stated, on behalf of the appellant, an accounting opinion was submitted by CPA Marco of the accounting firm Ziv Haft (marked As Exhibited A/1), which is intended to explain the accounting handling of the presentation of lease rights in the framework of the Real Estate Inventory Section. CPA Marco ruled in his opinion that accepting the appellant's position that the rights in the "Buyer's Price" tenders do not constitute the purchase of a "right in real estate" according to Real Estate Taxation Law Does not change the accounting record. CPA Marco's conclusion is that this is a right of use, which constitutes an asset, which constitutes inventory in accordance with IAS 2 and in light of the provisions of IAS 1. CPA Marco noted that this does not contradict the instructions IFRS16 As to the manner in which the right-of-use assets are presented, and that the presentation of such an asset as inventory, for the purpose of selling it in the ordinary course of the appellant's business, constitutes an adequate presentation according to the accepted accounting rules.
In the framework of the cross-examination, CPA Marco discussed his conclusions, which were not contradicted by the respondent. It should also be noted that the cross-examination focused on questions that are not in the realm of accounting standardization, and the respondent tried to direct CPA Marco's answers in the legal or taxation direction, when the opinion was not intended for this purpose, but for the purpose of clarifying that the manner of reporting according to the accounting standards is no different, whether it is determined that it is a matter of the acquisition of a "real estate right" within the meaning of the law or whether it is determined that it is not a matter of purchasing a "real estate right" within the meaning of the law. and that, in any case, a property would have been registered under the Building Inventory Clause.