See also the judgment of the Honorable Judge A. Hayut [as described at the time] Other Municipality Applications 4071/02, Kibbutz Mifalsim et al. v. Director of the Real Estate Taxation Office, Be'er Sheva (paragraph 8 of its judgment):
"The fact that in the contract itself the parties chose to describe the transaction between them as a transaction for the provision of construction services alone cannot tip the scales as to the nature of the engagement between them, and it has already been ruled that "the name of the transaction, or its designation by the parties to it, does not determine the essence of the transaction for the purposes of tax law. This principle has been accepted for years in tax law" (President A. Barak, Other Municipal Applications 6722/99 Tel Aviv Value Added Tax Administration v. Mishkenot Clal Mediterranean Towers Ltd., IsrSC 58(3) 341, 347 (2004) and see also: Civil Appeal 175/79 Betterment Tax Administration v. Avivit, IsrSC 34(1) 802, 804 (1979) (hereinafter: the Avivit Case); Civil Appeal Authority 3527/96 Axelbard v. Property Tax Administration - Hadera Region, IsrSC 52(5) 385 (1998); Civil Appeal 5472/98 Land Appreciation Tax Administration v. Hadari HaCoastal Company No. 63 Ltd., IsrSC 56(1) 877 (2001) (hereinafter: the Hadari HaCoastal Company case)). The determining test is the test of the nature of the transaction according to its objective economic content, as it arises from the entirety of the terms and details of the transaction (see: Civil Appeal 614/82 Real Estate Appreciation Tax Administration v. S.A.P. Ltd., IsrSC 41(3) 735, 738 (1987) (hereinafter: the S.A.P. Case).".
In the case law there is a fine and relevant summary of the guiding principle regarding the determination of the essence of a transaction in accordance with its true legal/economic essence, especially when it is a relationship of power between the parties to which the balance of power is not equal, and one party outlines and determines the wording of the agreement, and when there is a satisfactory explanation as to why the engagement was conducted as it was conducted.