4.4 If the Administration requires and in accordance with the Administration's procedures at that time, The purchaser undertakes to sign with the manager a lease contract of the seller on the date that the company will coordinate with the purchaser and to provide the company with a certificate from the manager attesting to the signing of the aforementioned contract. The lease contract and its terms will be those customary in the Administration at the time of its signing.
Nothing in this section detracts from the company's right to make use of an irrevocable notarized power of attorney attached as Appendix "D", and to sign a lease contract with the manager on behalf of the purchaser, but subject to the provisions of the tender and any law.
4.5 Notify the purchaser that the lease rights in the land are for a lease period of 98 years as of May 30, 2016 (hereinafter: the "Lease Period") with an option to extend for an additional lease period of 98 years beginning at the end of the lease period."
- Should the respondent's position be accepted so that it can be determined that the language used in the aforementioned agreements, according to which the appellant was granted a "lease" right, which she transferred to the entitled purchasers, will determine the nature of the right in the appellant's possession for the purpose of Real Estate Taxation Law?
My position is that this question should be answered in the negative. An examination of the entirety of the legal agreements signed by the appellant shows that the appellant does not possess the rights and powers that characterize a holder of a "lease" right, i.e., the appellant does not have the right to hold the land and use it for its own needs, enjoyment and profits, similar to the right that exists in the hands of a real "lessee holder".
A review of all the legal agreements that the appellant was required to sign shows that the appellant has no real and substantial control over the land: it cannot determine what type of use of the land will be made, since the provisions of the agreements require it to build apartments for the purpose of selling them to those eligible for the Ministry of Construction and Housing who won the "Buyer's Price" lottery. The appellant cannot make any use of the land other than the construction of apartments for the purpose of selling them to those entitled to the Ministry of Construction and Housing who won the "Buyer's Price" lotteries.