The witness, Prof. Eden: Yes.
Q: I just want you to confirm, you write, you give it as an example. "I just want to say that unlike Agrexco, Mehadrin recognized the property in loans for which there was a contract, a small difference. I refer you to explanation 12-b.
A: Yes.
...
Q: "I say that in the previous accounting year, the company entered into loan agreements with various packing houses and growers,
A: That's right.
Q: for the supply of agricultural produce." It seemed to me like our business. "According to them, their products will be marketed through the company, and the loan will be repaid from the marketing proceeds."
A: Okay.
Q: So first of all, there is an explanation, there is a revelation. And secondly, there is also a contract, regarding the same thing that you still claim to be, from your quote.
...
A: No, first of all, I refer you to clause 10.3 of my first opinion. I write: "It is true that as far as Mehadrin's financial statements indicate, the advances to growers were given in the form of loans against future marketing considerations. and Mehadrin's ability to deduct the loans given from the marketing considerations is anchored in a formal legal agreement." It's all written in my opinion. I didn't try to steal horses, and God forbid to mislead anyone."
- In addition, it is not possible to suffice with the theoretical possibility of making a transaction (i.e., purchasing the "customer portfolio") in order to prove mastery. The actual execution of the transaction is the indicator required to meet the burden of proof, and in its absence, as happened in the case of Agrexco, there is no basis for recognition of the asset. This position was not contradicted in CPA Gottlieb's cross-examination:
"Q: Here it is written in the standard that a transaction is needed to serve as evidence.
A: That's right.
Q: The standard says, if someone was willing to pay money for it, it wouldn't be theoretical.