To the best of my understanding , there was room to present the amount of advances to suppliers as an asset in the company's current assets sections, and not to deduct it from the liabilities to suppliers .I find support for this argument in the fact that in the financial statements for 2010, the company reclassified the amount of advances to suppliers paid in 2009 and which was offset in the "original 2009" reports, to the "other debtors" section.
7.9 However, to the best of my knowledge and professional experience, cases in which auditing accountants have reservations in their opinions only on disclosure issues (to distinguish from measurement issues of assets, liabilities, income and expenses) are rare.Therefore, I am of the opinion that the circumstances of the case before us did not necessitate the provision of a reservation in the opinion of the auditor."
Eden made similar remarks in his interrogation (transcript, p. 650, questions 19 to p. 651, questions 8):
"Q: ... You don't think this policy is right, do you? You don't think it's a good policy.
A: No, I think the policy to acknowledge the property is very normal.
Q: No, but the policy I described,
A: The offset,
Q: That they don't show it, yes.
A: Offset, the disclosure that was given about him is insufficient, and should not have been made.
Q: Okay. And so, I thank you for your integrity in this question. And so you agree with me that this play, the way it was done, does not conform to the accounting rules accepted in Israel at the time.
A: Yes, but I wrote it explicitly in my opinion.
Q: You understand accepted accounting rules, I'm not sure I saw it, but now you confirm to me that it was not done according to accepted accounting rules in Israel. This action, and the way it is presented.
A: Nope. In accordance with the accounting rules, it should not have been offset, disclosure should have been given."