| w. | Critical judgment in applying accounting policies and use of estimates: |
In the application of the Group’s accounting policies, management is required to make judgments, estimates and assumptions about the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. The estimates and associated assumptions are based on historical experience and other factors that are considered to be relevant. Actual results may differ from these estimates. The estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on an ongoing basis, and revisions to accounting estimates are recognized in the period in which the estimate is revised if the revision affects only that period or in the period of the revision and future periods if the revision affects both current and future periods. In addition, in the process of applying the Group’s accounting policies, management makes various judgments, apart from those involving estimations, that can significantly affect the amounts recognized in the financial statements.
The followings are the critical judgments and key sources of estimation that management has made while applying the Group’s accounting policies and that have the most significant effect on the amounts recognized in these financial statements.
| 1. | Use of estimates: |
| a) | Write down of trading properties |
The recognition of a write down to the Group’s trading properties is subject to a considerable degree of judgment and estimates, the results of which, when applied under different principles, conditions and assumptions, are likely to result in materially different results and could have a material adverse effect on the Group’s audited consolidated financial statements.
This valuation becomes increasingly difficult as it relates to estimates and assumptions for projects in the preliminary stage of development in addition to the lack of transactions in the real estate market in the CEE and India for same or similar properties.
Management is responsible for determining the net realizable value of the Group’s trading properties. In determining net realizable value of the vast majority of trading properties, management utilizes the services of an independent third party recognized as a specialist in valuation of properties.
For special assumption see note 4b, 4c1e and 4d.
| b) | Litigation and other contingent liabilities: |
The Group is involved in litigation, tax assessments and other contingent liabilities in substantial amounts including class actions, FCPA and potential legal acts (see also note 4c1, 13b and note 13c). The Group recognizes a provision for such litigation when it is probable that the Group will be required to settle the obligation, and the amount of the obligation can be reliably estimated. The Group evaluates the probability and outcome of these litigations based on, among other factors, legal opinion and consultation and past experience. The outcome of such contingent liabilities may differ materially from management’s estimation. The Group periodically evaluates these estimations and makes appropriate adjustments to the provisions recorded in the audited consolidated financial statements. In addition, as facts concerning contingencies become known, the Group reassesses its position and makes appropriate adjustments to the audited consolidated financial statements. In rare circumstances, when the case is unique, complicated and involves prolong and uncommon proceedings, the Group cannot reliably estimate the outcome of said case
| c) | Accounting for income taxes: |
The calculation of the Group’s tax liabilities involves uncertainties in the application and/or interpretation of complex tax laws, tax regulations and tax treaties, in respect of various jurisdictions in which the Group operates and which vary from time to time. In addition, tax authorities may interpret certain tax issues in a manner other than that which the Group has adopted. Should such contrary interpretive principles be adopted upon adjudication of such cases, the tax burden of the Group may be significantly increased. In calculating its deferred taxes, the Group is required to evaluate (i) the probability of the realization of its deferred income tax assets against future taxable income and (ii) the anticipated tax rates in which its deferred taxes would be utilized.
| d) | Potential penalties, guarantees issued and expired building permits: |
Penalties and guaranties are part of the on-going construction activities of the Group, and result from obligations the Group has towards third parties, such as banks and municipalities. The Group’s management is required to provide estimations regarding risks evolving from penalties that the Group may have to settle. In addition, the Group’s operations in the construction area are subject to valid authorizations and building permits from local authorities. Under certain circumstances the Group is required to determine whether the building permits it obtained have not yet expired. It may occur that building permits have expired which might impose on the Group additional costs and expenses, or delays and even abandon project under construction see also note 4c1.
| e) | Fair value of hotel: |
The fair value of the Radisson Complex is determined based upon the discounted cash flows (“DCF”) approach, the assumptions underlying the model, as well as the ability to support them by means of objective and reasonable market benchmarks, so they can be viewed as assumptions that market participants may have used, are significant in determining the fair value of the hotels. The predominant assumptions that may cause substantial changes in the fair value are: the capitalization rate, exit yield rate, the expected net operating income of the hotel (which is mainly affected by the expected average room rate and the occupancy rate as well as the level of operational expenses of the hotels) the level of refurbishments reserve and the capital expenditures that need to be invested in the hotel. The fair value of the Radisson Complex is performed by and independent appraisals with a local knowledgeable in the hotels business.
| 2. | Critical judgment in applying accounting policies: |
De facto Control:
As for December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company holds approximately 44.9% of PC share capital; DK holds approx. 26.3% of PC share capital and the rest is widely spread by the public. The Company’s management is of the opinion that based on the absolute size of its holdings, the relative size of the other shareholdings and due to the fact that PC’s directors are appointed by normal majority of PC’s General Meeting, it has a sufficiently dominant voting interest to meet the power criterion, therefore the Company has de facto control over PC.