The purpose of legal rules and procedures is to regulate social relationships and maintain order in a community to pave the way for economic and social improvements. Based on this, legal rules are to be adaptable to different contexts, and the legislator is to be well-aware of the realities of the society and observe them carefully. Rules and regulations concerning unauthorized transactions, which have been dealt with in the Iranian law since a long time ago, are established based on the assumption that supporting the owner would lead to the prevention of theft and fraud. Accordingly, the rules associated with unauthorized transactions set the principle that no one can grant nor sell anything that does not belong to them whatsoever. This principle has enjoyed great integrity and use in the past, now, however, the world of business calls for a change due to the transformed nature of trades and transactions which clings on the decision-making speed...

Income tax is one of the most important costs of companies and it is usually considered as a cost that should not be paid. One of the most noticeable and influential factors in tax avoidance is corporate Ownership structure. With an emphasis on institutional Ownership and its types in this paper, it is attempted to measure the effect of this Ownership and its types on corporate tax avoidance. For this end, institutional Ownership was divided into two active and passive groups and the effect of each type on tax avoidance (book tax avoidance and cash tax avoidance) was examined by a sample of firms listed in Tehran Stock Exchange during the years 2014 to 2018. The findings illustrated that institutional Ownership generally had a positive effect on tax avoidance. Having divided total institutional Ownership into active and passive, it became clear that active institutional owners also had a positive effect on tax avoidance and inspired firms to avoid paying taxes but the effect of passive owners on tax avoidance was negative. Moreover, lead-lag tests of the direction of causality suggest that institutional Ownership leads to more tax avoidance and not the reverse.

Ownership and freedom are two essential rights and of value to human beings. By contrast to preliminary reviews, the link between these two values is very solid, and they have a reciprocal relation. Not only can they serve as the foundation of each other, but also in case of departing this equilibrium, each can have a negative effect on the other. The relationship between the two is the subject of study of this article. For purpose of conclusion, we should know that Freedom and Ownership are two important rights, in which Law has the obligation to create equilibrium between them; as such not only there will be no conflict between them, in fact they will complement and support each other, and also each shall maximize the other.

The rent for Ownership agreement is an agreement, which its virtue, the object of transaction is rented provided that the Ownership of the object of transation to be trasferred to tenant in case that all conditioins of agreement and installments of the rent paid by tenant. This agreement is among the legal instituions that although has no jurisprudence background and is not mentioned in eivil law, but is accepted in all of our legal sestem. The reason may be that despite of similiarities and differences with similar legal instituions, it has some advantages toward them, e.g the legla indentity of thes agreement is rent and it is differen with sale on installments, optional sale and suspended immediately after the agreement but in the rent for Ownership will not be obtained for buyer before obtaining suspender and having and holding the object of sale is not legal, but in the rent for Ownership toward the interest of premise and is correct. So we conclude that the condition of Ownership in the rent for Ownership is a resull condition. General speaking, the agreement of the rent for owership wich is a necessary, changeable and Ownership agreement an can be on house,land or and other goods in various sectors like agriculture and servicess and the general principles on the parties of agreement is depending on the lease agreement.

This paper is an attempt to analyze the timing or temporary proprietorship, whether legal or illegal, by legal proofs. Then it comes to this conclusion that the temporary Ownership is accepted in Islamic Divine Law.It also seeks to study the timing Ownership as well as its contract according to certain agreements.Later, the article proceeds to prove that this contract could be made under certain terms and agreements such as selling, reconcilliation or peace and renting. Finally, the paper verifies this contract, as a new one, while considering its legacy.

This study, considering the "the need for historical analysis of cultural and communication issues for policy making", has explored the issue of monopoly in the Ownership of Iranian TV networks. Existence of such an issue is the product of extensive and deep-rooted historical heritage and time accumulation. This research, using historical analysis method, is an attempt answer three questions: 1. According to historical documents and events, how the Ownership system of television network in Iran has changed? 2. Has the Ownership of TV networks ever been monopolized, since their establishments? 3. In post Islamic Revolution, to what extent this system of Ownership has changed? Findings show that the exclusive Ownership of television has been continuous, prevailing and deeply-routed. Following the victory of the Islamic Revolution, although the ruling of the Article 44 of the country’ s Constitution, which determines the type of Ownership of television networks, and the detailed Minutes of Meeting of the Assembly of Experts, is the de-monopolization of television, in practice in recent years, the meaning of the concept of monopoly has been taken away and the trend of monopoly of the Ownership of the TV networks, has continued. In recent years, the instruction issued by the Supreme Leader regarding the rulings of the Article 44, despite the historical background, has created a new potential for the de-monopolization of the Ownership of the TV networks.