Republic Plaza Properties Partnership, PFI Republic Limited, Inc., Tax Matters Partner - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         

          regarding that dispute, the parties focus on the 11.5-month                 
          period of zero rent provided in the lease agreement.                        
               Petitioner argues that the 11.5-month period of zero rent is           
          a reasonable rent holiday described in section 467(b)(5)(C) and             
          that, accordingly, the lease agreement is not to be treated as a            
          disqualified leaseback or long-term agreement.                              
               Respondent concedes in her opening brief that                          
               If petitioner can establish that the absence of rental                 
               income during this [11.5-month] period [of zero rent]                  
               qualifies as a reasonable rent holiday under the Code,                 
               then the Partnership's deferral of this income will not                
               be deemed primarily for tax avoidance purposes.  In                    
               such a case, the Partnership would be entitled to                      
               report the rental income under the economic accrual                    
               method pursuant to the terms of the lease agreement.13                 

          12(...continued)                                                            
          times the average monthly rent payment due over the entire lease            
          term.  On brief, respondent abandons that position and relies               
          solely on her alternative position in the FPAA that Partnership             
          must accrue rent under the lease agreement according to the                 
          constant rental accrual method prescribed in sec. 467(b)(2)                 
          because the lease agreement constitutes a disqualified leaseback            
          or long-term agreement as defined in sec. 467(b)(4).                        
          13  We construe the above-quoted concession of respondent to be a           
          concession by her that increasing rents, if any, under the lease            
          agreement that are not attributable to the 11.5-month period of             
          zero rent were not provided for a principal purpose of avoiding             
          tax under sec. 467(b)(4)(B).  Other statements by respondent that           
          concede this point include the following statement in her answer-           
          ing brief:                                                                  
                In addition, at pages 16-17 of its opening brief, peti-               
             tioner attempts to prove the nonexistence of a tax-avoid-                
             ance motive by emphasizing why the lease was justified in                
             increasing lease payments in year 12 of the lease, and                   
             petitioner's expected increases in projected cash flows                  
             from future subleases when the building was expected to be               
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011