- 21 -                                         
               Respondent further asserts, apparently as an alternative               
          14(...continued)                                                            
          suggest in the foregoing excerpt from her answering brief,                  
          apparently respondent believes that it supports her position                
          that, under the facts and circumstances presented here, not                 
          only does the 11.5-month period of zero rent not qualify as a               
          reasonable rent holiday described in sec. 467(b)(5)(C), it                  
          also was granted for a principal purpose of tax avoidance.                  
          Although we deal below with those contentions, we note that if              
          respondent also is suggesting by the foregoing passage from                 
          her answering brief that the lease agreement does not provide               
          for the allocation of rent referred to in sec. 467(b)(1)(A),                
          see sec. 467(b)(3)(B), we find any such suggestion to be                    
          contrary to the parties' stipulation that "The Lease Agreement              
          sets forth as Schedule E a schedule that allocates the rental               
          payments for the entire lease period, providing for the amount              
          of the rental payments and specifying the due date for each                 
          month."  See Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. v. United States,                  
          Fed. Cl.     (Aug. 19, 1996).                                               
             We also note that the reasons quoted above that are relied               
          on by respondent for respondent's conclusion that "Schedule E               
          cannot be said to relate to the terms of the lease agreement"               
          cite provisions in the lease agreement that we do not find                  
          relevant to that inquiry.  The provisions in the lease agree-               
          ment on which respondent relies that require the basic rent to              
          be equal to the lower of fair market rental and 90 percent of               
          the average monthly installment of basic rent paid by the                   
          lessee during the lease term are to apply only to each of the               
          first six extensions of that lease term, if any, and were not               
          prescribed in Schedule E.  Schedule E set forth a schedule of               
          basic rental payments only for the lease term of the lease                  
          agreement that started on June 17, 1988, and ends on June 1,                
          2013.  Moreover, pursuant to the lease agreement, any exten-                
          sions of the lease term were to occur only at the option of                 
          the lessee, that is to say, only if the lessee elected at the               
          times and on the terms prescribed in the lease agreement to                 
          extend the lease term beyond June 1, 2013.  In this connec-                 
          tion, sec. 467(e)(6) provides that, except as provided in                   
          regulations prescribed by the Secretary, there shall not be                 
          taken into account in computing the term of any agreement for               
          purposes of sec. 467 any extension that is solely at the                    
          option of the lessee.  The Secretary has promulgated no                     
          regulations under sec. 467(e)(6) that apply to the instant                  
          case.  See infra note 15.                                                   
Page:  Previous   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011