- 29 -
Although respondent contends that the 11.5-month period of
zero rent was inconsistent with commercial practice in the Denver
office market at the time the lease agreement was executed
because it was included as part of a master lease, she has not
established that contention as fact. Indeed, her contention is
refuted by the record herein. On that record, we have found that
providing the 11.5-month of zero rent in the lease agreement was
consistent with reasonable and acceptable practice throughout the
commercial real estate industry, including the Denver office
market, at the time the lease agreement was executed.18
To counter petitioner's contention that the 11.5-month
period of zero rent qualifies as a reasonable rent holiday
described in section 467(b)(5)(C) because it was consistent with
commercial practice in the Denver office market at the time the
lease agreement was signed, respondent contends that the commit-
tee report provides that only the determination of whether the
duration of a rent holiday is reasonable is to be determined
based on commercial practice in the locality where the property
is to be used. From that premise, respondent asserts that, even
though the length of the 11.5-month period of zero rent is, in
18 In assisting PFI in evaluating its proposed investment in
Republic Plaza, Marshall and Stevens drew no distinctions between
master leases of the type involved in this case and other types
of leases with respect to the granting of rent holidays. That
was obviously because, in their opinion, there are no such
distinctions that should be made.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011