- 30 -
fact, reasonable based on commercial practice in the Denver
office market, petitioner must nonetheless establish a nontax
business purpose for Partnership's granting that rent holiday in
order for it to qualify as a reasonable rent holiday described in
section 467(b)(5)(C). It is not clear to us what respondent
means by this assertion.
If it is respondent's position that petitioner must estab-
lish the commercial reasonableness in the Denver office market of
not only the duration of the rent holiday at issue, but also the
granting of, and the amount of rent reduction during, that rent
holiday, we agree. If it is respondent's position that peti-
tioner must establish a nontax business purpose for the granting,
the duration, and the amount of the rent holiday at issue other
than to conform to commercial practice in the Denver office
market at the time the lease agreement was executed, we disagree.
Any such position would be contrary to the concept of, and the
reasons for enacting, a "safe harbor" provision like section
467(b)(5)(C) and is not supported either by the language of the
safe-harbor provision in question (i.e., section 467(b)(5)(C)) or
its legislative history.
We have found on the record before us that at the time the
lease agreement was executed Partnership was aware of, inter
alia, the condition of the Denver office market and the practice
in that market of offering rent holidays and other lease conces-
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