- 26 -
from the State of Louisiana. Merely calling a new lease an
amendment to an existing lease is not dispositive.
We turn now to petitioner's alternative argument.
Petitioner argues that irrespective of whether the Revised Lease
is construed as being an asset among those purchased from the
Mecom Group, the 1975 Lease, which was the lease petitioner
actually received from the Mecom Group, had substantial value
separate and apart from the Revised Lease, and that it is to that
value that petitioner has allocated a portion of the price it
paid to acquire the Saints.
Respondent, on the contrary, maintains that the 1975 Lease
was without substantial value and fails to qualify as a premium
lease. Whether a lease qualifies as a premium lease requires an
examination of the entire record. Thomas v. Commissioner, 31
T.C. 1009, 1012 (1959). Factors which are usually considered in
determining the value of leasehold interests are: (1) The rental
charged under the lease compared to the fair market value rental
for the property, see KFOX, Inc. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl.
143, 510 F.2d 1365 (1975); (2) the location of the property, see
Harris Amusement Co. v. Commissioner, 15 B.T.A. 190 (1929); (3)
the duration of the lease and any termination provision, see
Bryden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1959-184; (4) the date of the
most recent negotiations concerning the provisions of the lease,
see May v. Commissioner, a Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated
July 22, 1944; and (5) the arm's-length nature of the
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011