P.D.B. Sports, Ltd., Bowlen Sports, Inc., Tax Matters Partner - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         
          presumption and requirements for allocating more than 50 percent            
          to player contracts.  Bowlen I obtained four estimates of the               
          value of the Broncos' player contracts on the date of the sale of           
          the partnership interest from general managers and personnel                
          specialists of other NFL teams.  The estimates ranged from                  
          $35,790,000 to $59,215,000, with an average amount approximating            
          $45,700,000.  Bowlen I assigned approximately $36 million as the            
          fair market value of player contracts, which amount equates with            
          50 percent of the approximate $72 million aggregate cost for                
          Bowlen and Adams' partnership interests.  It should be emphasized           
          that a conservative valuation was used, and (as explained later             
          in this opinion) we find this assigned value was the fair market            
          value at the time of acquisition.                                           
               Petitioner's argument focuses on the factor that Kaiser's              
          gain attributable to the player contracts should have been                  
          derived from the $36 million amount used by the partnership for             
          amortization purposes.  Respondent, however, focuses on                     
          petitioner's inability to prove the actual amount of gain that              
          Kaiser recognized from the contracts, under the basis limitation            
          rules of section 1056(a).  Neither party offered direct evidence            
          showing the gain, if any, that the seller (Kaiser) may have                 
          recognized on the sale of the partnership interests attributable            
          to the player contracts.  Without such evidence, as required                
          under section 1056(a), respondent argues that the basis in the              
          player contracts is limited to the partnership's presale basis.             




Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011