- 37 -
to allocate basis among the distributed assets and assigned a
basis of $36,121,385 to the player contracts.
Respondent argues that the value of the player contracts at
the time of Bowlen's acquisition of a partnership interest was
$45,695,000, which was the average of the estimates by other NFL
teams. Due to respondent’s premise that the partnership used an
incorrect basis of $36,121,385, respondent argues that section
732(d) did not apply and that the partnership's basis in the
player contracts is $21,288,373 in the absence of the section
743(b) adjustment. Because the partnership had amortized more
than $21,288,373 prior to the years before this Court, no
deduction would be allowable if respondent's argument is
sustained. If, however, we find that the fair market value of
the player contracts ($36,121,385) used by the partnership was
correct, then respondent's argument must fail. As decided above,
respondent bears the burden of proving that the fair market value
of the player contracts was $45,695,000, instead of the
$36,121,385 amount used by the partnership.17
To meet that burden, respondent relies on the $45,695,000
average of the four estimates obtained by Bowlen I as the true
17 Petitioner agrees that a $45,695,000 fair market value
for the player contracts would mean that secs. 732(d) and 743(b)
would not apply resulting in a $21,288,373 basis in player
contracts. Similarly, respondent agrees that a $36,121,385 value
would result in the application of sec. 732(d) and related
sections and that the basis of the contracts would have been
$36,121,385.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011