- 38 -
fair market value so that the $45,695,000 value would not have
triggered section 732(d).18 Respondent argues that the
partnership's basis would have been $21,288,373 and that prior
year's claimed amortization had already exceed that amount prior
to the years under consideration. Accordingly, under
respondent's argument, the partnership would not be entitled to
any further amortization.
The partnership, in accord with its accountant's analysis,
used the $36,121,385 fair market value for purpose of determining
whether the mandatory basis adjustment rules of section 732(d)
apply. Respondent did not present expert testimony regarding the
value of the player contracts and relies on the simple expediency
of averaging the four estimates used by the partnership in an
attempt to reach a fair market value. The estimates were not
offered to establish the fair market value of the player
contracts. Instead they are a predicate for discussion of the
section 1056 issue and whether it applies to a partnership
transaction.
18 Respondent's argument that sec. 732(d) would not apply is
based on a $45,695,000 value for the player contracts, which in
turn, would, according to respondent, result in a larger basis
being allocated to depreciable and amortizable assets under sec.
732(d) than if a sec. 743(b) basis adjustment was not in effect.
The parties did not debate whether each other's analysis was
correct. In essence they agreed, that if we find the value they
propose to be correct, then the result they propose ensues. We
accept these concessions for purposes of this case.
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