- 8 -
currently before the Court than was used for the years involved
in the factual pattern for El Charro I. Petitioner further
contends that the El Charro I opinion is binding for rental units
placed in service during 1987 and 1988, but that it is not
binding for the 1989 and 1990 years now before the Court.
Petitioner also contends that she met her burden of proof
referred to in the El Charro I opinion as to the accurate use of
the floating method to measure useful life of rental units.
We disagree with petitioner’s interpretation of this Court’s
above-quoted opinion. The holding in that case is that the
income forecast method may not be used for the type of asset used
in El Charro's business. In the paragraph relied upon by
petitioner, the Court is explaining that, in addition to the
rental property’s not being legally appropriate for use of the
income forecast method, as a factual matter, the calculation
method used for those years to compute the amount of depreciation
did not comport with the principles underlying the income
forecast methodology. In addition, the parties’ stipulation
agreement would permit consideration of whether petitioner
factually qualified for use of the income forecast method only if
it were decided that such method was available for use with
respect to the rental assets.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit describes the
issue in the earlier consolidated cases as “a legal issue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011