David C. Hutchinson, et al. - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
          disallowed VRI’s allocation, under the alternative cost method,             
          of the total estimated costs of constructing the Golf Course and            
          the Clubhouse to VRI’s cost bases in the residential lots sold in           
          1994.                                                                       
               Shortly before trial herein was scheduled to take place,               
          however, respondent abandoned his contention that the Golf Course           
          and the Clubhouse constituted projects separate from VRI’s                  
          development and sale of the residential lots.  Respondent                   
          acknowledged that the Golf Course and the Clubhouse constituted a           
          single project integrated with VRI’s development and sale of                
          improved residential lots.  Respondent acknowledged that VRI                
          could allocate under the alternative cost method the estimated              
          costs of constructing the Golf Course to the lots sold.                     
          Respondent, however, for the first time in a pretrial brief                 
          contended that VRI had retained an ownership interest in the                
          Clubhouse in 1994 and through the transition period, and                    
          therefore that the estimated construction costs of the Clubhouse            
          would have been recoverable to VRI through depreciation and did             
          not qualify under the alternative cost method for allocation by             
          VRI to the lots sold in 1994 and in subsequent years.                       
               More specifically, with respect to VRI’s $13,390,624 in                
          total estimated construction costs of the Golf Course (all of               
          which related to nondepreciable improvements to the Property),              
          respondent acknowledged that those estimated costs qualified                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011