Opinion ID: 2823829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonably Estimated Future Annual Rents or Fees

Text: Â¶60Â Â Â Â Â Â Concessionaires contend that the use of the minimum monthly guarantee was not an appropriate basis for determining the âreasonably estimated future annual rents or feesâ under section 39-1-103(17). Section 39-1-103(17)(a)(II)(A) provides that the âreasonably estimated future annual rents or feesâ are the âactual contract rents or fees reasonably expected to be paidâ unless it is âshownâ that they âare not representative of the market rents or fees paid for that type of real or personal property.â Concessionaires argue that the minimum monthly guarantee was neither the âactual contract rent . . . expected to be paidâ nor was it ârepresentative of market rents.â Â¶61Â Â Â Â Â Â First, Concessionaires argue that the minimum monthly guarantee was not representative of the âactual contract rents or fees reasonably expected to be paidâ because most Concessionaires historically paid the percentage of monthly gross revenues instead of minimum monthly guarantee. However, the representativeâs use of the minimum monthly guarantee, approved by the trial court, was a reasonable estimate of future rent because Concessionaires are obligated under their concession agreements to pay at least that amount. Though it also may have been reasonable for an assessor to estimate future rent based on historical payments of a percentage of monthly gross revenues, Concessionaires have not met their burden to prove that the use of the minimum monthly guarantee was an unreasonable estimate of future rent under their concession agreements. See Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198, 204 (Colo. 2005) (the taxpayer has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the valuations are incorrect). Â¶62Â Â Â Â Â Â Regardless, Concessionaires contend that the trial court erred in adopting the representativeâs valuation because the representative did not consider whether minimum monthly guarantee was ârepresentative of the market rentsâ for similar property. However, the trial court found, and the record supports, that the representative did inquire into the market rateâbut determined that the only comparable market consisted of the concessions at DIA. Â¶63Â Â Â Â Â Â Thus, the trial courtâs adoption of the representativeâs use of the minimum monthly guarantee as a basis for determining the âreasonably estimated future annual rents or feesâ is consistent with section 39-1-103(17) and is supported by the record.