Rest of the answer
The Company then assessed, on a property-by-property basis, whether the fair value of the land is less than or greater than 25% of the total fair value of the leased property at lease inception under ASC 840-10-25-63 and 66 to determine whether the lessor is required to consider the land and buildings as a single unit or separately for purposes of applying the lease term criterion in ASC 840-10-25-1(c) and the minimum lease payment criterion in ASC 840-10-25-1(d). The Company determined that, for two properties, the land component was greater than 25% of the total fair value of the leased property and, as such, the land component for those properties should be treated separately.
The Company then assessed the criteria under ASC 840-10-25-1(c) and (d) and determined that all but one of the properties met the criteria under (c) and the remaining property (Caesars Palace Las Vegas) met the criteria under (d). The
Company then assessed whether the two criteria were met under ASC 840-10-25-42 and concluded that they were both met as collectability of the minimum lease payments is reasonably predictable and no important uncertainties surround the amount of unreimbursable costs yet to be incurred by the lessor.
The Company then assessed the guidance under ASC 840-10-25-68 to determine whether the building element should be accounted for as a direct financing lease, a leveraged lease or an operating lease as appropriate under ASC 840-10-25-43. The Company determined that the building element did not meet the sales-type criteria under ASC 840-10-25-43(a) as there is no transfer of ownership. The Company determined that the building element met the criteria under ASC 840-10-25-43(b) as the lease meets both of the criteria in ASC 840-10-25-42, does not give rise to any manufacturer’s or dealer’s profit or loss to the lessor as the leases are recorded at fair value and does not meet the criteria to be recorded as a leveraged lease as it does not involve three parties. As a result, the Company concluded that the building element should be accounted for as a direct financing lease.
The Company then assessed ASC
840-10-25-68 and concluded that the land element of the lease for the two properties where the land component was greater than
25% shall be accounted for as an operating lease.
For illustrative purposes, with respect the CPLV Lease Agreement, the Company analyzed the fair value of the land as a percentage of the total leased property in accordance with ASC 840-10-25-66 and determined that the fair value of the land exceeded 25% of the fair value of the leased property. The Company therefore concluded that the building element should be accounted for separately for purposes of applying the lease-term criterion in ASC 840-10-25(c) and (d).
The Company compared the lease term of 35 years to the remaining useful life of the building element in accordance with ASC 840-10-25(c) and determined that the lease term is not equal to 75% or more of the estimated economic life of the building element. The Company therefore concluded that this criterion was not met.
The Company then compared the present value of the minimum lease payments related to the building element as a percentage of fair value of the building element in accordance with ASC
840-10-25-1(d). The present value of the minimum lease payments exceeds 90% of the fair value of the building element and, as a result, the Company concluded that this criterion was met.
As a result of the above analysis, the Company concluded that the land element of the lease should be accounted for separately as an operating lease and that the building element of the lease should be accounted for as a direct financing lease in accordance with ASC 840-10-25-68. The Company undertook a similar analysis for each of the non-CPLV properties.