The election is made by capitalizing the expenses on a timely filed return (including extensions) and is revocable for that tax year only with the IRS’s consent (see Regs. Sec. 1.263(a)-4(f)). The notice tells the tenant the reason, the date that the tenant must move, and that a case will be started if the tenant doesn’t move by the deadline. For example, if the tenant pays rent on the 15th of every month then the last day should be the 14th of the month. However, some exceptions to this general rule apply and tenants may not always deduct such expenses relating to terminating a lease. For more information about Crowe LLP, its subsidiaries, and Crowe Global, please read our Disclosure. Under this approach, the lessee will then need to recognize the difference between the remaining liability calculated ($16,253,988) and the modified liability value (calculated at the beginning of this example as $18,211,776).
Organizations might find it helpful to turn to a team of specialists to help them understand how guidance in Topic 842 applies to strategic changes in leasing arrangements. Because the write-off of improvements is not the result of a sale, disposition, exchange or involuntary conversion, the loss should be reported as an ordinary loss, not a loss from the sale of business property. This treatment is favorable for taxpayers that have net gains from the sale of business property in the same tax year as the write-off. Another fact pattern where the 12-month rule could provide significant benefit can arise in the residential rental context. While leases are generally one year or less, jurisdictions often grant various tenant rights that can make tenant removal a time-consuming process that may span a period of years.
The Handlery court did not, however, discuss a scenario where a lessor terminates a lease to sell the property. An earlier decision, Shirley Hill Coal Co., 6 B.T.A. 935 (1927), held that, in this situation, the lease termination payment must be capitalized as part of the basis of the property sold, which appears to be consistent with the rules above. Lacking such guidance, practitioners can accounting for lease termination payments consider applying different cost-recovery strategies. While the modified lease liability value was calculated above, in this approach, the pre-modification lease liability value is used to calculate if there is a gain/loss on partial termination. The carrying amount of the lease liability before modification ($27,089,980) is reduced by the percentage change in the remaining ROU asset.
Selecting the first approach is easier to calculate as it’s based on the change in the liability that will be calculated from the updated lease terms. Now let’s assume in January of 2026, the lessee and lessor amend the original terms of the lease to only include 3 floors of the office space. According to the original terms of the lease, the balance of the lease liability and ROU asset at the end of 2025 are $27,089,980 and $24,630,474, respectively. Unlike the proportionate change in the lease liability approach- this second approach requires a second set of journal entries to appropriately record the partial termination.
To the extent a landlord incurs costs to modify a lease (e.g., legal costs), those costs cannot be immediately expensed for income tax purposes. Instead, they must be capitalized and then amortized over the remaining term of that lease. Lease modifications generally include increasing or decreasing the remaining lease term or the amount of space leased or modifying the payment structure. https://www.bookstime.com/ A termination of an existing lease combined with a new lease involving the same premises will also be treated as a lease modification. As we have noted above the impact to the lease liability ($8,878,204) is consistent regardless of the approach selected. In this example, the decrease in the ROU asset is larger if the proportionate change in the lease liability (Approach 1) is selected.
The IRC provides relief for a landlord from recognizing any income from such property acquisition. Simultaneously, a separate provision prevents a landlord from increasing the basis of its property for such acquired improvements. However, when all or part of a leased property is sublet, an entity must consider whether a change in asset groupings has occurred. For example, in the scenario described, Entity A might conclude that the subletting of the single floor results in the ROU asset for that single floor being considered a new asset group. This is because the sublet floor now has identifiable cash inflows (received from the sublease) and outflows (paid under the head lease) for the same term as the remaining period left under the head lease. Entity A also should consider whether any leasehold improvements on the subleased floor should be included in the asset group.