Download Understanding Non-Level Rents in Equipment Leasing: Issues and Opportunities and more Study notes Accounting in PDF only on Docsity!
Note: This is an expanded version of the Federal Insight column that was published in the November/December 201 5 issue of ELFA’s Equipment Leasing & Finance Magazine.
Non-Level Rents: Issues and Opportunities
Detailed Analysis
By Glenn Johnson and Joe Sebik Pricing Analysis by David Holmgren Background The leasing industry is known for creativity as well as its ability to adapt to industry changes such as the types of assets leased and tax law changes. Congress long ago recognized that tax benefits can promote investment in capital assets by lowering the net present value cost of acquiring assets. Similarly within the tax leasing world, long ago leasing professionals realized the power of the time value of money and of tax benefits. They recognized the benefit of accelerating tax deductions and deferring taxable revenues. These practitioners realized that there was little they could do to affect the existing tax depreciation rules that established the basis and method for depreciating assets, but they continued to seek the benefits from deferring rental income, suitable especially for lessees with excellent credit. Perceived abuses prompted the Treasury to establish tax rules to limit the deferral of rents. Application of Tax Laws (in general) For many years Congress sought to craft tax rules to rein in the perceived structuring abuses. As it turned out, not all lease payment structuring was purely tax-motivated. Often rental structuring was to accommodate the seasonality of the lessee’s business or underlying cash flow availability. In the real estate market, lessors argued that leases were often for extended terms and the norm was to start rents at a defined level and escalate them annually consistent with usual inflationary trends to cover rising operating expenses such as maintenance and energy costs. Finally in 1984 Congress drafted Section 467 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) and included it in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. Fifteen years later in 1999, final Treasury regulations were issued with additional revisions issued in 2001. Clearly, the long delays indicate that the rules were much more complicated in the details than on the surface. These Section 467 rules, sometimes referred to as the “level rent” rules, established the baseline rules when lease payments are level enough and also when they may be reallocated by the IRS. In essence, Section 467 created a series of safe-harbors for rental patterns that would be respected and not challenged by the IRS. In general, some forms of uneven rents, especially contingent rents, are acceptable, such as those
that vary (i) due to asset usage (such as mileage incurred), (ii) due to changes in third-party costs (such as utility costs) or (iii) based on an underlying index (such as the cost of funds). The first basic safe-harbor was for leases in which the aggregate rents are equal to or less than $250,000. If total rental payments under a lease are equal or less than $250,000, then the lease will not be considered a Section 467 rental agreement. The second basic safe-harbor permitted an initial deferral of rents (called a rent holiday ) for up to 3 months with no need to justify or validate the holiday. The third basic safe-harbor rule pertaining to equipment leasing is often described as the “90/110” rule. The 90/110 rule states that as long as the rents fall within 90% and 110% of the average annualized rents, they will be respected insofar as the non-level nature of the rents is concerned. This also incorporates the rent holiday rules mentioned above related to equipment leasing. With respect to leases involving real estate, Section 467 created a safe-harbor which was somewhat broader than the equipment safe-harbor. For leases involving real estate assets, the rents may vary as much as 85% and 115% of the average annualized rents and still be respected by the IRS with respect to the evenness of the rents. In determining whether the 85/115 uneven rent test has been met, any rent allocated to a rent holiday period that does not exceed the lesser of 24 months or 10 percent of the lease term would be disregarded. Note that real estate tax rules extend to certain facilities which may contain a substantial equipment component. Under Section 467, real property will follow the definition set forth for real property in Treas. Reg. Section 1.856-3(d). For example, a datacenter is a building that often includes a large component of its cost in assets that are characterized as equipment for tax depreciation purposes and thus has a shorter tax depreciable life, often 7-years. The question here would be whether the lease is subject to the 90/110 rules or the 85/115 rules. It would naturally be more conservative to comply with the 90/110 rules when the underlying assets can be considered to be a mix of real estate plus equipment. For the 85/115 exception to apply, at least 90 percent of the leased property (determined on the basis of fair market value as of the lease agreement date) must consist of real property. Specific Tax Rules (in detail) Section 467 concerns the timing of the recognition of income and deductions by lessors and lessees under certain leases that do not have level rental payments. Congress believed that the parties should report rents on an accrual basis under certain leases. Also, Congress believed that if rents are not paid on a current basis, an interest element is present as an economic matter. The Section 467 rules generally “trump” other federal income tax rules governing the recognition of income and deductions. 1 For example, the normal rule that requires a lessor to recognize advance rentals in the year of receipt, regardless of when the period covered or (^1) Section 467(a).
certain categories of contingent rent in determining whether a lease has increasing or decreasing rent:
- Qualified percentage rent (e.g., % of gross rent)
- Adjustments based on a reasonable price index
- A provision requiring the lessee to pay third-party costs
- A provision requiring the payment of late payment charges
- A loss payment provision
- A qualified terminal rental adjustment clause (TRAC)
- A residual condition provision
- A tax indemnity provision
- A variable interest rate provision After it has been determined that (a) the transaction is a lease; (b) the payments under the transaction are rent; and (c) the lease is a Section 467 rental agreement, the timing of the amount of fixed rent recognized by both the lessor and lessee is determined using one of three rental accrual methods under Section 467: (i) rental agreement accrual; (ii) proportion rental accrual; and (iii) constant rental accrual. If the agreement is a Section 467 lease agreement that has Prepaid Rent or Deferred Rent and does not provide for adequate interest, the fixed rent of each rental period is the proportional rental accrual amount. Generally, the proportional rental accrual method is applied if the payment schedule under the lease is different than the accrual schedule under the lease. This provision allows taxpayers to elect to apply the rent leveling provisions of Section 467 to the agreement by establishing a payment schedule that does not equal a separately stated allocation schedule. Proportional rental accrual will create a deemed Section 467 loan. The constant rental accrual method applies if the Section 467 rental agreement is a leaseback or long-term agreement and it is disqualified. A rental agreement is long-term if the lease term exceeds 75% of the property’s statutory recovery period (real estate has a recovery period of 19 years for Section 467 purposes). The lease term includes any period during which the lessee has the use of the property including options to renew if the lessee is reasonably expected to exercise the option. All lessor options are deemed exercised. A lease is disqualified if the Commissioner of the IRS determines that the principal purpose for providing increasing or decreasing rent is the avoidance of federal income tax. Constant rental accrual will create a deemed Section 467 loan. Similar to the safe harbor rules for determining if a lease is a Section 467 rental agreement, the Regulations under Section 467 contain certain safe harbors for determining whether a Section 467 rental agreement should be disqualified, and thereby at risk for the IRS to require the parties of the lease to utilize the constant rent accrual method: Safe Harbors: Lease is Not Disqualified i. Uneven rent safe harbor
- Personal property: 10% variance
- Real property: 15% variance if long term agreement ii. Rent holiday:
- Lesser of 24 months and 10% of the lease term; and
- Such rent holiday is commercially reasonable. iii. Contingent rent
- Qualified percentage rent (e.g., % of gross rent)
- Adjustments based on a reasonable price index
- A provision requiring the lessee to pay third-party costs
- A provision requiring the payment of late payment charges
- A loss payment provision
- A qualified terminal rental adjustment clause (TRAC)
- A residual condition provision
- A tax indemnity provision
- A variable interest rate provision If the constant rental accrual and the proportional rental accrual method do not apply, the lessor and lessee accrue fixed rent for each rental period as allocated by the rental agreement. If the lease does not contain a separately stated allocation schedule, the payment schedule will be treated as the allocation schedule. Note that the IRS may apply other authorities such as Section 446(b) clear-reflection-of-income principles, Section 482 and the substance-over-form doctrine to determine the income and expense from a rental agreement. Possible IRS Reallocation It may be appropriate at this time to mention that a lease may be structured with non-level rent variations and when such rent variations comply with the safe-harbor general tax rules indicated above, the rental payment structure will be respected by the IRS. When the rent structure fails the Section 467 safe-harbor level rent rules, the IRS may challenge the rent allocation and attempt to reallocate the rents to be in compliance with Section 467. Thus, when a lease rent structure fails the Section 467 safe harbor guidance, the lessor and lessee should consider the risks of such a failure, especially the economic effects of a reallocation of the rents by the IRS, not to mention the other avenues of audit that such an action by the IRS may open. Subsequently we will refer only to the 90/110 rules (not 85/115) as most equipment lessors are affected more by the 90/110 rules. Once the rents fall outside those 90/110 parameters and the other safe harbor criteria, the IRS may challenge the allocation of the taxable revenue and may change it to comply with the limitations. Essentially what the IRS would do is to re-characterize any rents which fall outside a straight line allocation schedule, initially as a deemed Section 467 loan between the lessee and lessor as the case may be and then subsequent cash rent payments would be allocated to rents and then loan interest and principal repayment. By the end of the lease, the gross amount of the taxable rental revenue from the lease is reallocated and recognized as a combination of taxable rental revenue and tax deductible interest expense for the lessor, or in the case of the lessee as tax deductible rental expense and taxable interest income in the case of decreasing rent.
SPE, often the developer’s assets and resources are not sufficient for a lessor to rely on. Thus, in the event of a default, the lessor has only the remaining rent obligations and the underlying collateral value of the asset to pay back their obligations. In a usual sequence, the developer sells the solar project to the SPE, earns a profit on the development and construction and tries to “cash out” their profit as soon as possible. The lessor/investors on the other hand are usually investing in the projects for an economic return, often relying on the tax benefits as a major element of those returns. In cases where a sale-leaseback is appropriate, the project is sold to an investor (the lessor) which then leases it back to the SPE. The developer acts as a manager of the SPE and is able to retain any revenues from the PPA that are in excess of the lease payments. These structures are typically for somewhat smaller projects which do not warrant a more highly-structured financial arrangement. To ensure that the developer remains committed to the project and is available to ensure that the project continues to operate as expected and that the PPA produces the revenues expected to provide that return, lessor/investors usually will desire to limit the developer’s ability to withdraw cash from the SPE and to also retain a cash “cushion” in the event the project does not deliver the power levels incorporated into its economic plan. Herein lies an additional reason to incorporate a prepayment; namely to ensure that the developer maintains an economic investment in the project. In this case the prepayment was incorporated principally as a credit enhancement element. And, by structuring the transaction to meet the proportional rental accrual method requirements under Section 467 , the lessor will not have to recognize all of the prepaid rent as income when received. By requiring a payment of about 20% early in the lease, the lessor may feel more comfortable that this advance payment brings their net investment down to be more in line with the projected liquidation of the leased asset. (ii) Cell Tower lease; another recently seen type of transaction incorporating Section 467 structuring within a lease, is for a lease of cell towers. In this case the developer identifies a suitable location for the cell-tower, secures lease rights to the underlying land, obtains access to power, and assembles the actual tower. In this case the lessor may actually request a lease rental payment equal to the present value of 100% of the rents due! This will be explained further below. Under these scenarios, tax counsel will examine the terms and conditions of the lease to ensure that despite the 100% upfront rental payment, the lease
continues to qualify as a true tax lease for tax purposes. In this case, the transaction is being driven by the demands of the cell tower lessor, who wants to safeguard payment on the lease on the tower. Step-by-Step Structuring of a Lease with a Section 467 Loan When a lessor requires a large upfront rent payment, rather than fail the Section 467 rules and be subject to a potential IRS allocation, a lessor and lessee may intentionally establish and document in advance a Section 467 loan within a tax lease structure. That is, they both agree that the lease structure includes a Section 467 loan and incorporate it into both the transaction economics and the documentation of the lease. This is accomplished by having a rent payment schedule and separately stated rental allocation schedule which meets the Section 467 safe harbor requirements set forth in the lease. Note that a deemed Section 467 loan is not a loan for accounting or legal purposes. In general and from what we have seen in the leasing industry, a few basic constraints have emerged when structuring a lease to intentionally include a Section 467 loan; (i) First, the large rental payment that creates the 467 loan is generally made at least a month or two after the inception of the lease. The purpose for this delay is to demonstrate that the asset could be financed by the lessor without the providing of the Section 467 loan. Revenue Procedure 2001 - 28 (“Rev. Proc. 2001 - 28”) prohibits a lessee from making a loan to the lessor to fund the purchase of the asset, at the risk of having the lease challenged by the IRS as not being a true tax lease. Rev. Proc. 2001-28 is the safe-harbor guidance often used for structuring complex tax-leveraged leases, but it has been adopted by the leasing industry as good guidance when structuring single-investor (i.e., internally funded) leases. By structuring the large Section 467 rental payment in theory after the purchase of the asset has been completed by the lessor, the lessor has demonstrated that the Section 467 loan is not an actual loan in the legal sense, but merely an advance rental payment that creates a Section 467 loan. (ii) Second, the interest rate established within the Section 467 loan should be not less than 110% of the Applicable Federal Rate for a similarly-termed loan. When structuring a lease with a Section 467 loan, the lessor and lessee stipulate an actual interest rate that will be used by both parties when filing their tax returns. An excessively low rate would create only a nominal allocation of interest from the Section 467 loan. (iii) Third, for Section 467 loans that are part of an equipment sale-leaseback from the lessee to the lessor, the maximum amount of an initial rent payment that creates the Section 467 loan is usually limited by tax counsel to about 20%. This 20% is an industry-established level at this time, found usually within transactions which involve a sale from the lessee to the lessor with a
In general, the best known pricing models for optimizing lease structures with Section 467 loans are (i) Warner & Selbert’s ABC, (ii) Interet’s pricing model and (iii) Ivory Consulting’s SuperTRUMP. The examples presented within this report were developed using SuperTrump. Administration of a Section 467 Lease A lease with a Section 467 loan included is not as complicated as one might think. Obviously it is more complex than simply following the basic 90/110 rules, which most lessors generally follow when structuring single-investor leases. However as you have seen above, there are circumstances when a Section 467 loan is a logical addition to a lease structure. For the most part, structuring a lease with the addition of a Section 467 loan is based on the facts and circumstances of the situation; that is, what amount of advance rent is desired by the lessor, what is needed to be compliant with tax rules and what is acceptable to the lessee. Administratively we have found that most of the commonly available lease-accounting software packages do not include the ability to account for a lease with a Section 467 loan. Most lease accounting software allows for a separate book and tax treatment of the transactions, but generally not with a Section 467 loan. Instead, the Accounting and Tax Departments of the lessor must determine the administrative or reporting details. We have found that there are essentially two fundamental approaches to accounting for leases with Section 467 loans; either by using the “portfolio” capabilities of the pricing models or by simply tracking the Section 467 loan’s effect on manually maintained Excel worksheets. The portfolio-capabilities of the pricing models aggregate a portfolio of leases and provide portfolio- level reporting. Nonetheless, it is still complicated and for this reason leases with Section 467 loans have generally been more prevalent in the big ticket arena; that is leases which are usually well-above $50 million. We do believe however that administering a portfolio of leases with Section 467 loans included can be adequately administered on an Excel worksheet and that perhaps the economic benefit to the lessor may be worth the effort. Financial Implications To illustrate the effect of incorporating a Section 467 loan into a lease, we have provided the following basic examples. We start with a lease without a Section 467 loan as the base case; then add the Section 467 loan as a means of resolving a credit-related. Example 1a - Base Case; Lease without Section 467 advance Acme Solar is a small developer of moderate sized solar energy installations. Acme Solar has
successfully developed other solar installations but has a balance sheet of only $2.0 million. The typical installation costs Acme about $8. 0 million to which they will add a markup of $2. million and then sell it for $10.0 million to a project level special purpose entity (“SPE”) called Acme Solar Trust. The $10.0 million is the fair market value of the solar facility based on the amount of energy it can produce and sell over the next 25 years. Acme Solar does not have the tax capacity to utilize the 30% federal tax credit available for the installation nor the 5 - year MACRS accelerated depreciation of the facility, both of which would normally pass through Acme Solar Trust to Acme Solar. The projected future value of the facility is $2.0 million (20%) at the end of a 15 - year period Lease period. Acme Solar has arranged for a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for 20 years between Acme Solar Trust and Big Green Markets, an investment grade off-taker. Big Green will purchase all of the power generated by the facility over the next 20 years at a rate that will start at a rate about equal to the initial rents and will increase 2% annually, consistent with the long-term increases typically seen in their power market. Acme Solar will also maintain the facility during the term of the PPA and will receive a maintenance fee from Acme Solar Trust during the PPA term. Acme Solar is seeking a lease which will match, to the extent possible, the projected cash flows from the PPA. Acme Solar is also seeking as much of a deferral in rents as is possible so that it can extract as much free cash from the trust as is possible. Acme Solar has approached TriStar Leasing Inc to provide a lease to Acme Solar Trust based on the equipment value, the PPA between Acme Solar Trust and Big Green, and a corporate guarantee from Acme Solar. TriStar is a full taxpayer with a weighted average tax rate of 38.58% which includes the Federal rate of 35.0% and a 5.5% state tax rate. TriStar has sufficient tax capacity and capital to provide the lease. TriStar would require a 1 6 % nominal pre-tax return-on- equity (“PT-ROE”) and would leverage the investment 10% equity and 90% debt with an internal cost of funds of 5%. TriStar is comfortable putting a 10% residual value assumption into the lease pricing. TriStar calculates the lease rents assuming a level structure using quarterly lease payments in arrears for 62 quarters and assuming they can rely on Acme’s guarantee, believing it carries an S&P “A” rating. The total lease rents are thus $7,070,98 2 with a quarterly rent of $114,048. This lease provides TriStar Leasing with a PT-ROE of 15.80%. Acme is satisfied with the lease structure and asks TriStar to commence their credit analysis and to provide a firm proposal. (See the schedules which follow the article for summaries of the lease structures). Example 1 b – Base Case lease with a Section 467 loan added Upon analyzing Acme’s financial statements, TriStar’s Senior Credit Officer (“SCO”) realizes
Tower Leasing would like to monetize the value of the asset so they can obtain cash to grow its business elsewhere but would prefer to avoid borrowing against the tower and a potential lease of the tower. Tower Leasing is thus deciding between selling the property and leasing the property. If they lease the tower and then borrow from a bank using the tower and the lease as collateral, should the lessee default there is a risk that the lenders would repossess the asset. For purposes of this example, again assume the property is fully depreciated and that the lessor’s tax rate is 35%. If the lessor sells the property they will receive proceeds equal to 100% of the value of the property ($125 million), but will recognize a large taxable gain on the transaction; thus their net after-tax cash would be 65% of the sale price ($81.25 million). If the lessor instead leases the property under a Section 467 proportional rent prepaid lease structure, the lease will be taxed as rental income in accordance with the Section 467 schedule, with net interest deductions spread over the entire lease term as determined by the proportional rental allocation rules under Section 467 and no gain is recognized by the lessor because no sale has occurred. The lessor will receive proceeds upfront, but only equal to the present value of the fair market rent to be paid under the lease and not all of it is taxed upfront. For example, assume; (i) the term of the lease is 20 years, (ii) the fair market value of the property is $1 25 ,000,000 as above; (iii) the lessee prepays on the lease commencement date pursuant to the lease payment schedule, $100,000,000 which equals 100% of rent due under the lease, (iv) the lessee and lessor assume a Section 467 loan interest rate of 3.180% annual interest, (v) the lease contains a separate allocation schedule that allocates the Section 467 taxable rent annually straight line (i.e., $5,000,000/year) in arrears for each year of the lease (i.e., resulting in approximately $6,833,927 Section 467 rent each year under the proportional rent accrual method), and (vi) a reasonable estimate of the fair market value of the leased property at the end of the lease term is $66,332,443. Analysis – Schedule 5 below presents the allocated Section 467 rent less the Section 467 interest expense and the net tax due on those amounts during the lease term. In this scenario Tower Leasing has avoided a sale of their property for tax purposes but has received a significant upfront cash receipt, similar to that cash receipt as if they had sold the property, however the tax due on the transaction has been spread out over 20 years. Assuming the lessee has the cash to pay the upfront lease payment, they are somewhat indifferent economically compared to buying and owning the asset because their tax deductible rents are somewhat consistent with how the asset would be depreciated for tax purposes. Note that this example is actually consistent with real transactions that have been seen in the marketplace. To measure the economic benefit for Tower Leasing, we examine the net present value benefit
compared to selling the tower outright and paying a 35% tax. In this case Tower Leasing has obtained $100 million as an upfront cash rental payment and pays future taxes on those rents over the next 20 years. The present value of the future tax payments discounted at 5% is $23. million, providing Tower a net present value benefit of $76.32 million. On top of this, Tower Leasing still owns the tower which they expect to sell for $66.33 million in 20 years. Assuming that is taxed at 35%, the net present value cash benefit from the future sale of the tower is $14.33 million. Thus, Tower has obtained a net present value benefit of $9 0. 65 million ($76.32 + $14.33 million) compared to an outright sale of $81.25 million. This analysis would change based on the discount rate assumed and the facts and circumstances of the situation, but as in this case, one might find that the net present value benefit is greater for a Section 467 lease transaction than if the asset were merely sold outright. For example, if the future projected residual was only $35 million, a greater portion of the benefit would be coming from the rents rather than the future residual value. Essentially what the Section 467 lease structure has done is to enable the lessor to recognize the taxable gain on the transaction over 20 - years rather than upfront. They have been able to receive and utilize upfront the $100 million in cash while deferring the taxation of that amount. Additionally the lessor still retains ownership of the tower and any value from it after the 20 - year lease term. A final potential benefit can also be experienced should the U.S. Congress actually reform the Tax Code and lower the corporate tax rate in the future as they have been promoting. In that case the future allocated Section 467 rents would be taxed at an even lower tax rate than the 35% indicated above. Summary The power of a Section 467 lease structure can be used to enhance the credit profile of lessees as well as enhance the after-tax yield of transactions. It can also position the taxation of a lease to be prepared to take advantage of a potential corporate tax rate decrease should that occur. Not all lease transactions can use a Section 467 tax loan structure because of the upfront cash rent required from the lessee. However as a tool a Section 467 lease should be considered for transactions where the unique circumstances may arise. As with many lease structuring techniques, knowing the tools that are available and testing their applicability through modeling and analysis is an important step to consider. You may find that the Section 467 tax loan structures could open the door to additional potential transactions. Acknowledgements The information, content and opinions included in this article reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of each co-author’s company/firm. The authors thank Ivory Consulting for allowing David Holmgren to assist in this project and for
Cash Rent Payment Schedule
Yearly Cash Rents Due
Section 467 Calculated Rent Schedule
- Schedule - Rents Quarterly @ $81, Annual Cash Rent Due - 0 2,000, - 1 163, - 2 327, - 3 327, - 4 327, - 5 327, - 6 327, - 7 327, - 8 327, - 9 327,
- 10 327,
- 11 327,
- 12 327,
- 13 327,
- 14 327,
- 15 327,
- 16 327,
- Total rents 7,070, - Schedule - 1 239, Year Annual Taxable Rental Income - 2 475, - 3 475, - 4 475, - 5 475, - 6 475, - 7 475, - 8 475, - 9 555,
- 10 581,
- 11 581,
- 12 581,
- 13 581,
- 14 581,
- 15 581,
- 16 579,
- Total rents 8,190,9
Schedule 4 Summary of Annual Gross Taxable Rents less Sec 467 Interest Expense Year Calculated Rents Sec 467 Interest Expense Net Taxable Income (excluding depreciation) 1 239,123 0 239, 2 475,604 118,997 356, 3 475,604 130,384 345, 4 475,604 129,390 346, 5 475,604 128,342 347, 6 475,604 127,237 348, 7 475,604 126,071 349, 8 475,604 124,796 350, 9 555,165 66,847 488, 10 581,294 56,546 524, 11 581,294 45,679 5 35, 12 581,294 34,214 547, 13 581,294 22,118 559, 14 581,294 9,357 571, 15 581,294 0 5 81, 16 579,680 0 579, Total 8,190,960 1,119,978 7,070,
Schedule 5 Tower Leasing Section 467 Advance Rent Analysis Year Cash from Lease and Asset Sale Calculated Sec 467 Rents Section 467 Interest Expense @ 3.18% Taxable Income Taxes Payable @ 35% After Tax Cash 0 100,000,000 0 100,000, 1 6,833,927 (3,180,000) 3,653,927 1,278,874 (1,278,874) 2 6,833,927 (3,063,805) 3,770,122 1,319,543 (1,319,543) 3 6,833,927 (2,943,915) 3,890,012 1,361,504 (1,361,504) 4 6,833,927 (2,820,213) 4,013,714 1,404,800 (1,404,800) 5 6,833,927 (2,692,577) 4,141,350 1,449,473 (1,449,473) 6 6,833,927 (2,560,882) 4,273,045 1,495,566 (1,495,566) 7 6,833,927 (2,424,999) 4,408,928 1,543,125 (1,543,125) 8 6,833,927 (2,284,795) 4,549,132 1,592,196 (1,592,196) 9 6,833,927 (2,140,133) 4,693,794 1,642,828 (1,642,828) 10 6,833,927 (1,990,870) 4,843,057 1,695,070 (1,695,070) 11 6,833,927 (1,836,861) 4,997,066 1,748,973 (1,748,973) 12 6,833,927 (1,677,954) 5,155,973 1,804,590 (1,804,590) 13 6,833,927 (1,513,994) 5,319,933 1,861,976 (1,861,976) 14 6,833,927 (1,344,820) 5,489,107 1,921,187 (1,921,187) 15 6,833,927 (1,170,267) 5,663,660 1,982,281 (1,982,281) 16 6,833,927 ( 990,162) 5,843,765 2,045,318 (2,045,318) 17 6,833,927 ( 804,331) 6,029,596 2,110,359 (2,110,359) 18 6,833,927 ( 612,589) 6,221,338 2,177,468 (2,177,468) 19 6,833,927 ( 414,751) 6,419,176 2,246,712 (2,246,712) 20 66,332,443 6,833,927 ( 210,621) 72,955,748 25,534,512 40,797, Total 166,332,443 136,678,539 (36,678,539) 166,332,443 58,216,355 108,116,
