One of the four capitalization tests of SFAS No. 13 is that the lease term is 75 percent or more of the asset’s remaining economic life. Lease term is defined as follows in SFAS No. 13 (as amended by SFAS No. 98, para. 22a):
The fixed noncancellable term of the lease plus (i) all periods, if any, covered by bargain renewal options, (ii) all periods, if any, for which failure to renew the lease imposes a penalty on the lessee in an amount such that renewal appears, at the inception of the lease, to be reasonably assured, (iii) all periods, if any, covered by ordinary renewal options during which a guarantee by the lessee of the lessor’s debt related to the leased property is expected to be in effect, (iv) all periods, if any, covered by ordinary renewal options preceding the date as of which a bargain purchase option is exercisable, and (v) all periods, if any, representing renewals or extensions of the lease at the lessor’s option; however, in no case shall the lease term extend beyond the date a bargain purchase option becomes exercisable. A lease which is cancellable (i) only upon the occurrence of some remote contingency, (ii) only with the permission of the lessor, (iii) only if the lessee enters into a new lease with the same lessor, or (iv) only upon payment by the lessee of a penalty in an amount such that continuation of the lease appears, at inception, reasonably assured shall be considered “noncancellable” for purposes of this definition. Required:
How can this test be circumvented through either the structuring of the lease contract or interpretation of the test? What are other ways in which lease capitalization could be avoided through the structuring of lease terms or interpretation of the tests? What problem does this exercise illustrate?