c$1)$ You can skip this part c$2)$ what would have been the amount of the lease liability recorded by the lessee if the residual was unguaranteed? In both $(1)$ and $(2),$ the lessee is no longer obligated or expected to make any payment at the end of the lease. As a result, there should be no amount of the residual value included in the lessee$$s initial measurement of the lease liability or right$-$of$-$use asset. Thus, in both $(1)$ and $(2),$ the amount of the initial lease liability is $$219,581,$ or the present value of the annual rental payments$$ d$1)$ You can skip this part d$2)$ what would have been the amount of the lease liability recorded by the lessor if the residual was unguaranteed? While the lessor still includes even an unguaranteed residual value in the calculation of a lease receivable under a sales$-$type or direct$-$finance lease, the lack of a residual value guarantee in this case could lead the lease to be classified as an operating lease, as present value of the lease payments may be less than $90\%$ of the fair value of the asset. As a result, the lessor might not remove the asset from its books at all, but rather continue to depreciate the asset as normal and book lease revenue as it receives and earns rental payments. In this situation $($$$219,581$ $$242,741=90\mathrm{.}5\%)$ the present value test is still met and the lease is classified as a sales$-$type lease.