the obligation of the United States under the purchase money contract.


27
Joint Appendix at 107.


28
Metro's witness, Robert McDaniels, testified that the land and improvements could be appraised only as a unit, not separately.  He stated that Bateson was, in effect, the lessor of a lease-back of the land and improvements to the United States.  Thus, he treated the semiannual payments of $595,812.52 made by the United States to Bateson under the Purchase Contract as rent to Bateson.  He found the value of this semiannual "rent" at 7.75 percent interest over the next 30 years to have a present value of approximately $13,805,000.  He found the United States' reversionary interest in the buildings at the end of 30 years, assuming that the buildings have a 60-yearthe interest of the owner of the improvements in those improvements until the United States has fulfilled its obligations under the Purchase Contract.


32
As stated earlier, Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 67-5-601(a) (1983) provides that a leasehold should be valued at the price that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller.  As the United States' expert witness testified, the rights of Bateson or its assignee vest only if the United States defaults on its obligations under the Purchase Contract, and "[t]he unlikely chance of default by the United States is made even more remote by the Certificate of Contract Obligation which specifically obligates the United States to make the purchase contract payments."    Joint Appendix at 106.  Since Bateson has no right to the economic