dealt with a similar situation and, ap plying a more appropriate reading of Rash, required that the land in question be valued according to the price it would command in the market-its optimal use-rather than according to its price as farmland. 3 . To be sure, at earlier stages of this proceeding United assumed that the postpetition option was part of the leasehold. It argued about the scope of the leasehold for the first time in post-trial briefing. However, HSBC has not suggested that it could have introduced evidence bearing on the question had United raised it earlier-indeed, the only relevant facts are the dates and content of the sublease-leaseback transaction and the option extension, none of which is in dispute. Cf. Ware v. Commissioner, 906 F.2d 62, 65 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). HSBC was given ample time to respond to
holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that a court may consider a theory raised for the first time in a posttrial brief unless it is precluded by the pleadings or it prejudices the opposing party holding that a partys failure to respond to a legally plausible position in an opposing brief allowed the court to assume the point raised by the opposing brief holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal