Latest On IRS Bond Issue

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #106  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:16 PM
EdV's Avatar
EdV EdV is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Village of Stonecrest
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Advogado View Post
.. Our amenity fees are being used to defend transactions that resulted in huge profits to the Developer....
At the risk of repeating myself, you signed a contract that binds you to pay that amenity fee in perpetuity but the fee can never be raised more than the annual CPI. In return, the special CDD is contractually obligated in perpetuity to maintain those amenities properly no matter how much or how little it actually costs them to do so. And you agreed to it.

So that’s the way it was when you signed the contract, and nothing has changed..
__________________
Formerly EdVinMass
  #107  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:42 PM
Advogado Advogado is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,032
Thanks: 62
Thanked 685 Times in 229 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone View Post
It is a corporation being used to pay the attorneys. As I stated earlier, the attorneys used by Gary Morse will be the top notch tax attorneys and I believe they are a lot better than government attorneys.

The Developer has made a wonderful place for us. Do not begrudge him the profits. It sounds on one hand that some posters here are of the mindset that the Developer should have done all the developing and making such a great place and not taken a profit. Very strange.
Three points:

First, sorry, you are mistaken. It is not the Morse-owned corporation (The Villages of Lake-Sumter Inc., commonly referred to as "the Developer") that is paying the fees; it is the Center District. That is a matter of public record, and I am not sure where you got any information to the contrary.

Second, I do not begrudge the Developer legitimate profits, even huge legitimate profits, and I have never written anything that could be reasonably be interpreted to indicate that I do. In fact, I have tried to avoid expressing any personal opinions about the merits of the IRS allegations being made against the Developer.

Third, and again I repeat, IF the IRS's allegations are correct, the Developer's profits were illegitimate and were made by scamming the taxpayers of this country through the improper issuance of tax exempt bonds. That characterization of the IRS position is a fact, not my opinion.
  #108  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:45 PM
ijusluvit ijusluvit is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,688
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdV View Post
At the risk of repeating myself, you signed a contract that binds you to pay that amenity fee in perpetuity but the fee can never be raised more than the annual CPI. In return, the special CDD is contractually obligated in perpetuity to maintain those amenities properly no matter how much or how little it actually costs them to do so. And you agreed to it.

So that’s the way it was when you signed the contract, and nothing has changed..
Excuse me, I haven't waded into this matter to date and may be repeating some stuff ad nausium, but I still have a few of questions:

1) Amenity fee receipts and expenditures are now public information in Districts 1-4. Is that the case in the newer districts?

2) Is the Developer in fact using amenity fee funds to pay for the legal fees in the IRS case?

3) If so, are these amenity fees presently coming from all districts, including Districts 1-4, or just the two districts whose bonding procedures are being challenged?

4) Yes our contract says the amenities will be maintained "properly" regardless of cost. But "properly" may be a term subject to broad interpretation. If the Developer decided his legal expenses were too high, could he decide to reduce amenity services to some degree and still be able to argue that he was meeting the contract terms?
  #109  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:55 PM
birdawg's Avatar
birdawg birdawg is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Allamuchy NJ, Fernandina
Posts: 607
Thanks: 1,673
Thanked 161 Times in 70 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdV View Post
At the risk of repeating myself, you signed a contract that binds you to pay that amenity fee in perpetuity but the fee can never be raised more than the annual CPI. In return, the special CDD is contractually obligated in perpetuity to maintain those amenities properly no matter how much or how little it actually costs them to do so. And you agreed to it.

So that’s the way it was when you signed the contract, and nothing has changed..
What happens if the I.r.s changes the way they calculate the CPI theirs talk they may do this to lower SS payments. to seniors
  #110  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:04 PM
Advogado Advogado is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,032
Thanks: 62
Thanked 685 Times in 229 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdV View Post
At the risk of repeating myself, you signed a contract that binds you to pay that amenity fee in perpetuity but the fee can never be raised more than the annual CPI. In return, the special CDD is contractually obligated in perpetuity to maintain those amenities properly no matter how much or how little it actually costs them to do so. And you agreed to it.

So that’s the way it was when you signed the contract, and nothing has changed..
True, and I never said they had changed. You are merely restating the obvious that I think that everybody, who has even the most basic understanding of the Villages amenities system, understands.

The real question, in simple terms, is: What happens, if as a result of the cost of the IRS's actions and the resulting lawsuits by bondholders (who received a warranty from the Center Districts that the bonds were tax exempt), the Center Districts become financially unable to continue to furnish the amenities?

Yes, I know (and everybody else who has paid the least attention to this matter also knows), we have another class-action lawsuit against the Developer and the Center Districts. But, in the real world, how will that class-action lawsuit be resolved (especially if, by that time, the Developer, which is a corporation, has been drained of its assets), and what happens to the amenities during the years that it may take to resolve the lawsuit? If you have the definitive answer, or even nondefinitive answer, I would like to hear it, because I do not.
  #111  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:16 PM
Cantwaittoarrive Cantwaittoarrive is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 892
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdV View Post
The IRS doesn't appeal. The IRS issues its final decision based on the information provided by its agents and the taxpayer (in this case the special CDDs). If it's a tax deficiency, the taxpayer may dispute the deficiency in the Tax Court before paying any disputed amount.

There should be little doubt that this is where this case will end up. So fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
And if I remeber my CPA exam from 30+ years ago an appeal can go up to the Supreme Court once the other options have been exhausted
  #112  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:21 PM
Cantwaittoarrive Cantwaittoarrive is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 892
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by birdawg View Post
What happens if the I.r.s changes the way they calculate the CPI theirs talk they may do this to lower SS payments. to seniors
The I.R.S. doesn't have anything to do with CPI. Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions
  #113  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:34 PM
rubicon rubicon is offline
Email Reported As Spam
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,694
Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter View Post
He has never stated he was "the authority" on the subject. He has, however, pointed out the facts and given his opinion. You must agree he is entitled to his opinion, as you give yours.
AAAH! Is there an echo on Talk of The Villages? I thought my post was directed to EdV? I just joshing you
  #114  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:50 PM
villages07's Avatar
villages07 villages07 is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,068
Thanks: 2
Thanked 23 Times in 16 Posts
Default

I think,perhaps, Buggy and Advo are talking two different things.

Gary Morse, the Developer, is paying for the lawyers/lobbyists referred to in the latest news.

The VCDDD is paying for the lawyers to defend against the IRS bond issue. These lawyers are funded by the revenues collected by the central district,the bulk of which are amenity fees.

If I've misinterpreted, my apologies.
__________________
Maryland (DC Suburbs) - first 51 years
The Villages - next 51 years
  #115  
Old 12-19-2012, 03:54 PM
rubicon rubicon is offline
Email Reported As Spam
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,694
Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Advogado View Post
At the risk of being repititious, it is not Gary Morse who is paying the attorneys in this case. It is, in essence, us. Our amenity fees are being used to defend transactions that resulted in huge profits to the Developer. If the IRS is correct, those profits were illegimately earned at the expense of the US taxpayers, who subsidized the bonds sold to pay the Developer those profits.
Advogado: I don't quite understand how ämenity fees"can be used to finance a legal action. I thought amenity fees were used to pay for well----our amenities. In the Notice to Proposed Issues filed by the IRS made some serious allegations as to purchase of the buildings the central district as paid to the developer and the cash flow of the amenity streams. I do not know if the IRS withdrew those allegations or if they are true. I let the courts decide the facts of those allegations. However it would appear that this transaction falls on the acts of commission or ommission by those direct parties to the agreement and for that reason I wonder why it didn't trigger coverage under an insurance policy to defend this matter. Perhaps by its nature or allegations an insurer has already rejected the matter. It really concerns me that amenities contract can be twisted to cover litigation matters especially when residents had no knowledge or control.
  #116  
Old 12-19-2012, 04:00 PM
Advogado Advogado is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,032
Thanks: 62
Thanked 685 Times in 229 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by birdawg View Post
What happens if the I.r.s changes the way they calculate the CPI theirs talk they may do this to lower SS payments. to seniors
The least of my worries. IF it were to happen, the situation could probably be resolved on a reasonable basis.
  #117  
Old 12-19-2012, 04:05 PM
Advogado Advogado is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,032
Thanks: 62
Thanked 685 Times in 229 Posts
Default

Well, it is happening. Frankly, I don't think we can gripe unless and until our amenities are reduced. However, the use of the fees for the purpose of defending the Developer's transactions increases the risk that corners will be cut in regard to our amenities. But, as far as I know, that has not occurred at this time.
  #118  
Old 12-19-2012, 04:07 PM
Advogado Advogado is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,032
Thanks: 62
Thanked 685 Times in 229 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon View Post
Advogado: I don't quite understand how ämenity fees"can be used to finance a legal action. I thought amenity fees were used to pay for well----our amenities. In the Notice to Proposed Issues filed by the IRS made some serious allegations as to purchase of the buildings the central district as paid to the developer and the cash flow of the amenity streams. I do not know if the IRS withdrew those allegations or if they are true. I let the courts decide the facts of those allegations. However it would appear that this transaction falls on the acts of commission or ommission by those direct parties to the agreement and for that reason I wonder why it didn't trigger coverage under an insurance policy to defend this matter. Perhaps by its nature or allegations an insurer has already rejected the matter. It really concerns me that amenities contract can be twisted to cover litigation matters especially when residents had no knowledge or control.
See my reply above.
  #119  
Old 12-19-2012, 04:15 PM
Advogado Advogado is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,032
Thanks: 62
Thanked 685 Times in 229 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by villages07 View Post
I think,perhaps, Buggy and Advo are talking two different things.

Gary Morse, the Developer, is paying for the lawyers/lobbyists referred to in the latest news.

The VCDDD is paying for the lawyers to defend against the IRS bond issue. These lawyers are funded by the revenues collected by the central district,the bulk of which are amenity fees.

If I've misinterpreted, my apologies.
You are right about the fees in the bond issue.

I hope you are right about the fees referred to in the latest news. We will see.
  #120  
Old 12-19-2012, 04:24 PM
EdV's Avatar
EdV EdV is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Village of Stonecrest
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon View Post
...I thought amenity fees were used to pay for well----our amenities. ...
No, as your contract with them is written, your amenity fees give you the right to use the amenities but not to control how the fees are used. It’s really that simple.
__________________
Formerly EdVinMass
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 PM.