Quote:
Originally Posted by djl8412
You are very angry, aren't you? So are many of Villages residents but for different reasons. Many of us find it difficult to understand all these layers of bonds and amentiy fees. If Mr. Servadio is citing IRS statutory criteria, how does that translate into your verdict that he and his IRS boss just don't like the CDD concept. Mr. Servadio may just be mopping up a mess that should have been peeled apart years ago. After all, that's his job which we are paying him to do as taxpayers. Perhaps Ms. Ritchie is "dismissing" responses from TV lawyers or Janet Tutt because all they have seemed to be saying is "all the IRS had to do is sit down with us and we could have explained it all." That type of response tells me that the explaining should have been done ages ago but wasn't and now the IRS has presented them with the dinner check.
I am not a Philadelphia lawyer and have not disected the Florida 190 statute. It may do us a lot of good if you could educate us on it in a manner we lay people can understand.
P.S. : I do like life in The Villages and don't arbitrarily hate Mr. Morse, but he is not exempt from his fair share of taxation and if he has been less than up front with the handling of these monies, he needs to pay. Unfortunately, we may also pay.  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaudit
Why don't you try reading the IRS reports:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media...3/45365631.pdf
You will find that Dominick didn't pick this info out of thin air, but has all the references related to his analysis and conclusions. It is over 100 pages long and Ritchie has done a good job of SUMMARIZING the key points. If you really want to understand it, read it and then respond. |
First things first. Yeah, I'm angry. I get really upset at people who bemoan the fact that they do not understand the concepts of bonds and amenity fees, seemingly wallow in that ignorance rather than try to learn, and then scream bloody murder about half truths written by an admittedly biased opinion columnist. If indeed you want to learn about these things, I suggest you first attend a CDD orientation offered every Thursday. You'll likely come out with more questions than answers. Read up a bit on the many web sites and return to the Thursday sessions with more direct questions. The knowledge is refreshing and it's a lot more satisfying than living in ignorance.
Now, to the auditor or whatever --- The thread and my comments were more about Ritchie and her hatchet job of a column than the actual IRS report. In theory, Ritchie's column should have been a stand-alone with no need to reference the report, much less read it in detail. But instead, what we got was her Chris Matthews imitation with a tingle running down her leg as she read or referred to Dom's conclusions.
However, I did read the IRS report. I've seen scores of similar gov't reports and written quite a few. Dom did a great job of cutting and pasting, citing and incorporating an abundance of other cases, relevant or not. Hey, he did fill over 100 pages (with big font!),, so it must be good. I am not a lawyer or an accountant, nor do I even play one on television, but it seemed to me that Dom makes a lot of leaps in logic that don't necessarily follow. It appears that many of Dom's opinions are assumed as fact. That's why this is far from the done deal that Ritchie so snarkily implies. Once TV legal and financial people review the report and have a chance to rebut it, we'll see how many of Dom's "facts" stand.
`