Quote:
Originally Posted by Advogado
Reply to Katezbox:
I also wish the the initial Lauren Ritchie articles had been less sensationalized and contained fewer factual errors-- errors which she never has acknowledged. However, if you read the IRS documents, you will see that, unfortunately, each of the excerpts that you cite in your post as being "sensationalized" are, indeed, factually correct. It is really too bad that the Developer-owned Daily Sun suppressed this major story rather than reporting it in a balanced matter. If you want to attack any newspaper regarding this story, I would suggest it be the Sun, not the Sentinel.
In terms of the attacks by yourself and others on the "speculation" in this thread, I haven't seen speculation in the posts here. I have only seen an attempt by concerned residents to understand the implications for Villagers (and what action they should take) if the rosy outlook painted by Janet Tutt and some posters to this tread turns out to be wrong.
|
AV,
OK - let me be more specific - Below are the same quotes from the Sun - the portions I see as sensationalized are in red.
Also, I don't believe I am attacking anyone - just saying that the endless speculation is causing FUD (fear, doubt and uncertainty) which clouds one's ability to make a clear decision. I, too, have been an auditor. I understand the position of the IRS.
"in fact,
virtually everything but the 38,000 houses in "America's Friendliest Hometown" -- have been financed by various tax-free bonds.
If a deal isn't reached,
the IRS has threatened to look into eight similar loans obtained through bond sales. That could expose the governments to millions more in tax liability.
"
If I was a resident of The Villages, I would be outraged by the transaction," IRS Agent Dominick Servadio Jr. wrote in a letter to the Village Center.
Villages residents are watching the investigation unfold,
mostly with bewilderment. The sale prices were set by two appraisers using a complicated method that the IRS contends was incorrectly calculated.
"
It (is) obvious that the residents' amenity fees could be much lower, or there would be a lot more of the fees available for maintenance of the facilities if these were arm's length transactions"