Quote:
Originally Posted by janmcn
None of the things you mention are for-profit businesses, such as public swimming pools, airports, parks, bridges. Isn't that the difference between tax-free or taxable bonds, one is for non-profit and the other is for for-profit?
|
If you take a step back, you will see that parks, swimming pools, bridges, etc. in a city are no different than such things in a CDD like TV. The developer in
both scenarios is very much a for-profit institution. Likewise those who benefit from the projects are the general public - residents of a city/county on one hand or residents of TV on the other. And, the owners of these "amenities", the city/municipality and the CDD are
both not for profit entities.
Why should the residents of a municipality be able to 1) have low taxes because their "amenities" are paid for in tax-free bonds and 2) further benefit from this by being able to deduct the property taxes that are used to pay for these "amenities"? As you will note, city residents get a two-fold tax advantage for their amenities whereas people in a CDD like TV only benefit from the lower interest rates of tax-free bonds (we can't deduct our amenity fees). And now the IRS wants to take even that one single benefit away from us.
There seems to be a lot of foaming at the mouth about Morse doing something "shady" when it is
we who are the primary beneficiaries. I think that the wrath should be directed at the IRS who wants to punish those of us who live in a CDD while those who have their amenities provided by a city/county get a double tax benefit.