Latest Development in the IRS Tax-Exempt-Bond Investigation

[Advogado]

Page C1 of today's Daily Sun reports another unfavorable development in the IRS investigation of the dealings between the Center District and the Developer, i.e., an IRS "Engineer's Report" (whatever that is) critical of the pricing of the amenities which the Developer sold to the Center District. As you will recall, the Center District financed the purchase of those amenities using purportedly tax-exempt bonds. Among other things, the IRS claims that the purchase price was inflated and, therefore, the bonds don't qualify as tax-exempt.

Unfortunately, the Daily Sun article is written, almost certainly intentionally, so as to be incomprehensible to even relatively well informed readers. But, hey, for a change, at least the Daily Sun, even with the obfuscation, reported a development in the most-important issue facing The Villages. I guess that is progress.

Hopefully, the Engineer's Report will be posted on districtgov.org website and/or the next POA Bulletin will have an explanation.

[Bogie Shooter]

Page C1 of today's Daily Sun reports another unfavorable development in the IRS investigation of the dealings between the Center District and the Developer, i.e., an IRS "Engineer's Report" (whatever that is) critical of the pricing of the amenities which the Developer sold to the Center District. As you will recall, the Center District financed the purchase of those amenities using purportedly tax-exempt bonds. Among other things, the IRS claims that the purchase price was inflated and, therefore, the bonds don't qualify as tax-exempt.

Unfortunately, the Daily Sun article is written, almost certainly intentionally, so as to be incomprehensible to even relatively well informed readers. But, hey, for a change, at least the Daily Sun, even with the obfuscation, reported a development in the most-important issue facing The Villages. I guess that is progress.

Hopefully, the Engineer's Report will be posted on districtgov.org website and/or the next POA Bulletin will have an explanation.

When dealing with the IRS, their writings are usually incomprehensible to most citizens. How can you jump to the conclusion that the Daily Sun wrote the article, in an intentionally ambiguous way, to confuse the reader?

[JimJoe]

When dealing with the IRS, their writings are usually incomprehensible to most citizens. How can you jump to the conclusion that the Daily Sun wrote the article, in an intentionally ambiguous way, to confuse the reader?

Bogie: What does it say? I am interested and I cannot find it online.

[graciegirl]

When dealing with the IRS, their writings are usually incomprehensible to most citizens. How can you jump to the conclusion that the Daily Sun wrote the article, in an intentionally ambiguous way, to confuse the reader?

I agree Bogie.

In no way did I think it was trying to muddy the waters. In fact I was going to post just the opposite from Avogado's opinion.

Janet Tutt wrote a clear observation, at least to me.

She pointed out the errors that the IRS had made.

[rubicon]

When dealing with the IRS, their writings are usually incomprehensible to most citizens. How can you jump to the conclusion that the Daily Sun wrote the article, in an intentionally ambiguous way, to confuse the reader?

On the contrary, the IRS was quite clear when explaining the method used to determine income flow of the amenities, as well as the methods for appraising the buildings purchased by the VCCD when it wrote its Proposed Notice of Issues in 2009. These accounting methods were the basis for the amount of bonds purchased by the VCCD and one of the IRS arguing points. I doubt the Daily Sun, Village Voice or POA will expound on this topic...but then I could be wrong?

[BOMBERO]

Unfortunately, the Daily Sun article is written, almost certainly intentionally, so as to be incomprehensible to even relatively well informed readers .

Yes sir, big brass ones !
Sorry - first thing that came to mind considering it came from a lawyer.

[Bogie Shooter]

Bogie: What does it say? I am interested and I cannot find it online.

The article is not on line at this time.

[JimJoe]

The article is not on line at this time.

Can you are someone else summarize what the article says?

From what I gather, it is a filing a by the IRS that states why the sale price of the property from the developer to the district was too high and thus disqualifies the bonds from being municipal tax free bonds.. and the article responds to the filing by stating the reasons they believe the IRS is incorrect? Am I right so far? Thanks for your help.

[Bogie Shooter]

Can you are someone else summarize what the article says?

From what I gather, it is a filing a by the IRS that states why the sale price of the property from the developer to the district was too high and thus disqualifies the bonds from being municipal tax free bonds.. and the article responds to the filing by stating the reasons they believe the IRS is incorrect? Am I right so far? Thanks for your help.

Patience grasshopper, it may be posted on the district site in a few days.

[Advogado]

When dealing with the IRS, their writings are usually incomprehensible to most citizens. How can you jump to the conclusion that the Daily Sun wrote the article, in an intentionally ambiguous way, to confuse the reader?

Bogie Shooter, have you read the article?

If you have, I am surprised that you would ask the question. But to answer it:

First, I don't think that I "jumped" to the conclusion the article is "ambiguous". There is nothing ambiguous about it, and I never said there was. In my view, calling the article "ambiguous" would give a bad name to the concept of ambiguity. My point was that the article so incredibly unclear, that (given the nature of the subject matter and the Daily Sun's history) the lack of clarity had to be intentional. Here is my reasoning:

I spent a good part of my career working on acquisitions and, although not a financial analyst, I think that I have a basic understanding of the issues involved in the valuation controversy here. Because I have a few hundred thousand dollars invested in The Villages and like to stay on top of matters that could impact my investments, I have spent a fair amount of time studying the documents involved in the IRS investigation. In other words, I know basically what's going on with the IRS investigation.

Despite my background, after reading the Daily Sun article, I have no understanding as to exactly what the new IRS Report concludes and of the basis for that conclusion. All I learned from the article is that Janet Tutt doesn't think the IRS knows what it's talking about. Her position is hardly surprising, but it is not particularly comforting (since the IRS has a special unit specializing in the investigation of municipal-bond abuse and deals with valuation questions on a daily basis). In any event, Janet Tutt's opinion hardly ought to be sole focus of a "fair and balanced" Daily Sun article on the latest development in a matter of this importance.

There is certainly no way that the typical Daily Sun reader, who knows virtually nothing about the IRS investigation or about present values of future income flows, would, after reading the article, have a clue as to what is going on or of its importance. Given the critical importance of the IRS investigation to Villagers and the Daily Sun's history of either not reporting or burying news stories unfavorable to the Developer, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the lack of clarity in this article is a continuation of the Daily Sun's past practice in this regard.

[downeaster]

I agree Bogie.

In no way did I think it was trying to muddy the waters. In fact I was going to post just the opposite from Avogado's opinion.

Janet Tutt wrote a clear observation, at least to me.

She pointed out the errors that the IRS had made.

I agree with Gracie and Bogie.

[Bogie Shooter]

Bogie Shooter, have you read the article?

If you have, I am surprised that you would ask the question. But to answer it:

First, I don't think that I "jumped" to the conclusion the article is "ambiguous". There is nothing ambiguous about it, and I never said there was. In my view, calling the article "ambiguous" would give a bad name to the concept of ambiguity. My point was that the article so incredibly unclear, that (given the nature of the subject matter and the Daily Sun's history) the lack of clarity had to be intentional. Here is my reasoning:

I spent a good part of my career working on acquisitions and, although not a financial analyst, I think that I have a basic understanding of the issues involved in the valuation controversy here. Because I have a few hundred thousand dollars invested in The Villages and like to stay on top of matters that could impact my investments, I have spent a fair amount of time studying the documents involved in the IRS investigation. In other words, I know basically what's going on with the IRS investigation.

Despite my background, after reading the Daily Sun article, I have no understanding as to exactly what the new IRS Report concludes and of the basis for that conclusion. All I learned from the article is that Janet Tutt doesn't think the IRS knows what it's talking about. Her position is hardly surprising, but it is not particularly comforting (since the IRS has a special unit specializing in the investigation of municipal-bond abuse and deals with valuation questions on a daily basis). In any event, Janet Tutt's opinion hardly ought to be sole focus of a "fair and balanced" Daily Sun article on the latest development in a matter of this importance.

There is certainly no way that the typical Daily Sun reader, who knows virtually nothing about the IRS investigation or about present values of future income flows, would, after reading the article, have a clue as to what is going on or of its importance. Given the critical importance of the IRS investigation to Villagers and the Daily Sun's history of either not reporting or burying news stories unfavorable to the Developer, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the lack of clarity in this article is a continuation of the Daily Sun's past practice in this regard.

Holy S---! I guess I was wrong.

[JimJoe]

Does anyone know much is the defense in this investigation costing villagers, is it coming from the amenities fees, and has the Developer contributed to the cost of the defense?

[chuckster]

This is getting interesting...........again............:popcorn:

[Bogie Shooter]

This is getting interesting...........again............:popcorn:

Wouldn't just be easier to go back and read all those earlier posts?

[Leafpoker]

With the past actions of the daily sun(not real objective). And the past record of the IRS (they don't lose many). I am very concerned about my investment here. This could rock the villages. Folks the IRS has seen most dog an pony shows.

[kentucky blue]

Bogie Shooter, have you read the article?

If you have, I am surprised that you would ask the question. But to answer it:

First, I don't think that I "jumped" to the conclusion the article is "ambiguous". There is nothing ambiguous about it, and I never said there was. In my view, calling the article "ambiguous" would give a bad name to the concept of ambiguity. My point was that the article so incredibly unclear, that (given the nature of the subject matter and the Daily Sun's history) the lack of clarity had to be intentional. Here is my reasoning:

I spent a good part of my career working on acquisitions and, although not a financial analyst, I think that I have a basic understanding of the issues involved in the valuation controversy here. Because I have a few hundred thousand dollars invested in The Villages and like to stay on top of matters that could impact my investments, I have spent a fair amount of time studying the documents involved in the IRS investigation. In other words, I know basically what's going on with the IRS investigation.

Despite my background, after reading the Daily Sun article, I have no understanding as to exactly what the new IRS Report concludes and of the basis for that conclusion. All I learned from the article is that Janet Tutt doesn't think the IRS knows what it's talking about. Her position is hardly surprising, but it is not particularly comforting (since the IRS has a special unit specializing in the investigation of municipal-bond abuse and deals with valuation questions on a daily basis). In any event, Janet Tutt's opinion hardly ought to be sole focus of a "fair and balanced" Daily Sun article on the latest development in a matter of this importance.

There is certainly no way that the typical Daily Sun reader, who knows virtually nothing about the IRS investigation or about present values of future income flows, would, after reading the article, have a clue as to what is going on or of its importance. Given the critical importance of the IRS investigation to Villagers and the Daily Sun's history of either not reporting or burying news stories unfavorable to the Developer, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the lack of clarity in this article is a continuation of the Daily Sun's past practice in this regard.

Need you ask why they call TV, "living in the bubble."Many Villagers don't want to know, don't understand, or don't care.Unfortunately, the IRS's problem with the Developer and the present value of future cash flows is not going away. I really appreciate you staying on top of the situation and giving us the facts,because you won't find them in the Daily Sun.By the way, i researched this entire situation like i was studying for a college final exam, and still decided the pluses far outweighed the negatives, and TV was the place for me.:read:

[JimJoe]

Need you ask why they call TV, "living in the bubble."Many Villagers don't want to know, don't understand, or don't care.Unfortunately, the IRS's problem with the Developer and the present value of future cash flows is not going away. I really appreciate you staying on top of the situation and giving us the facts,because you won't find them in the Daily Sun.By the way, i researched this entire situation like i was studying for a college final exam, and still decided the pluses far outweighed the negatives, and TV was the place for me.:read:

What bothers me is that the Washington revenue wolves are very hungry and TV probably looks mighty inviting to them. I think the whole thing is very unfair to villagers. I still believe this issue would not be a deal breaker when the price and time is right.

[rubicon]

Bogie Shooter, have you read the article?

If you have, I am surprised that you would ask the question. But to answer it:

First, I don't think that I "jumped" to the conclusion the article is "ambiguous". There is nothing ambiguous about it, and I never said there was. In my view, calling the article "ambiguous" would give a bad name to the concept of ambiguity. My point was that the article so incredibly unclear, that (given the nature of the subject matter and the Daily Sun's history) the lack of clarity had to be intentional. Here is my reasoning:

I spent a good part of my career working on acquisitions and, although not a financial analyst, I think that I have a basic understanding of the issues involved in the valuation controversy here. Because I have a few hundred thousand dollars invested in The Villages and like to stay on top of matters that could impact my investments, I have spent a fair amount of time studying the documents involved in the IRS investigation. In other words, I know basically what's going on with the IRS investigation.

Despite my background, after reading the Daily Sun article, I have no understanding as to exactly what the new IRS Report concludes and of the basis for that conclusion. All I learned from the article is that Janet Tutt doesn't think the IRS knows what it's talking about. Her position is hardly surprising, but it is not particularly comforting (since the IRS has a special unit specializing in the investigation of municipal-bond abuse and deals with valuation questions on a daily basis). In any event, Janet Tutt's opinion hardly ought to be sole focus of a "fair and balanced" Daily Sun article on the latest development in a matter of this importance.

There is certainly no way that the typical Daily Sun reader, who knows virtually nothing about the IRS investigation or about present values of future income flows, would, after reading the article, have a clue as to what is going on or of its importance. Given the critical importance of the IRS investigation to Villagers and the Daily Sun's history of either not reporting or burying news stories unfavorable to the Developer, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the lack of clarity in this article is a continuation of the Daily Sun's past practice in this regard.

In all due respect, if you read anything issued by the IRS, as relates to this investigation, you would recognize immediately that an individual does not have to be proficient in valuations acquistion/mergers, or anything else All they need is to be able to read at a 10th grade level. The real question, who is protecting our interests?

[Leafpoker]

I am sure the morses will protect all of us. NOT! If it comes down to wire as to who has to pay we have nobody to represent us. All of this could be the like huge sink whole for the current management. You just hope whoever picks up the pieces is able fund at least a fraction of the current lifestyle. If this drags out at least most of us won't live long enough to see the appeal process completed. With any luck our heirs will be able to salvage some value out of our investment, talk about leaving them with huge debt that is a real possibility.

[ilovetv]

Just a comment: We and many others do not think of our home as an "investment" as some have called it here, especially in the current national economy and housing market. It could be decades before home prices come back up to the prices at which they were selling in most places in the mid- to late-1990's.

That's part of the reason many of us down-sized when we bought here, into a comfortable, sturdy, sensible home/CYV in the 175,000 to 215,000 range.....one that is in a reasonable price range for reselling...a range that many potential buyers can afford to buy and pay taxes on.

This thread and the topic can sound ominous and discouraging to potential newbies/buyers/wannabe's. If you're worried about your "investment", it would be a good idea to not scare buyers with pure conjecture about what truly is unknown at this point in time.

[Leafpoker]

The sky is not falling ,however you need to know the facts.
1. The IRS is coming after the villages they believe that something is wrong with the bonds that were sold here.
2. If they (the IRS) are correct it could cost many millions of dollars to get this all straightened out.
3. We as property owners are in this together. We really are floating in an ocean without a paddle or map on where to go.
4. The IRS track record is pretty good.
5. I am not being a nasayer, just someone who is very worried about the future of the villages as we know it. These could be the "good 'ol days" of The Villages.
I chose not to stick my head in the sand, but try to gather the facts and be ready for the potienal finacial collapse of this wonderful place.
As far as buyers, well I would want to know what is really going on. These are major issues that should be discussed. You can bet the salesmen for Tv are not telling possible buyers. " the IRS is investigating, and if THe villages lose it will rock the finacial foundation of this place"
Please don't attack the messenger. I respect your right to have an opinion. Yes I am a busy person, just because we don't agree, I am not asking others to not post.

[Skybo]

Leafblower, since you say we need to know the facts...please explain to me how the outcome of the IRS investigation could result in the “financial collapse” of The Villages.

[Russ_Boston]

Leafblower, since you say we need to know the facts...please explain to me how the outcome of the IRS investigation could result in the “financial collapse” of The Villages.

Yes, please present the 'worst case scenario' for us. In detail. When I've seen the numbers before, even if we had to foot the bill, it wasn't much per household. But I think many have argued that we wouldn't be stuck with the bill.

Thanks.

[Bogie Shooter]

And continue to argue, based soley on assumptions.

[Taj44]

The sky is not falling ,however you need to know the facts.
1. The IRS is coming after the villages they believe that something is wrong with the bonds that were sold here.
2. If they (the IRS) are correct it could cost many millions of dollars to get this all straightened out.
3. We as property owners are in this together. We really are floating in an ocean without a paddle or map on where to go.
4. The IRS track record is pretty good.
5. I am not being a nasayer, just someone who is very worried about the future of the villages as we know it. These could be the "good 'ol days" of The Villages.
I chose not to stick my head in the sand, but try to gather the facts and be ready for the potienal finacial collapse of this wonderful place.
As far as buyers, well I would want to know what is really going on. These are major issues that should be discussed. You can bet the salesmen for Tv are not telling possible buyers. " the IRS is investigating, and if THe villages lose it will rock the finacial foundation of this place"
Please don't attack the messenger. I respect your right to have an opinion. Yes I am a busy person, just because we don't agree, I am not asking others to not post.

Thanks Leaf for your comment. I think the key point you made is that we need to respect the opinions of people who post here, even if they do not happen to agree with yours. The whole IRS thing is very dicey, and no one knows what will happen. Yes it may only cost each property owner "a few thousand dollars", but did it occur to anyone that some people just don't have that kind of money? Then there would be a class action lawsuit that would drag on for years, etc.. not a good thing, but all this is conjecture at this point. We just do not know. But to imply that someone has an axe to grind, or is not busy because that person happened to share their concerns, is very disrespectful to say the least. AS far as a house being an investment, I think we've all learned that that is not the case, but you hate to see someone invest $300K+ in houses, as a lot of people are doing now, and see them lose their shirts in the event of an adverse IRS ruling. In my opinion, to keep them in the dark about the IRS investigation and its possible implications is unethical. People are grownups. They can see both sides and make an intelligent decision. At least they will be coming into this place seeing the whole picture, not the half picture painted by the commission paid sales people.

[graciegirl]

Thanks Leaf for your comment. I think the key point you made is that we need to respect the opinions of people who post here, even if they do not happen to agree with yours. The whole IRS thing is very dicey, and no one knows what will happen. Yes it may only cost each property owner "a few thousand dollars", but did it occur to anyone that some people just don't have that kind of money? Then there would be a class action lawsuit that would drag on for years, etc.. not a good thing, but all this is conjecture at this point. We just do not know. But to imply that someone has an axe to grind, or is not busy because that person happened to share their concerns, is very disrespectful to say the least. AS far as a house being an investment, I think we've all learned that that is not the case, but you hate to see someone invest $300K+ in houses, as a lot of people are doing now, and see them lose their shirts in the event of an adverse IRS ruling. In my opinion, to keep them in the dark about the IRS investigation and its possible implications is unethical. People are grownups. They can see both sides and make an intelligent decision. At least they will be coming into this place seeing the whole picture, not the half picture painted by the commission paid sales people.

The commissioned paid sales people are "keeping them in the dark"? I don't think anyone understands the issue clearly, even the frequently changing IRS agents in charge.

How people post on this issue to me is very predictable. They post the same on almost all issues involving whether they think the Morses are someone they admire or someone they do not admire.

There are many people thinking to buy here, that maybe shouldn't be thinking to buy here or to relocate anywhere at retirement, because they can't afford it. I think that the range of home options is very democratic and affordable for most people, but it depends if they have prepared financially for their retirement, even if they stay where they are. Moving is a significant expense no matter what your financial status is.

I think that the number stated was less than ten thousand dollars, in fact far less than ten thousand dollars. IF, and again I say IF we had to shoulder the debt. Now that isn't chump change, but I am guessing and hoping that most of us have enough money put back for some bad thing to happen and thinking and hoping it would be a figure that would protect them from bad surprises of any kind.

One of the reason that this country is in such a financial mess is that people bought what they couldn't afford to pay for...even given bad surprises...for the most part. Just my opinion.

[boobear51751]

:BigApplause:Page C1 of today's Daily Sun reports another unfavorable development in the IRS investigation of the dealings between the Center District and the Developer, i.e., an IRS "Engineer's Report" (whatever that is) critical of the pricing of the amenities which the Developer sold to the Center District. As you will recall, the Center District financed the purchase of those amenities using purportedly tax-exempt bonds. Among other things, the IRS claims that the purchase price was inflated and, therefore, the bonds don't qualify as tax-exempt.

Unfortunately, the Daily Sun article is written, almost certainly intentionally, so as to be incomprehensible to even relatively well informed readers. But, hey, for a change, at least the Daily Sun, even with the obfuscation, reported a development in the most-important issue facing The Villages. I guess that is progress.

Hopefully, the Engineer's Report will be posted on districtgov.org website and/or the next POA Bulletin will have an explanation.

[rubicon]

My personal belief is that one can ignore reality and have it work against him/her or embrace it and have it work for you. since when is lengthy discussion such as with an important topic such as this a problem. I can tell by the nature of the posts that most are not acquainted themselves with the the detailed allegations in the IRS filings. I do not suggest that the IRS is correct but knowledge is power. So find out what this dispute is really about in detail.

I do not intend to sell my home and so I agree with others and do not view it as an investment as I did when moving around the country.

The issue for me is based in the wording of the IRS filings. It leaves me to ponder about many things. If the IRS prevails but not against the Developer then who will the IRS look to for repayment?

I do not know to whom nor do I know the amount but based on what is to have allegedly occurred, I will be livid if I am left with paying one red cent on top of what I pay now for the priviledge of living here.

I will continue my exploration of this issue in an unemotional and business-like manner. I do not believe the sky is falling. I do not believe it is an issue that should prevent folks from buying here. But I do believe in preparing myself, for weighing my options and for making a plan

Please search out the details of this debate. Ask questions when attending your Homeowner Association, the Amenities Advisory Commitee, District Meetings, etc. Two last points. Whenever someone rsponds to my question with "Don't even worry about it", then that's when I begin to worry because that is an artful dodger at work. Finally we are a part of this and we have a right to know...all of us.

[nitehawk]

for all of you Laura Richards haters - if it were not for her original articles we would nothing if anything about the irs tax-exempt bond investigation - this is probably the first mention of the investigation in the daily sun. i just looked back at some of old post on Laura Rchards -- she is a villager hater - she is jealous - she is not a journalist - on an on - well i would like to thank Laura Richards - i dont think anyone would know there was an investigation before her article - more kool-aid mom

[pivo]

I'm a wannabee and have a showing of my house this afternoon and can't wait to come to tv.
But after reading some of the comments be honest I have to think twice nowreason for is this.
Teir is a development near me that I am very familiar with, Their builder actually stole monies and scamed the subcontractors into cheating on the contents of the buildings they put up---so to make this short the irs sued the builder and got millions back but not enough and he went to prison just got out about six months ago and theirs found literaaly thousands of dollars in his home and he's back in jail again.
But what that did was cause the homeowners dues more than triple to take care of faulty building repairs they now have to fix and the homeowners are sueing the builder but their is nothing for them to get, so after eleven years thay cannot sell any of the homes because of the increase in dues and my friend whose mother in law had to relocate because of health problems is trying to sell her home for over a year now so they decided to just stop mortgage payments and lose the house.
I hope and pray this is not the same kind of problem at tv. because right now I can't wait to come down to tv.
If anyone feels this id the same situation down their please let me know

[JimJoe]

Yes, please present the 'worst case scenario' for us. In detail. When I've seen the numbers before, even if we had to foot the bill, it wasn't much per household. But I think many have argued that we wouldn't be stuck with the bill.

Thanks.

Russ: I have always considered you very informed. What do you think the worst, best, and most likely scenarios are?
JJ

[The Shadow]

My personal belief is that one can ignore reality and have it work against him/her or embrace it and have it work for you. since when is lengthy discussion such as with an important topic such as this a problem. I can tell by the nature of the posts that most are not acquainted themselves with the the detailed allegations in the IRS filings. I do not suggest that the IRS is correct but knowledge is power. So find out what this dispute is really about in detail.

I do not intend to sell my home and so I agree with others and do not view it as an investment as I did when moving around the country.

The issue for me is based in the wording of the IRS filings. It leaves me to ponder about many things. If the IRS prevails but not against the Developer then who will the IRS look to for repayment?

I do not know to whom nor do I know the amount but based on what is to have allegedly occurred, I will be livid if I am left with paying one red cent on top of what I pay now for the priviledge of living here.

I will continue my exploration of this issue in an unemotional and business-like manner. I do not believe the sky is falling. I do not believe it is an issue that should prevent folks from buying here. But I do believe in preparing myself, for weighing my options and for making a plan

Please search out the details of this debate. Ask questions when attending your Homeowner Association, the Amenities Advisory Commitee, District Meetings, etc. Two last points. Whenever someone rsponds to my question with "Don't even worry about it", then that's when I begin to worry because that is an artful dodger at work. Finally we are a part of this and we have a right to know...all of us.
Has the IRS asked the Developer for any kind of a settlement? NO!

Has the IRS asked any resident for any kind of a settlement? NO!

Do you think one day the IRS is going to show up at the resident’s door and say this is an IRS give me $10,000. I don’t think so.

For three years the IRS has had one target, Team Tutt AKA VCDD. What does the IRS want? Money what they always want and a stop to tax free bonds.

And when the IRS offender does not have the money to pay the IRS what happens then? The IRS says we will then take your property and auction it off to settle your debt. That property is the property that the VCDD allegedly wrongfully sold tax free bonds to purchase from the developer at an allegedly high price.

How do you stop tax free bonds? Redeem them, buy them back, with what money?

[rubicon]

I'm a wannabee and have a showing of my house this afternoon and can't wait to come to tv.
But after reading some of the comments be honest I have to think twice nowreason for is this.
Teir is a development near me that I am very familiar with, Their builder actually stole monies and scamed the subcontractors into cheating on the contents of the buildings they put up---so to make this short the irs sued the builder and got millions back but not enough and he went to prison just got out about six months ago and theirs found literaaly thousands of dollars in his home and he's back in jail again.
But what that did was cause the homeowners dues more than triple to take care of faulty building repairs they now have to fix and the homeowners are sueing the builder but their is nothing for them to get, so after eleven years thay cannot sell any of the homes because of the increase in dues and my friend whose mother in law had to relocate because of health problems is trying to sell her home for over a year now so they decided to just stop mortgage payments and lose the house.
I hope and pray this is not the same kind of problem at tv. because right now I can't wait to come down to tv.
If anyone feels this id the same situation down their please let me know

If I fully understand what you outlined in the Tier issue it is not quite the same issue as in TV.

You may want to speak with the sales reps at TV or perhaps the Presidents of the Villages Homeowners Association or the Property Owners Association for further information to ease any concerns you might have. Residents have found both Homeowner organizations to be helpful and accomodating

[RVRoadie]

The IRS mission is to collect taxes, and if they determine that the bonds sold were not eligible for tax free status, it seems to me that their recourse is against the buyers of the bonds that did not pay taxes on the interest earned. If that came to pass, the bond buyers would then sue the bond sellers to recover their losses. That would be a very long lawsuit, and would draw in all the players that had a hand in creating and marketing the tax free bonds, including the developer, bankers, accountants and investment advisers. If it was found that the VCDD acted in good faith in selling the bonds, they would be the least culpable in this cast of characters.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

[Bogie Shooter]

for all of you Laura Richards haters - if it were not for her original articles we would nothing if anything about the irs tax-exempt bond investigation - this is probably the first mention of the investigation in the daily sun. i just looked back at some of old post on Laura Rchards -- she is a villager hater - she is jealous - she is not a journalist - on an on - well i would like to thank Laura Richards - i dont think anyone would know there was an investigation before her article - more kool-aid mom

Who is Laura Richards??

[Russ_Boston]

The IRS mission is to collect taxes, and if they determine that the bonds sold were not eligible for tax free status, it seems to me that their recourse is against the buyers of the bonds that did not pay taxes on the interest earned. If that came to pass, the bond buyers would then sue the bond sellers to recover their losses. That would be a very long lawsuit, and would draw in all the players that had a hand in creating and marketing the tax free bonds, including the developer, bankers, accountants and investment advisers. If it was found that the VCDD acted in good faith in selling the bonds, they would be the least culpable in this cast of characters.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

That would be my understanding of the issues as well. We do have people on this forum who have given their professional opinion on the bonds since that is what they do (did) for a living. Please search past posts on this issue and you'll see all sides and opinions.

It would actually be in the best interest of all current TV homeowners to get this issue settled sooner than later. That way the developer has more of a stake while there are still many thousands of homes to sell. But either way I would think the average homeowner in TV will be minimally affected if at all. But what the heck do I know:)

[Leafpoker]

Pivo:
Your story is the living finacial hell we all could go thru. I am certain this will drag out for years. Most of us will not live to see this settled. I consider my home here an investment. If I don't I should just rent. Many others consider there home here the same. If not we would have majority renters. There are many many wealthy people here. However there are also a great number of us that try to invest wisely. To improve and sustain our place in life. I personally would not cherish the thought of having to take large hit because of someone trying prosper on the backs of the home owners. When the IRS takes out after someone they usually win.
I would never ask a village sales person or the home owners association that is affiliated with the management. They are just trying to earn a living and will spew the same dog an pony show that management has instructed them to.
When there is a smoke screen like we are getting there is usually fire!

[ilovetv]

The IRS mission is to collect taxes, and if they determine that the bonds sold were not eligible for tax free status, it seems to me that their recourse is against the buyers of the bonds that did not pay taxes on the interest earned. If that came to pass, the bond buyers would then sue the bond sellers to recover their losses. That would be a very long lawsuit, and would draw in all the players that had a hand in creating and marketing the tax free bonds, including the developer, bankers, accountants and investment advisers. If it was found that the VCDD acted in good faith in selling the bonds, they would be the least culpable in this cast of characters.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Thank you for putting some common sense into this.

The bigger threat to us is the national debt that those power-addicted, money-squandering, glad-handing boobs of both parties are getting us into in Washington.

[The Shadow]

Pivo:
Your story is the living finacial hell we all could go thru. I am certain this will drag out for years. Most of us will not live to see this settled. I consider my home here an investment. If I don't I should just rent. Many others consider there home here the same. If not we would have majority renters. There are many many wealthy people here. However there are also a great number of us that try to invest wisely. To improve and sustain our place in life. I personally would not cherish the thought of having to take large hit because of someone trying prosper on the backs of the home owners. When the IRS takes out after someone they usually win.
I would never ask a village sales person or the home owners association that is affiliated with the management. They are just trying to earn a living and will spew the same dog an pony show that management has instructed them to.
When there is a smoke screen like we are getting there is usually fire!

I brought the IRS subject up to a TV sales lady that I had known for eleven years again 11 years and she had been in sales all that time. She told me that was very interesting and she had never heard anything about it. Another time I brought it up in conversation with a sales lady that I was talking to on a second occasion, she had no comment. Go figure.

[Taj44]

My personal belief is that one can ignore reality and have it work against him/her or embrace it and have it work for you. since when is lengthy discussion such as with an important topic such as this a problem. I can tell by the nature of the posts that most are not acquainted themselves with the the detailed allegations in the IRS filings. I do not suggest that the IRS is correct but knowledge is power. So find out what this dispute is really about in detail.

I do not intend to sell my home and so I agree with others and do not view it as an investment as I did when moving around the country.

The issue for me is based in the wording of the IRS filings. It leaves me to ponder about many things. If the IRS prevails but not against the Developer then who will the IRS look to for repayment?

I do not know to whom nor do I know the amount but based on what is to have allegedly occurred, I will be livid if I am left with paying one red cent on top of what I pay now for the priviledge of living here.

I will continue my exploration of this issue in an unemotional and business-like manner. I do not believe the sky is falling. I do not believe it is an issue that should prevent folks from buying here. But I do believe in preparing myself, for weighing my options and for making a plan

Please search out the details of this debate. Ask questions when attending your Homeowner Association, the Amenities Advisory Commitee, District Meetings, etc. Two last points. Whenever someone rsponds to my question with "Don't even worry about it", then that's when I begin to worry because that is an artful dodger at work. Finally we are a part of this and we have a right to know...all of us.

Good points. This is a very complex issue, and to say "Don't worry about it" is in my opinion, burying one's head in the sand. I've never heard of a salesperson informing potential buyers of the IRS issues, so I think that this forum is a good place for people to learn a little bit about what they may be buying into. Again, in my opinion, to deliberately withold that info is not being completely honest.

[The Shadow]

Good points. This is a very complex issue, and to say "Don't worry about it" is in my opinion, burying one's head in the sand. I've never heard of a salesperson informing potential buyers of the IRS issues, so I think that this forum is a good place for people to learn a little bit about what they may be buying into. Again, in my opinion, to deliberately withold that info is not being completely honest.
If you or I sell a house in Florida we will have to fill out a form called “Seller’s Real Property Disclosure Statement” . Questions like question #1a. Are you aware of existing, pending, or proposed legal actions, claims, special assessments, ……..affecting the property. If yes explain……

In my thinking if I sell my house in TV and I do not answer #1a. with IRS, grounds would exist for a civil suit against me for damages. Note I am not a lawyer.

If anything changes on this form you must inform your buyer of the change in 5 days.

If I am obligate to provide this information TV should also.

[Russ_Boston]

If you or I sell a house in Florida we will have to fill out a form called “Seller’s Real Property Disclosure Statement” . Questions like question #1a. Are you aware of existing, pending, or proposed legal actions, claims, special assessments, ……..affecting the property. If yes explain……

In my thinking if I sell my house in TV and I do not answer #1a. with IRS, grounds would exist for a civil suit against me for damages. Note I am not a lawyer.

If anything changes on this form you must inform your buyer of the change in 5 days.

If I am obligate to provide this information TV should also.

I hear what you are saying Shadow but isn't the property in question the special CDD's? not individual property? And TV development at this point is not under any proposed legal action even for this issue. Right?

But the point about this being a good place to find out about these things is a good one.

[The Shadow]

I hear what you are saying Shadow but isn't the property in question the special CDD's? not individual property? And TV development at this point is not under any proposed legal action even for this issue. Right?

But the point about this being a good place to find out about these things is a good one.
“I hear what you are saying Shadow but isn't the property in question the special CDD's? not individual property?”

It must be my accent that is what I said.

[Russ_Boston]

“I hear what you are saying Shadow but isn't the property in question the special CDD's? not individual property?”

It must be my accent that is what I said.

You did? Sorry, I still don't see special CDD in your quote.

I'm a little slow today could you highlight where you said that in the piece I quoted from you?

My point is that the property in question on the IRS issue is the special CDD's not our property. That sellers' form is about the property in question. No?

[Leafpoker]

As I say , all this could rock the villages. It would be interesting to see if you sell and put no on the selling form, then the judgement comes down, and the buyer comes back on the seller to pay his huge portion to settle this up. For his time he lived in the home. Another reason for them to push new homes. For the lawyers in this area this will like shooting fish in a barrel. Or even shooting moose out of season. (we know that doesn't happen, just the govt messing with people) NOT!

[The Shadow]

You did? Sorry, I still don't see special CDD in your quote.

I'm a little slow today could you highlight where you said that in the piece I quoted from you?

My point is that the property in question on the IRS issue is the special CDD's not our property. That sellers' form is about the property in question. No?

Did you read post 33?

[The Shadow]

As I say , all this could rock the villages. It would be interesting to see if you sell and put no on the selling form, then the judgement comes down, and the buyer comes back on the seller to pay his huge portion to settle this up. For his time he lived in the home. Another reason for them to push new homes. For the lawyers in this area this will like shooting fish in a barrel. Or even shooting moose out of season. (we know that doesn't happen, just the govt messing with people) NOT!

It was elk, I am a moose.:22yikes:

[aljetmet]

How do you stop tax free bonds? Redeem them, buy them back, with what money?

Answer: Wouldn't it be from the collection of (increased) amenity fees?

[Russ_Boston]

Did you read post 33?

OK. I was responding to the post I quoted but I get it.

Still not sure how the residents of TV would be responsible for any monetary fines though. If bonds were sold of the districts that we don't own or live in then how could we be to blame? Wouldn't it just be either the developer (issuer of the bonds) or the bond buyers who would sue the developer since their yield isn't tax free any longer?

Does anyone who has some experience with bonds have an opinion?

[rubicon]

Has the IRS asked the Developer for any kind of a settlement? NO!

Has the IRS asked any resident for any kind of a settlement? NO!

Do you think one day the IRS is going to show up at the resident’s door and say this is an IRS give me $10,000. I don’t think so.

For three years the IRS has had one target, Team Tutt AKA VCDD. What does the IRS want? Money what they always want and a stop to tax free bonds.

And when the IRS offender does not have the money to pay the IRS what happens then? The IRS says we will then take your property and auction it off to settle your debt. That property is the property that the VCDD allegedly wrongfully sold tax free bonds to purchase from the developer at an allegedly high price.

How do you stop tax free bonds? Redeem them, buy them back, with what money?

Team Tutt/aka the VCCDD is us. We personally had no part or even knowledhe of the business transactions that occurred between the Seller and the Buyer. However, the buyer is our government and they represent us and used all fees, taxes amenities that flow to them for this purchase. If those funds are not available to the VCCDD and the IRS rules against the VCCDD and not the Developer what happens??????

Frankly based on the IRS filings I believe the IRS is more interested in the Developer for a number of reasons.

Peerhaps the nature of the Development district is as the Developer claims? I hope so and believe the Developer has a strong and correct argument given Florida Law. There are a few issues that rub the IRS the wrong way and that is why I believe they are pursuing this issue.

I am interested in thus issue but I am not losing any sleep over it

[Russ_Boston]

OK I see the connection. Thanks.

[rubicon]

If you or I sell a house in Florida we will have to fill out a form called “Seller’s Real Property Disclosure Statement” . Questions like question #1a. Are you aware of existing, pending, or proposed legal actions, claims, special assessments, ……..affecting the property. If yes explain……

In my thinking if I sell my house in TV and I do not answer #1a. with IRS, grounds would exist for a civil suit against me for damages. Note I am not a lawyer.

If anything changes on this form you must inform your buyer of the change in 5 days.

If I am obligate to provide this information TV should also.

Shadow good information. This action began in the first quarter of 2009. It is now second quarter 2011. Don't know that the housing documents added this disclosure? I suspect with the number of closing documents, if the disclourse is included many buyers may have glossed right over it?

One point here is that whatever the IRS does here they will need to apply in every other CDD in the state of Florida

[3puttharry]

A couple of post refer to "bonds that WERE sold" as in past tense.
A few question come to mind.
1. As each subsequent group of villages/districts have been built and amenities sold have similar tax free bonds also been sold?
2. If not are the districts were these bonds were sold identified?
3. If the districts are identified, again pardon my ignorance, but what villages are in these districts? Do different districts fall under differnt VCCD type names? I thought I read about another name but not VCCD?
4.Not sure but it seems like each district may have different rules and laws especially seeing they are in three different counties. If the VCCD loses can d they have the authority to decide that all villages pay? Even the original ones that some hv no amenity fee?
5.Are or were these tax free bonds available for purchase to the public through brokerage companies?
6. How about the 7% bonds on new houses (I realize this is a different bond) Can anyone buy these too? Great deal, guaranteed 7% when the rest of the public US muni bonds are a questionable investment now (IMO).
7.I read here that part of the IRS problem is the appraisal of specific facilities and the possible inflated price paid by the VCCD. Are subsequent appraisals of new district facilites in the same ballpark? If so does that mean this issue that started years ago is going to expand to all new and future vilages/districts?
8. A previous poster said this IRS issue with the villages will affect hundreds of other plus 55 florida communities. I hope he is right but I would venture to say that no other plus 55 community in Florida and perhaps United States has and is continuing to grow like the villages. Which I guess means a lot more bonds here than anywere else.
Sorry for the long post and am seriously sorry for my laziness to those of you who suggest I search the many years of previous posts to look for my answers. Retired but still have type A behavior
Still looking forward to living in The Villages....I am closing on a new house in four weeks.

[ilovetv]

If you or I sell a house in Florida we will have to fill out a form called “Seller’s Real Property Disclosure Statement” . Questions like question #1a. Are you aware of existing, pending, or proposed legal actions, claims, special assessments, ……..affecting the property. If yes explain……

In my thinking if I sell my house in TV and I do not answer #1a. with IRS, grounds would exist for a civil suit against me for damages. Note I am not a lawyer.

If anything changes on this form you must inform your buyer of the change in 5 days.

If I am obligate to provide this information TV should also.

Does The Villages answer "yes" to that disclosure statement question when selling a new home since these IRS inquiries began?

I doubt it, and therefore don't see how homeowners would be held responsible for the tax if IRS "wins" and goes after it.

[Ohiogirl]

As a former real estate agent in Ohio (not in Florida) which has similar seller disclosure forms, I would have to say that new homes probably do not require this form. And it is not a form required at closing (with all the others), but prior to writing the purchase offer.

And since it is not specific to the individual property itself, I doubt if this is being disclosed when selling a resale home in Florida. I believe the IRS investigation is just that - an investigation - at this time, not a pending legal action.

[Russ_Boston]

A couple of post refer to "bonds that WERE sold" as in past tense.
A few question come to mind.
1. As each subsequent group of villages/districts have been built and amenities sold have similar tax free bonds also been sold?
2. If not are the districts were these bonds were sold identified?
3. If the districts are identified, again pardon my ignorance, but what villages are in these districts? Do different districts fall under differnt VCCD type names? I thought I read about another name but not VCCD?
4.Not sure but it seems like each district may have different rules and laws especially seeing they are in three different counties. If the VCCD loses can d they have the authority to decide that all villages pay? Even the original ones that some hv no amenity fee?
5.Are or were these tax free bonds available for purchase to the public through brokerage companies?
6. How about the 7% bonds on new houses (I realize this is a different bond) Can anyone buy these too? Great deal, guaranteed 7% when the rest of the public US muni bonds are a questionable investment now (IMO).
7.I read here that part of the IRS problem is the appraisal of specific facilities and the possible inflated price paid by the VCCD. Are subsequent appraisals of new district facilites in the same ballpark? If so does that mean this issue that started years ago is going to expand to all new and future vilages/districts?
8. A previous poster said this IRS issue with the villages will affect hundreds of other plus 55 florida communities. I hope he is right but I would venture to say that no other plus 55 community in Florida and perhaps United States has and is continuing to grow like the villages. Which I guess means a lot more bonds here than anywere else.
Sorry for the long post and am seriously sorry for my laziness to those of you who suggest I search the many years of previous posts to look for my answers. Retired but still have type A behavior
Still looking forward to living in The Villages....I am closing on a new house in four weeks.

I can't answer all the questions but the tax free bonds in question are the ones for the special CDD districts. Not the basic districts that all the homes are in.

[NJblue]

A couple of post refer to "bonds that WERE sold" as in past tense.
A few question come to mind.
1. As each subsequent group of villages/districts have been built and amenities sold have similar tax free bonds also been sold?
2. If not are the districts were these bonds were sold identified?
3. If the districts are identified, again pardon my ignorance, but what villages are in these districts? Do different districts fall under differnt VCCD type names? I thought I read about another name but not VCCD?
4.Not sure but it seems like each district may have different rules and laws especially seeing they are in three different counties. If the VCCD loses can d they have the authority to decide that all villages pay? Even the original ones that some hv no amenity fee?
5.Are or were these tax free bonds available for purchase to the public through brokerage companies?
6. How about the 7% bonds on new houses (I realize this is a different bond) Can anyone buy these too? Great deal, guaranteed 7% when the rest of the public US muni bonds are a questionable investment now (IMO).
7.I read here that part of the IRS problem is the appraisal of specific facilities and the possible inflated price paid by the VCCD. Are subsequent appraisals of new district facilites in the same ballpark? If so does that mean this issue that started years ago is going to expand to all new and future vilages/districts?
8. A previous poster said this IRS issue with the villages will affect hundreds of other plus 55 florida communities. I hope he is right but I would venture to say that no other plus 55 community in Florida and perhaps United States has and is continuing to grow like the villages. Which I guess means a lot more bonds here than anywere else.
Sorry for the long post and am seriously sorry for my laziness to those of you who suggest I search the many years of previous posts to look for my answers. Retired but still have type A behavior
Still looking forward to living in The Villages....I am closing on a new house in four weeks.

As of two years ago, which roughly corresponds with the date of the IRS case, the only bonds that were sold for amenities, with only a few exceptions, involved the amenities north of 466. I have not heard of any subsequent sales of bonds or purchase of amenities by the CDD (that's not to say that this has not happened, however). My guess is that they are holding off on any future transfers until this issue is resolved.

[collie1228]

In the last section of the Wikipedia entry on The Villages, there is a good summary of the IRS situation, which is footnoted with links for anyone who wants the detailed information. This is the best summary I've seen yet, and it's simple enough that even I can comprehend it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Villages,_FL

[The Shadow]

Shadow good information. This action began in the first quarter of 2009. It is now second quarter 2011. Don't know that the housing documents added this disclosure? I suspect with the number of closing documents, if the disclourse is included many buyers may have glossed right over it?

One point here is that whatever the IRS does here they will need to apply in every other CDD in the state of Florida

I disagree, it depends on the way the CDD is structured. Example the IRS says to issue tax free bonds among other things the CDD must have a police department and the government must be at arms length from the developer. If the CDD has no police department the CDD is free to issue interest taxable bonds.

[Golf-Tinker]

I was told by a member of The Villages Public Safety Department that The Villages cannot have a police department under the Florida statue that authorizes CDD's. I have not taken the time to read through the entire statue.

[rubicon]

I disagree, it depends on the way the CDD is structured. Example the IRS says to issue tax free bonds among other things the CDD must have a police department and the government must be at arms length from the developer. If the CDD has no police department the CDD is free to issue interest taxable bonds.

Shadow: Yes but its deeper. However for among other reasons, time being one, didn't want to get too detailed . To discuss just the CDD issue would probably time one out on TOTV.

[RVRoadie]

If the bonds were found to be improperly issued, and were required to be redeemed and reissued as taxable bonds, it is more than likely that the new bonds would be priced at rates that may be equal to or lower than the original municipal rate. After all, rates are much lower now than they have been over the past 10 years, and the bonds would still be secured by the revenue stream of our amenity fees. The back taxes owed to the IRS from current bondholders who did not pay taxes on their interest earned would be relatively small and could be rolled into the new bond issue.

I just don't see much liability for village residents.

[rubicon]

If the bonds were found to be improperly issued, and were required to be redeemed and reissued as taxable bonds, it is more than likely that the new bonds would be priced at rates that may be equal to or lower than the original municipal rate. After all, rates are much lower now than they have been over the past 10 years, and the bonds would still be secured by the revenue stream of our amenity fees. The back taxes owed to the IRS from current bondholders who did not pay taxes on their interest earned would be relatively small and could be rolled into the new bond issue.

I just don't see much liability for village residents.


From your lips to God's ears!

[Russ_Boston]

From your lips to God's ears!


Ditto and Amen!

[Advogado]

If the bonds were found to be improperly issued, and were required to be redeemed and reissued as taxable bonds, it is more than likely that the new bonds would be priced at rates that may be equal to or lower than the original municipal rate. After all, rates are much lower now than they have been over the past 10 years, and the bonds would still be secured by the revenue stream of our amenity fees. The back taxes owed to the IRS from current bondholders who did not pay taxes on their interest earned would be relatively small and could be rolled into the new bond issue.

I just don't see much liability for village residents.

I wish I could share your optimism, but my view of the possible scenarios ensuing IF the IRS prevails is somewhat different. Here are my thoughts regarding the points you raise:

First, a clarification for some of our readers. Technically, there should never be any liability to the IRS on the part of the Villages residents, at least not direct liability. The risk to us is that the Center Districts incur such a large liability to the IRS and to the bondholders (who would sue the Center Districts if the tax-exempt bonds turn out to be taxable) that the Center Districts can no longer afford to run the amenities system. Remember that amenity-fee increases are capped by the CPI, and the Center Districts can only tax within their borders.

You are correct that today's low interest rates would mitigate the "hit" that the Center Districts would take. However, given the scandal that would underlie any issue of the replacement taxable bonds, one would think that the taxable bonds might require a relatively high interest rate in order to find buyers. More importantly, the taxable bonds, are not being issued at today's interest rates. If they are ever issued, they will be issued at tomorrow's interest rates-- whenever "tomorrow" is. (Let's hope it never comes.) Those interest rates are probably going to lot higher than today's interest rates.

In addition, your analysis (in addition to assuming no penalties are imposed) implies that the liability of the Center Districts is limited to paying the back taxes on the original bonds. Remember that the bond holders, who got a warranty from the Center Districts that the bonds were tax exempt will (if the IRS prevails) also lose future tax-exempt income and will, one would think, try to hold the Center Districts liable for that as well.

Finally, as I recall, the interest on the existing bonds goes back as far as 8 years. It will be even longer if the controversy continues to drag on. If the average bondholder is in the 33% marginal tax bracket and the taxpayers have to pay interest to the IRS, as well as the taxes, I am not sure that we are talking about a "relatively small amount" that can be "easily rolled into the new bond issue". Have you run any numbers? (I have not tried, but intuitively, it would seem that we are talking about a lot of money.)

Despite my concerns, I hope that you right, and more importantly, I hope that the IRS does not prevail, or that if it does prevail, that it prevails in a way that places the costs of its victory directly on the Developer. It is the Developer who should, after all, be liable for all the damages in the event that the IRS prevails in this matter. But as shown by the circumstances surrounding the class action lawsuit, collecting from the Developer may not be that easy. The fact that the VCCDD (out of our amenity fees), not the Developer, is paying the legal fees to defend the tax-exemption of the existing bonds does not bode well in this regard.

[Leafpoker]

Great post! I agree so much with you. With the possible outcome of all this. Now could be " the good 'ol days of the villages" hey pompeii fell and it all worked out.
At least ol' Troy will be out there killin' dem gators.
Yayayayayaay

[CarGuys]

You guys all just managed to put my house build on hold for another year if at all.

My sales rep has told me nothing about this matter. For some reason two days ago the wife and I canceled our December build date.

We had absolutely no reason why we just felt something uneasy?

Now after reading 7 pages of this issue I feel ill about the whole matter.

Would be like me selling you all a brand new car saying the warranty will take care of it, knowing full well the vehicle was designed as a flaw and will never be right. Oh wait that would be GM they did that!

Maybe 200 inches of snow isn't that bad after all. At least no one is here going to take my home fine me or tax me on someone elses greed.

Well I have a year to see where this is playing out before we let the lot go.

I appreciate all the good articles to date. I might be in a panic or you guys might have saved us from a future retirement financial nightmare.

[Taj44]

I agree - its difficult to see where this is all going, and just because a bunch of residents say "nothing is going to happen" or " it won't amount to much money" doesn't guarantee anything. The sales reps are purposely not telling potential buyers of this situation, which I feel is dishonest. When you're thinking of potentially plunking down a quarter of a million dollars on a home, or more, it seems like you shouldn't have things making you uneasy.

[Talk Host]

An excellent question. Should the sales reps be telling prospective buyers about the IRS issue? If so, it would likely cause a downturn in sales. If, on the other hand, there is "really" nothing to it, then they shouldn't be sabotaging their own sales efforts.

Should all sales agents tell prospective buyers that there is an IRS investigation currently underway that might impact current and future residents?

[BobKat1]

Should they - yes. Will they - no. It seems to me that they aren't under any legal obligation to bring it up since there is nothing resolved or pending in the matter. If a potential buyer asks about it they should be forthright about what's going on. That probably wouldn't happen in most cases though.

[OpusX1]

There is one thing everyone is missing. The issuance of tax free bonds requires special lawyers, Bond Consul, Bond Consul writes the bonds and the bonds are approved by The IRS as non taxable bonds prior to being sold.
If a mistake is made by Bond Consul causing the IRS to claim the Bonds as taxable then Bond Consul and their insurance are as much on the line as the issuer of the bonds. There are many deep pockets in front of the residents.
I think that whatever the final ruling is will have a much larger effect on new bond issues than it will on the current issue.
For the IRS CDD's issuing bonds is new territory because CDD's are a new quasi form of government that have become popular in retirement communities so every ruling is precedent setting. I could see this going either way with no monetary penalties but changing precedent for future bond issues.

[graciegirl]

You guys all just managed to put my house build on hold for another year if at all.

My sales rep has told me nothing about this matter. For some reason two days ago the wife and I canceled our December build date.

We had absolutely no reason why we just felt something uneasy?

Now after reading 7 pages of this issue I feel ill about the whole matter.

Would be like me selling you all a brand new car saying the warranty will take care of it, knowing full well the vehicle was designed as a flaw and will never be right. Oh wait that would be GM they did that!

Maybe 200 inches of snow isn't that bad after all. At least no one is here going to take my home fine me or tax me on someone elses greed.

Well I have a year to see where this is playing out before we let the lot go.

I appreciate all the good articles to date. I might be in a panic or you guys might have saved us from a future retirement financial nightmare.

You are wise not to build or buy here. It would be wrong for you to feel frightened and insecure.

This issue has been in place for many years now with the IRS. It was going on four years ago when we were thinking to buy our first home here in TV. We have sold that home and are now building our second home here.

We are not capricious people, we spend our money carefully, and go to the big box stores for better prices. We have carefully thought out all nine homes we have bought and built.

I cannot guarantee that the IRS will not rule against the Morse organization.

I am absolutely in awe of the way this beautiful, affordable, clean, wonderfully run,completely satisfying small city presents us with opportunities to live, enjoy, and continue in life with interesting and successful people all around us.

I see evidence everywhere that the Morse family are dependable.

They are definitely Republican and huge contributors to the Republican party. (Just for your information. Sometimes the slant of the paper and the political speakers invited to the squares is a huge and unpleasant surprise to some people) I am a moderate fyi.


It is up to you.

[villagegolfer]

in fear is not the way to live your life. Imagine if our ancestors decided it was not worth the risk to cross the USA in covered wagons because they may, starve, get scalped by indians, catch a disease, wagon breakdown etc., etc.
We will be over 100,000 strong in a few short years. We will have the strength to fix whatever comes our way. I am surrounded by smart resourceful people. Listen to Gracie. Whatever comes our way, we will handle it!!!

[The Shadow]

I cannot guarantee that the IRS will not rule against the Morse organization.

Is it correct/accurate to interchange the term “Morse organization” and Developer with CDD? Is the issue not with the IRS and the CDD?

[kentucky blue]

You guys all just managed to put my house build on hold for another year if at all.

My sales rep has told me nothing about this matter. For some reason two days ago the wife and I canceled our December build date.

We had absolutely no reason why we just felt something uneasy?

Now after reading 7 pages of this issue I feel ill about the whole matter.

Would be like me selling you all a brand new car saying the warranty will take care of it, knowing full well the vehicle was designed as a flaw and will never be right. Oh wait that would be GM they did that!

Maybe 200 inches of snow isn't that bad after all. At least no one is here going to take my home fine me or tax me on someone elses greed.

Well I have a year to see where this is playing out before we let the lot go.

I appreciate all the good articles to date. I might be in a panic or you guys might have saved us from a future retirement financial nightmare.

When we look back on our lives, we will be more disappointed by the things we didn't do, than by the ones we did.I researched this issue until i was blue in the face(Kentucky Blue) and based my decision on living the life i imagined for myself.I based my decision on all the information i accumulated and it's logical consequences. I decided i'm not waiting for the IRS to make it's final decision, could be years away,and nobody knows the outcome. I'm not putting my life and dreams on hold. Remember, it's the life in your years that counts, and we are not getting any younger, except maybe Gracie:D

[Russ_Boston]

When we look back on our lives, we will be more disappointed by the things we didn't do, than by the ones we did.

Awesome thought! I'm going to use that one.

[cabo35]

It is sad to see that the usual suspects, by thoughtless accident or sinister design, continue to tacitly discourage those considering buying or building in the Villages as evidenced in this thread. You have to wonder how many future Villagers have turned away as a direct result of their unsettling, acid speculative rants. Oh....for sure they have an absolute right to their unbalanced suppositions and "right to know" warnings. However, at what point does their myopic conjecture do actual harm to the collective interest of the community as a whole. Open forums are a brilliant exercise in democracy. Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, real consequences and responsibility are sometimes absent from the equation.

I recall that Advogado has offered a clearly defined and articulate overview of the IRS issue. I believe I complemented him on that in this forum. However, I take vigorous exception to his abundant guess work and "what ifs" about an outcome that cannot be predicted because the entire subject is without significant precedent. Accordingly the bombardment of worst case scenario inferences based on incomplete information seems to be the predicate for gloomy cynicism. Others eagerly join the bash and aggressively perpetuate the most negative illusions about the matter in the worst possible terms to vicariously satisfy their "glass half empty" pessimism and/or their desire for an " I told you so outcome". What if The Villages win? With tongue-in-cheek.........do I get to say I told you so? Unfortunately those who based their decision on negative speculative outcomes by amateurs will have lost a great opportunity......while the critics continue to enjoy their own full access to the benefits of being Villagers. That presumes, of course, all the critics actually live in The Villages.

To advocate without doing harm would be a refreshing and welcome alternative.

As I have said before, "To those of you on the fence, be of good cheer and make the move. If we had waited six years ago for the perfect scenario.....we would have missed out on six years of enjoying new friends, great new neighbors, a fabulous lifestyle and what have become the best years of our lives."

Kentucky Blue......boy......did you nail it.....and with a magnificent economy of words....well done.

[villagegolfer]

It is sad to see that the usual suspects, by thoughtless accident or sinister design, continue to tacitly discourage those considering buying or building in the Villages as evidenced in this thread. You have to wonder how many future Villagers have turned away as a direct result of their unsettling, acid speculative rants. Oh....for sure they have an absolute right to their unbalanced suppositions and "right to know" warnings. However, at what point does their myopic conjecture do actual harm to the collective interest of the community as a whole. Open forums are a brilliant exercise in democracy. Unfortunately, in the heat of debate real consequences and responsibility are sometimes absent from the equation.

I recall that Advogado has offered a clearly defined and articulate overview of the IRS issue. I believe I complemented him on that in this forum. However, I take vigorous exception to his abundant guess work and "what ifs" about an outcome that cannot be predicted because the entire subject is without significant precedent. Accordingly the bombardment of worst case scenario inferences based on incomplete information seems to be the predicate for gloomy cynicism. Others eagerly join the bash and aggressively perpetuate the most negative illusions about the matter in the worst possible terms to vicariously satisfy their "glass half empty" pessimism and/or their desire for an " I told you so outcome". What if The Villages win? With tongue-in-cheek.........do I get to say I told you so? Unfortunately those who based their decision on negative speculative outcomes by amateurs will have lost a great opportunity......while the critics continue to enjoy their own full access to the benefits of being Villagers. That presumes, of course, all the critics actually live in The Villages.

To advocate without doing harm would be a refreshing and welcome alternative.

As I have said before, "To those of you on the fence, be of good cheer and make the move. If we had waited six years ago for the perfect scenario.....we would have missed out on six years of enjoying new friends, great new neighbors, a fabulous lifestyle and what have become the best years of our lives."

Kentucky Blue......boy......did you nail it.....and with a magnificent economy of words....well done.

Man, you sure can write.The best I could do is the covered wagon scenario.:beer3:

[graciegirl]

Is it correct/accurate to interchange the term “Morse organization” and Developer with CDD? Is the issue not with the IRS and the CDD?

I don't know Shadow. Is it correct?

The person who writes for the Orlando Sentinel.....

Is that Laura Richards? I can't remember her name.:D

It is hard to figure out who is who and what they really stand for on this forum.

Except Cabo. He says it like it is.

[graciegirl]

It is sad to see that the usual suspects, by thoughtless accident or sinister design, continue to tacitly discourage those considering buying or building in the Villages as evidenced in this thread. You have to wonder how many future Villagers have turned away as a direct result of their unsettling, acid speculative rants. Oh....for sure they have an absolute right to their unbalanced suppositions and "right to know" warnings. However, at what point does their myopic conjecture do actual harm to the collective interest of the community as a whole. Open forums are a brilliant exercise in democracy. Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, real consequences and responsibility are sometimes absent from the equation.

I recall that Advogado has offered a clearly defined and articulate overview of the IRS issue. I believe I complemented him on that in this forum. However, I take vigorous exception to his abundant guess work and "what ifs" about an outcome that cannot be predicted because the entire subject is without significant precedent. Accordingly the bombardment of worst case scenario inferences based on incomplete information seems to be the predicate for gloomy cynicism. Others eagerly join the bash and aggressively perpetuate the most negative illusions about the matter in the worst possible terms to vicariously satisfy their "glass half empty" pessimism and/or their desire for an " I told you so outcome". What if The Villages win? With tongue-in-cheek.........do I get to say I told you so? Unfortunately those who based their decision on negative speculative outcomes by amateurs will have lost a great opportunity......while the critics continue to enjoy their own full access to the benefits of being Villagers. That presumes, of course, all the critics actually live in The Villages.

To advocate without doing harm would be a refreshing and welcome alternative.

As I have said before, "To those of you on the fence, be of good cheer and make the move. If we had waited six years ago for the perfect scenario.....we would have missed out on six years of enjoying new friends, great new neighbors, a fabulous lifestyle and what have become the best years of our lives."

Kentucky Blue......boy......did you nail it.....and with a magnificent economy of words....well done.

bumping this excellent post ahead of my not so nice one.

[The Shadow]

bumping this excellent post ahead of my not so nice one.

But it was honest; you apparently don’t have a clue. :laugh:

[collie1228]

Shadow, that wasn't necessary. I cringed when I read it. I won't tell you how that comment made me feel towards you, but it would have been honest.

[chuckster]

He also wrote, shall we say, slanted posts (being kind) on POA site when they had an interactive site (no more). Just seeing his name could predict the content...............................

[Advogado]

He also wrote, shall we say, slanted posts (being kind) on POA site when they had an interactive site (no more). Just seeing his name could predict the content...............................

It would be nice if, instead of just telling me that I have a lousy attitude, you would educate me by telling me exactly where my analysis is wrong. The IRS investigation is indeed complicated. But I think that it behooves residents to try to understand basically what is going on and has gone on rather than to just pretend that the potential for some serious problems does not exist.

Incidentally, the "Engineer's Report" referred to in the Daily Sun article that provoked my first post in this thread still has not appeared in the districtgov.org website. Let's hope it does soon since it will probably throw some much-needed light on the latest developments in this saga.

[ilovetv]

There is one thing everyone is missing. The issuance of tax free bonds requires special lawyers, Bond Consul, Bond Consul writes the bonds and the bonds are approved by The IRS as non taxable bonds prior to being sold.
If a mistake is made by Bond Consul causing the IRS to claim the Bonds as taxable then Bond Consul and their insurance are as much on the line as the issuer of the bonds. There are many deep pockets in front of the residents. .......

This is exactly what I've thought all along. These "non-taxable" bonds had to be legally approved for selling them as such, and if the lawyers/bond consul made a mistake in saying they were "non-taxable" under IRS rules, it would be malpractice on their part.

Why would we home buyers be liable for a seller's misrepresentation to us?

[The Shadow]

He also wrote, shall we say, slanted posts (being kind) on POA site when they had an interactive site (no more). Just seeing his name could predict the content...............................

Well Skippy I am here to testify, this individual known as “The Shadow” has never posted on any other web site including the POA. I have seen the name in a news paper site, it was not me. Just for the record.

I do not consider this question to be slanted,

Is it correct/accurate to interchange the term “Morse organization” and Developer with CDD? Is the issue not with the IRS and the CDD?

You think my posts are slanted, to me people that say the above are intentionally misleading the people that have tuned in late.

[Leafpoker]

We have lots of folks that are not seeing the clouds. I will never attack someone for there beliefs or thoughts. The sun does shine thru the clouds and the sun being the fact that. The IRS is on the hunt for the folks in the villages. Be it homeowners, lawyers, the morses, or even the guy who dances like a wild man on the square. When the IRS sinks there claws in you they win. The morses can be republicans, the lawyers can mess up, even bill the dancer can turn his pockets inside out and show he has no $$$. In the end we the homeowners will pay. As far as the salesman telling the truth about this. That will never happen. It is a character issue, just like the folks who sold the bonds without informing us. Being honest and open goes long way. If salesman and the board did these dishonest things, why should we trust them to tell the truth on anything else.
Like Troy says: you can step in gator dung, and then wash it all off ur shoe, but you never get the smell out.
These salesman and the board, can wash all they want, but they still smell of dishonesty in my opinion.
Yayayaayya

[Taj44]

I'm sorry, but this thread seems to be getting out of hand. To refer to someone who's posts delve into the "what ifs" if the IRS prevails, and calls the poster "sinister" and unbalanced seems pretty insulting to me. I think its human nature to discuss such issues, especially if a negative outcome is going to cost the residents upwards of thousands of dollars per household. We all hope the outcome doesn't cost us, bottom line, but until it is settled all will voice their opinions on each side of the fence. Is it possible we can discuss without the petty name calling?

[The Shadow]

We have lots of folks that are not seeing the clouds. I will never attack someone for there beliefs or thoughts. The sun does shine thru the clouds and the sun being the fact that. The IRS is on the hunt for the folks in the villages. Be it homeowners, lawyers, the morses, or even the guy who dances like a wild man on the square. When the IRS sinks there claws in you they win. The morses can be republicans, the lawyers can mess up, even bill the dancer can turn his pockets inside out and show he has no $$$. In the end we the homeowners will pay. As far as the salesman telling the truth about this. That will never happen. It is a character issue, just like the folks who sold the bonds without informing us. Being honest and open goes long way. If salesman and the board did these dishonest things, why should we trust them to tell the truth on anything else.
Like Troy says: you can step in gator dung, and then wash it all off ur shoe, but you never get the smell out.
These salesman and the board, can wash all they want, but they still smell of dishonesty in my opinion.
Yayayaayya

Gator dung, interesting I had not considered that. Well you pick the right end of the gator to be on.

[villagegolfer]

I'm sorry, but this thread seems to be getting out of hand. To refer to someone who's posts delve into the "what ifs" if the IRS prevails, and calls the poster "sinister" and unbalanced seems pretty insulting to me. I think its human nature to discuss such issues, especially if a negative outcome is going to cost the residents upwards of thousands of dollars per household. We all hope the outcome doesn't cost us, bottom line, but until it is settled all will voice their opinions on each side of the fence. Is it possible we can discuss without the petty name calling?

I see a thread that is fairly civil. When the doomsayers get out numbered
they call "foul"?

[villagegolfer]

It is sad to see that the usual suspects, by thoughtless accident or sinister design, continue to tacitly discourage those considering buying or building in the Villages as evidenced in this thread. You have to wonder how many future Villagers have turned away as a direct result of their unsettling, acid speculative rants. Oh....for sure they have an absolute right to their unbalanced suppositions and "right to know" warnings. However, at what point does their myopic conjecture do actual harm to the collective interest of the community as a whole. Open forums are a brilliant exercise in democracy. Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, real consequences and responsibility are sometimes absent from the equation.

I recall that Advogado has offered a clearly defined and articulate overview of the IRS issue. I believe I complemented him on that in this forum. However, I take vigorous exception to his abundant guess work and "what ifs" about an outcome that cannot be predicted because the entire subject is without significant precedent. Accordingly the bombardment of worst case scenario inferences based on incomplete information seems to be the predicate for gloomy cynicism. Others eagerly join the bash and aggressively perpetuate the most negative illusions about the matter in the worst possible terms to vicariously satisfy their "glass half empty" pessimism and/or their desire for an " I told you so outcome". What if The Villages win? With tongue-in-cheek.........do I get to say I told you so? Unfortunately those who based their decision on negative speculative outcomes by amateurs will have lost a great opportunity......while the critics continue to enjoy their own full access to the benefits of being Villagers. That presumes, of course, all the critics actually live in The Villages.

To advocate without doing harm would be a refreshing and welcome alternative.

As I have said before, "To those of you on the fence, be of good cheer and make the move. If we had waited six years ago for the perfect scenario.....we would have missed out on six years of enjoying new friends, great new neighbors, a fabulous lifestyle and what have become the best years of our lives."

Kentucky Blue......boy......did you nail it.....and with a magnificent economy of words....well done.

Yes, I wonder how many people they have driven away, also.

[ilovetv]

Yes, I wonder how many people they have driven away, also.

This is a whole lot of rumor, gossip and conjecture. Watching soap operas would be just as productive.

I'm going out to do some errands and apply for a volunteer position. Been watchin' this soap for too long.

[JimJoe]

This is exactly what I've thought all along. These "non-taxable" bonds had to be legally approved for selling them as such, and if the lawyers/bond consul made a mistake in saying they were "non-taxable" under IRS rules, it would be malpractice on their part.

Why would we home buyers be liable for a seller's misrepresentation to us?

Bond attorneys are not insurers.. and I would think the employment contract states that they are not responsible should the IRS find the bonds are taxable.
I have never gotten an answer to my question, which is.. couldn't the district have gotten a private letter ruling from the IRS BEFORE the bonds were sold whether they would be non taxable?? I think they are done frequently. Just google IRS private letter rulings to learn more but basically you submit your situation before you act on the tax consequences and the IRS will submit a ruling which applies to you before you act. I sure wish someone with tax law experience could answer the question, if one was obtained on these bonds, and if not, why not??

My opinion on this entire issue is simply the villagers and potential buyers have a right to know the facts. What can possibly be wrong with that?

[Advogado]

Bond attorneys are not insurers.. and I would think the employment contract states that they are not responsible should the IRS find the bonds are taxable.
I have never gotten an answer to my question, which is.. couldn't the district have gotten a private letter ruling from the IRS BEFORE the bonds were sold whether they would be non taxable?? I think they are done frequently. Just google IRS private letter rulings to learn more but basically you submit your situation before you act on the tax consequences and the IRS will submit a ruling which applies to you before you act. I sure wish someone with tax law experience could answer the question, if one was obtained on these bonds, and if not, why not??

My opinion on this entire issue is simply the villagers and potential buyers have a right to know the facts. What can possibly be wrong with that?

To answer the first of your questions, if a letter ruling had been requested, that fact would have certainly been set forth in the Official Statement (i.e., prospectus) prepared in connection with the bond issue. Since that fact is not set forth, apparently a letter ruling was not requested. As to why it wasn't, I don't know. You would have to ask the Developer or guess. Or maybe some of the posters ("Morseiphiles"), who have been assuring everybody not to worry ("Close your eyes, count to ten, and the boogie man will go away"), can actually supply some worthwhile factual information relevant to the discussion.

As to your to your final question as to what could be wrong with the concept of the "right to know"? Again, I don't know. You will have to ask the Morseiphiles. They will certainly have the answer. They know everything about everything, most of them seem to live at their computers and post thousands of times on every conceivable subject, and they seem to think that the way to discuss an issue is by making personal attacks on those with whom they disagree. (Oops, I just realized that I have been provoked into doing the same thing. I think that I will leave the subject of the IRS investigation alone for awhile-- at least until I calm down or there is another development.)

[villagegolfer]

To answer the first of your questions, if a letter ruling had been requested, that fact would have certainly been set forth in the Official Statement (i.e., prospectus) prepared in connection with the bond issue. Since that fact is not set forth, apparently a letter ruling was not requested. As to why it wasn't, I don't know. You would have to ask the Developer or guess. Or maybe some of the posters ("Morseiphiles"), who have been assuring everybody not to worry ("Close your eyes, count to ten, and the boogie man will go away"), can actually supply some worthwhile factual information relevant to the discussion.

As to your to your final question as to what could be wrong with the concept of the "right to know"? Again, I don't know. You will have to ask the Morseiphiles. They will certainly have the answer. They know everything about everything, most of them seem to live at their computers and post thousands of times on every conceivable subject, and they seem to think that the way to discuss an issue is by making personal attacks on those with whom they disagree. (Oops, I just realized that I have been provoked into doing the same thing. I think that I will leave the subject of the IRS investigation alone for awhile-- at least until I calm down or there is another development.)
So, congratulations on coining a new word, "Morseiphiles." So, inadvertently you have confirmed my suspicions. I assume that new word means "friends of the Morses" or maybe pro-Morse?

So I assume you are the opposite which means "enemies of Morses or maybe anti-Morse?
Well, at least you admit where you stand.

[Advogado]

So, congratulations on coining a new word, "Morseiphiles." So, inadvertently you have confirmed my suspicions. I assume that new word means "friends of the Morses" or maybe pro-Morse?

So I assume you are the opposite which means "enemies of Morses or maybe anti-Morse?
Well, at least you admit where you stand.
I stand for the truth.

[rubicon]

It is sad to see that the usual suspects, by thoughtless accident or sinister design, continue to tacitly discourage those considering buying or building in the Villages as evidenced in this thread. You have to wonder how many future Villagers have turned away as a direct result of their unsettling, acid speculative rants. Oh....for sure they have an absolute right to their unbalanced suppositions and "right to know" warnings. However, at what point does their myopic conjecture do actual harm to the collective interest of the community as a whole. Open forums are a brilliant exercise in democracy. Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, real consequences and responsibility are sometimes absent from the equation.

I recall that Advogado has offered a clearly defined and articulate overview of the IRS issue. I believe I complemented him on that in this forum. However, I take vigorous exception to his abundant guess work and "what ifs" about an outcome that cannot be predicted because the entire subject is without significant precedent. Accordingly the bombardment of worst case scenario inferences based on incomplete information seems to be the predicate for gloomy cynicism. Others eagerly join the bash and aggressively perpetuate the most negative illusions about the matter in the worst possible terms to vicariously satisfy their "glass half empty" pessimism and/or their desire for an " I told you so outcome". What if The Villages win? With tongue-in-cheek.........do I get to say I told you so? Unfortunately those who based their decision on negative speculative outcomes by amateurs will have lost a great opportunity......while the critics continue to enjoy their own full access to the benefits of being Villagers. That presumes, of course, all the critics actually live in The Villages.

To advocate without doing harm would be a refreshing and welcome alternative.

As I have said before, "To those of you on the fence, be of good cheer and make the move. If we had waited six years ago for the perfect scenario.....we would have missed out on six years of enjoying new friends, great new neighbors, a fabulous lifestyle and what have become the best years of our lives."

Kentucky Blue......boy......did you nail it.....and with a magnificent economy of words....well done.

You are venting your frustration and anger at the wrong people. It should be directed (1) at those responsible for this issue (2) those in authority that have a responsibility to keep residents fully informed of the issues and potential consequences, etc. Instead they continue to obfuscate the entire matter only inviting dialogue as we are witnessing here in this thread.

If they did their job we would not be speaking in "what ifs" and "suppose thats". We would not be admonishing one another instead we would be focusing on plan to protect our interests

As to the special lawyers/bond consul I imagine they issed bonds based on written documents assumed to be completed accurately and in fill. If those making application lied or misled the bond consul then who has the laboring oar? And as much as some won't like this this is another "what if" .

Again, I am not losing sleep over this because one way or another there are various remedies, whatever the initial outcome. :thumbup:

[villagegolfer]

I stand for the truth.

Justice and the American way. (thank-you Superman):eclipsee_gold_cup:


Only kidding, but seriously, it is good that there are the people out there that are looking for possible downsides. I just think most people do not want to be reminded of them. But I remember one of my favorite TV shows from the 50's, Wagon Train. The Wagonmaster (Ward Bond) employed a scout to go ahead and report any activity which might be dangerous or advantageous for the wagons and it's inhabitants.
I hearbye nominate Advogado as our official scout.

[Advogado]

You are venting your frustration and anger at the wrong people. It should be directed (1) at those responsible for this issue (2) those in authority that have a responsibility to keep residents fully informed of the issues and potential consequences, etc. Instead they continue to obfuscate the entire matter only inviting dialogue as we are witnessing here in this thread.

If they did their job we would not be speaking in "what ifs" and "suppose thats". We would not be admonishing one another instead we would be focusing on plan to protect our interests

As to the special lawyers/bond consul I imagine they issed bonds based on written documents assumed to be completed accurately and in fill. If those making application lied or misled the bond consul then who has the laboring oar? And as much as some won't like this this is another "what if" .

Again, I am not losing sleep over this because one way or another there are various remedies, whatever the initial outcome. :thumbup:

I agree, and I too am not losing any sleep over the matter-- primarily because there is not a whole lot that I can think of to do at this point. The question that we residents would face, IF the IRS sustains its position, is How do we enforce the various remedies that you refer to?

Do you have any thoughts as to what we could do, at this point, to, as you put it, "plan to protect our interests"--other than to try to inform people? (As indicated by some of the responses to my posts, informing people ain't that easy to do.)

In thinking about the matter, I continue to conclude that the POA is probably out best bet. The POA is following the matter closely and, as I recall, has written the IRS asking that the IRS be sensitive to the impact of an adverse decision on the residents. The problem that we face as residents is that the POA is not a traditional property-owner's association in that membership is not mandatory, and it has no dues-assessing power.

In other words, the POA, as an organization, may not be very effective in representing the interests of residents in the legal tumult that could ensue if the IRS sustains its position. Remember that the POA had no standing to bring the class-action against the Developer and it had to be brought by individual members of the POA. (The VHA, of course, would be of no help.)

[cabo35]

I'm sorry, but this thread seems to be getting out of hand. To refer to someone who's posts delve into the "what ifs" if the IRS prevails, and calls the poster "sinister" and unbalanced seems pretty insulting to me. I think its human nature to discuss such issues, especially if a negative outcome is going to cost the residents upwards of thousands of dollars per household. We all hope the outcome doesn't cost us, bottom line, but until it is settled all will voice their opinions on each side of the fence. Is it possible we can discuss without the petty name calling?

OK.....I'll play.

You said, "To refer to someone who's posts delve into the "what ifs" if the IRS prevails, and calls the poster "sinister" and unbalanced seems pretty insulting to me."

We must have gone to two different schools together as our respective command and understanding of the King's English differs greatly. It is quite evident that my use of "sinister" was a modifier for the word "design." Further compounding your misrepresentation, is your apparent selective disregard of context. The reference itself was part of an either/or theoretical choice left to the imagination of the reader.

Your interpretation of "unbalanced" is equally misrepresented or misinterpreted by 'accident or design', as my use of the word clearly modified the word "suppositions" and referred specifically to the "balance" of emphasis on the negative as opposed to the positive. It is an impossible stretch to link the phrase to any person being unbalanced.

You said, "Is it possible we can discuss without the petty name calling?" What name calling are you referring to?

I welcome cerebral challenges but distortions of factual representations compromise and degrade whatever valid arguments you may have. It may surprise you to know I have even agreed with you on some points. I view those with opposing views as loyal opposition with the best interests of The Villages at the core of their beliefs. We just have vastly different perspectives on how to achieve those interests.

By the way.... I would love to hear your characterization of "morseiphiles" and its author given your disdain for name calling.

Hey, Rube...........be assured I am neither frustrated or angry. It's not in my nature. I will not deny I enjoy a good debate. While I often have a divergence of opinion with your views, you have made some good points and I enjoy most of our exchanges.

BTW....My repeated reference to you as Hey, Rube is related to the meaning of the phrase. As you probably know circus workers used it as a call for help in a fight or threat from outsiders. Given are history of interaction and the most recent sensitivity to "name calling", I didn't want to distress you. :highfive:

[Taj44]

1

[rubicon]

You are venting your frustration and anger at the wrong people. It should be directed (1) at those responsible for this issue (2) those in authority that have a responsibility to keep residents fully informed of the issues and potential consequences, etc. Instead they continue to obfuscate the entire matter only inviting dialogue as we are witnessing here in this thread.

If they did their job we would not be speaking in "what ifs" and "suppose thats". We would not be admonishing one another instead we would be focusing on plan to protect our interests

As to the special lawyers/bond consul I imagine they issed bonds based on written documents assumed to be completed accurately and in fill. If those making application lied or misled the bond consul then who has the laboring oar? And as much as some won't like this this is another "what if" .

Again, I am not losing sleep over this because one way or another there are various remedies, whatever the initial outcome. :thumbup:

My apology. I got ahead of myself on a portion of this post inreference to the special lawyers, bond consul and the application for bonds. In all application for contracts the issuer releis on information prsented in the application. Information cannot be misleading, concealed or omitted. The application requires a signature that the information contained is true and accurate. If it is not then the contract is invalidated. Usually there i a protracted investigation. There are several expalantions as to why information was omitted, concealed or misleading. It does not mean any there was some sort of sinster plot. It could all be an honest mistake.

[Taj44]

I agree, and I too am not losing any sleep over the matter-- primarily because there is not a whole lot that I can think of to do at this point. The question that we residents would face, IF the IRS sustains its position, is How do we enforce the various remedies that you refer to?

Do you have any thoughts as to what we could do, at this point, to, as you put it, "plan to protect our interests"--other than to try to inform people? (As indicated by some of the responses to my posts, informing people ain't that easy to do.)

In thinking about the matter, I continue to conclude that the POA is probably out best bet. The POA is following the matter closely and, as I recall, has written the IRS asking that the IRS be sensitive to the impact of an adverse decision on the residents. The problem that we face as residents is that the POA is not a traditional property-owner's association in that membership is not mandatory, and it has no dues-assessing power.

In other words, the POA, as an organization, may not be very effective in representing the interests of residents in the legal tumult that could ensue if the IRS sustains its position. Remember that the POA had no standing to bring the class-action against the Developer and it had to be brought by individual members of the POA. (The VHA, of course, would be of no help.)

I agree - the POA is probably a good start. The VHA is generally useless.

[Advogado]

Justice and the American way. (thank-you Superman):eclipsee_gold_cup:


Only kidding, but seriously, it is good that there are the people out there that are looking for possible downsides. I just think most people do not want to be reminded of them. But I remember one of my favorite TV shows from the 50's, Wagon Train. The Wagonmaster (Ward Bond) employed a scout to go ahead and report any activity which might be dangerous or advantageous for the wagons and it's inhabitants.
I hearbye nominate Advogado as our official scout.

Thanks, but I decline the nomination. As I recall Wagon Train, the scout usually ended up on the receiving end of a whole bunch of arrows, and that has been happening to me here.

[rubicon]

I agree - the POA is probably a good start. The VHA is generally useless.

Taj44, then how did the POA settled the amenities lawsuit without obtaining a waiver by every resident north of 466? and why would the Developer turn over $43,000,000? He settled with each individual named as a plaintiff to that suit and paid the attorney with a gold mine.

People pay an anuual fee to belong to this organization and it would seem tey have the legal ability to file a class action suit, in this case an intervention.
Good discussion for a POA meeting.

[rubicon]

OK.....I'll play.

You said, "To refer to someone who's posts delve into the "what ifs" if the IRS prevails, and calls the poster "sinister" and unbalanced seems pretty insulting to me."

We must have gone to two different schools together as our respective command and understanding of the King's English differs greatly. It is quite evident that my use of "sinister" was a modifier for the word "design." Further compounding your misrepresentation, is your apparent selective disregard of context. The reference itself was part of an either/or theoretical choice left to the imagination of the reader.

Your interpretation of "unbalanced" is equally misrepresented or misinterpreted by 'accident or design', as my use of the word clearly modified the word "suppositions" and referred specifically to the "balance" of emphasis on the negative as opposed to the positive. It is an impossible stretch to link the phrase to any person being unbalanced.

You said, "Is it possible we can discuss without the petty name calling?" What name calling are you referring to?

I welcome cerebral challenges but distortions of factual representations compromise and degrade whatever valid arguments you may have. It may surprise you to know I have even agreed with you on some points. I view those with opposing views as loyal opposition with the best interests of The Villages at the core of their beliefs. We just have vastly different perspectives on how to achieve those interests.

By the way.... I would love to hear your characterization of "morseiphiles" and its author given your disdain for name calling.

Hey, Rube...........be assured I am neither frustrated or angry. It's not in my nature. I will not deny I enjoy a good debate. While I often have a divergence of opinion with your views, you have made some good points and I enjoy most of our exchanges.

BTW....My repeated reference to you as Hey, Rube is related to the meaning of the phrase. As you probably know circus workers used it as a call for help in a fight or threat from outsiders. Given are history of interaction and the most recent sensitivity to "name calling", I didn't want to distress you. :highfive:

Rubicon means once crossed irrevocably committed and is derived from Julius Cesar's crossing of the Rubico river in 49BC which was viewed as an act of war and thus irrevocably committed him:D So no offense taken

[villagegolfer]

Thanks, but I decline the nomination. As I recall Wagon Train, the scout usually ended up on the receiving end of a whole bunch of arrows, and that has been happening to me here.
Yea, but good old Flint McCullough always survived to be on the show the following week.:D

[villagegolfer]

OK.....I'll play.

You said, "To refer to someone who's posts delve into the "what ifs" if the IRS prevails, and calls the poster "sinister" and unbalanced seems pretty insulting to me."

We must have gone to two different schools together as our respective command and understanding of the King's English differs greatly. It is quite evident that my use of "sinister" was a modifier for the word "design." Further compounding your misrepresentation, is your apparent selective disregard of context. The reference itself was part of an either/or theoretical choice left to the imagination of the reader.

Your interpretation of "unbalanced" is equally misrepresented or misinterpreted by 'accident or design', as my use of the word clearly modified the word "suppositions" and referred specifically to the "balance" of emphasis on the negative as opposed to the positive. It is an impossible stretch to link the phrase to any person being unbalanced.

You said, "Is it possible we can discuss without the petty name calling?" What name calling are you referring to?

I welcome cerebral challenges but distortions of factual representations compromise and degrade whatever valid arguments you may have. It may surprise you to know I have even agreed with you on some points. I view those with opposing views as loyal opposition with the best interests of The Villages at the core of their beliefs. We just have vastly different perspectives on how to achieve those interests.

By the way.... I would love to hear your characterization of "morseiphiles" and its author given your disdain for name calling.

Hey, Rube...........be assured I am neither frustrated or angry. It's not in my nature. I will not deny I enjoy a good debate. While I often have a divergence of opinion with your views, you have made some good points and I enjoy most of our exchanges.

BTW....My repeated reference to you as Hey, Rube is related to the meaning of the phrase. As you probably know circus workers used it as a call for help in a fight or threat from outsiders. Given are history of interaction and the most recent sensitivity to "name calling", I didn't want to distress you. :highfive:

Do not think you will see it.

[chuckster]

It would be nice if, instead of just telling me that I have a lousy attitude, you would educate me by telling me exactly where my analysis is wrong. The IRS investigation is indeed complicated. But I think that it behooves residents to try to understand basically what is going on and has gone on rather than to just pretend that the potential for some serious problems does not exist.

Incidentally, the "Engineer's Report" referred to in the Daily Sun article that provoked my first post in this thread still has not appeared in the districtgov.org website. Let's hope it does soon since it will probably throw some much-needed light on the latest developments in this saga.

In regards to post #85, I was referring to "Shadows" postings on the former POA site, didn't know that you also posted there. Did you also use the name "shadow"? Now I am curious.

[cabo35]

Do not think you will see it.

It depends on where we look for it.:read::highfive:

[CarGuys]

As my wife and I were following the Lewis and Clark trail on one of our 4 7k mile Harley trips. I sure did think of those covered wagons. As we crested Peaks in snow spitting temperatures down horrific descents to the warmth below or should I say desert,

Yea I thought I was pretty cool or crazy for taking two wheels from Syracuse to Astoria Oregon and back.

Made me humble, I felt respect for those that went before us years ago! Covered Wagons uhh daaa had no ABS Stability Control AC Heater lumbar support seats or four wheel Disc Power Brakes!

Of course in another perspective here we are just a posting away and they never did get a chance to decide retirement, most were all dead! As my Dr's look me over for my complaints I have already lived longer than most settlers who were dead from something by age 15-30! Their idea of a village was sure different that ours today.

So This February we will be down to start the bleeding, I mean building process.

And yes I am disappointed that Sales has no problem with a take it or leave it on you home, lot , Bonds Taxes Fees on and on and on! But not a peep on a IRS investigations. Not even a " Don't worry you will be just fine about it atta boy!

So I leave all you all tonight with a statement that was given to me by a now happily retired mentor teacher of mine.

Some of you may have read or heard this. I find it fitting after deciding what to do about moving to a place that we have found very comfortable. Doesn't mean this IRS thing does not make me question the future?

Ignorance can be fixed with Education
However Stupidity takes GREAT SALESMANSHIP!

Good night and thanks for your “Village" education and support.

Herv

[graciegirl]

As my wife and I were following the Lewis and Clark trail on one of our 4 7k mile Harley trips. I sure did think of those covered wagons. As we crested Peaks in snow spitting temperatures down horrific descents to the warmth below or should I say desert,

Yea I thought I was pretty cool or crazy for taking two wheels from Syracuse to Astoria Oregon and back.

Made me humble, I felt respect for those that went before us years ago! Covered Wagons uhh daaa had no ABS Stability Control AC Heater lumbar support seats or four wheel Disc Power Brakes!

Of course in another perspective here we are just a posting away and they never did get a chance to decide retirement, most were all dead! As my Dr's look me over for my complaints I have already lived longer than most settlers who were dead from something by age 15-30! Their idea of a village was sure different that ours today.

So This February we will be down to start the bleeding, I mean building process.

And yes I am disappointed that Sales has no problem with a take it or leave it on you home, lot , Bonds Taxes Fees on and on and on! But not a peep on a IRS investigations. Not even a " Don't worry you will be just fine about it atta boy!

So I leave all you all tonight with a statement that was given to me by a now happily retired mentor teacher of mine.

Some of you may have read or heard this. I find it fitting after deciding what to do about moving to a place that we have found very comfortable. Doesn't mean this IRS thing does not make me question the future?

Ignorance can be fixed with Education
However Stupidity takes GREAT SALESMANSHIP!

Good night and thanks for your “Village" education and support.

Herv

Throughout the villages the "water features" on the planning maps say
"May or may not hold water".

Just because it isn't pointed out, or brought up about the IRS issue, doesn't mean that the developer and the agents representing the developer are unethical.

The IRS drama may or may not hold water.

Enjoy every day in The Villages.

[JimJoe]

Throughout the villages the "water features" on the planning maps say
"May or may not hold water".

Just because it isn't pointed out, or brought up about the IRS issue, doesn't mean that the developer and the agents representing the developer are unethical.

The IRS drama may or may not hold water.

Enjoy every day in The Villages.

Gracie: I agree with you completely but I still ask my question.
If they notify you that the water features "may or may not hold water", why not notify you of the IRS issue? Villagers and wannabees have a right to know the facts, so they can make informed decisions.

[The Shadow]

Gracie: I agree with you completely but I still ask my question.
If they notify you that the water features "may or may not hold water", why not notify you of the IRS issue? Villagers and wannabees have a right to know the facts, so they can make informed decisions.

Well this proves one thing, you type faster than I do in the early morning.

[JimJoe]

Well this proves one thing, you type faster than I do in the early morning.

or your dog walks slower than mine.
JJ

[Russ_Boston]

Gracie: I agree with you completely but I still ask my question.
If they notify you that the water features "may or may not hold water", why not notify you of the IRS issue? Villagers and wannabees have a right to know the facts, so they can make informed decisions.

They only inform you of the water feature if your land is on the water feature. Since the IRS issue is just a ? at this point there is no obligation since they can't really tell you anything.

[collie1228]

Although I am very concerned about the IRS issue as it could keep me from buying when I plan to next year, I agree with Russ and don't see where the developer has an obligation to disclose anything - yet. As I understand it, the IRS sent three "Notices of Proposed Issues" in January 2009 challenging the tax-exempt status of the bonds. While there has been some exchange of information between the IRS and the issuer of the bonds, to my knowledge there hasn't been any formal accusations; only an offer by the IRS to settle, which the CDD rejected. If the IRS takes the issue to tax court (or to whatever formal venue the next step would would be), then there probably should be some disclosures made to prospective buyers. But not yet.

[TOTV Team]

This thread has generated much interest and discussion which is great! I have friends and family that follow this closely that live in The Villages. I'd like to encourage participants to keep discussions focused on the topic vs. member comments as we all want to show respect for everyone on the site and their feedback even if we have a different perspective.

[Annabelle]

Advogado, Taj44, Rubicon, Shadow, Leafpoker, and Kentucky Blue, thank you for sharing your thoughtful insightful and intelligent posts. I hope that you all will continue to keep those of us who do not live in TV abreast of the current events surrounding this matter. The IRS investigation is a serious issue and I will not even consider buying a home in TV until this issue has been resolved. For anyone unfamiliar with the IRS investigation please read Lauren Ritchie’s columns at the Orlando Sentinel (online). She has done a superb job of covering this story.

Annabelle,
PS Leafpoker, who the heck is Troy?!!!

[JimJoe]

They only inform you of the water feature if your land is on the water feature. Since the IRS issue is just a ? at this point there is no obligation since they can't really tell you anything.

Are you serious? The IRS issue affects every villager because their amenities fees and the amenities themselves are at issue and could be affected by a negative outcome. I am saying they should be informed, not that I am convinced YET they must be informed legally. All I know is that if I bought a house in TV and found out about the IRS issue afterwards, I would be upset that no one told me, especially if an adverse ruling significantly affected the amenities.
One simple question for you. After you first heard about it, did you take the time to become informed before you bought in TV. I think I know the answer and you know the reason you did.
JJ

[The Shadow]

Although I am very concerned about the IRS issue as it could keep me from buying when I plan to next year, I agree with Russ and don't see where the developer has an obligation to disclose anything - yet. As I understand it, the IRS sent three "Notices of Proposed Issues" in January 2009 challenging the tax-exempt status of the bonds. While there has been some exchange of information between the IRS and the issuer of the bonds, to my knowledge there hasn't been any formal accusations; only an offer by the IRS to settle, which the CDD rejected. If the IRS takes the issue to tax court (or to whatever formal venue the next step would would be), then there probably should be some disclosures made to prospective buyers. But not yet.
there hasn't been any formal accusations; only an offer by the IRS to settle

What?

Is that like saying you are going to jail for 5 years and by the way you are not accused of anything?

I give up, I’m going back to studying porn.

[Skybo]

The IRS issue affects every villager because their amenities fees and the amenities themselves are at issue and could be affected by a negative outcome. JJ

Please explain to me how the amenities and/or the amenity fees might be affected. I’m not being argumentative...I'm really just trying to understand this.

[JimJoe]

Please explain to me how the amenities and/or the amenity fees might be affected. I’m not being argumentative...I'm really just trying to understand this.

As I understand it, the IRS is saying the bonds used by the district did not qualify as tax free bonds for various reasons. If the IRS prevails the district could be responsible for the loss of tax revenue on the bonds, penalties and possibly redeeming bonds... because they received the benefit of the lower cost of the bonds sold as tax free. If they have to pay the IRS it could be from the amenities fees or selling amenities because that is the source of their income and it was amenities that the bonds were used for. I am not aware of any other way the district could pay. I suppose it is possible the district could sue someone later to try to recoup their losses. If someone knows of another way the district could pay, please let me know.
jj

[CarGuys]

And so are about a zillion other people. I read the Article in the Orlando Paper. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-villages-bond-di20100901,0,1664810.column

Daaaaaa I'm still confused. Probably time for Admin to shut this mess down put it all to rest untill someone can research and POST the facts not feelings. Sorta like this- Lets see

1: We were audited
(Internal Revenue Service agent conducting the review of $355.4 million in outstanding bonds issued by the Village Center and the Sumter Landing community development )

2: IRS made Village mad

3: Village made IRS mad
Villagers have paid mucho money out of thir dues for legal fees to make IRS even Madder! (And it touched off a new set of skirmishes in what has become an expensive battle — already $209,000 spent in mostly lawyer fees)

5: We Post on and on for years and no one figures it out anyway.

(So, there you have it. Nobody's position has changed much, and the dispute is just humming along through the system.

Millions of dollars are still at stake, and the future for homeowners in The Villages is no more clear when this investigation started several years ago.)

This is starting to feel like a huge financial mess. And TV are right now paying for all the legal battles out of their pockets not the ones who started this mess.

[nitehawk]

Who is Laura Richards??

for all of you Laura Richards haters - if it were not for her original articles we would nothing if anything about the irs tax-exempt bond investigation - this is probably the first mention of the investigation in the daily sun. i just looked back at some of old post on Laura Rchards -- she is a villager hater - she is jealous - she is not a journalist - on an on - well i would like to thank Laura Richards - i dont think anyone would know there was an investigation before her article - more kool-aid mom

Advogado, Taj44, Rubicon, Shadow, Leafpoker, and Kentucky Blue, thank you for sharing your thoughtful insightful and intelligent posts. I hope that you all will continue to keep those of us who do not live in TV abreast of the current events surrounding this matter. The IRS investigation is a serious issue and I will not even consider buying a home in TV until this issue has been resolved. For anyone unfamiliar with the IRS investigation please read Lauren Ritchie’s columns at the Orlando Sentinel (online). She has done a superb job of covering this story.

Annabelle,
PS Leafpoker, who the heck is Troy?!!!

I guess the quote "Who is Laura Richards??" was suppose to be a joke???
Where else do we learn about the investigation ??? Not the daily sun for sure

[graciegirl]

I guess the quote "Who is Laura Richards??" was suppose to be a joke???
Where else do we learn about the investigation ??? Not the daily sun for sure

Nitehawk.

The journalist for the Orlando Sentinel is Lauren Ritchie.

[Larry Wilson]

Advogado, Taj44, Rubicon, Shadow, Leafpoker, and Kentucky Blue, thank you for sharing your thoughtful insightful and intelligent posts. I hope that you all will continue to keep those of us who do not live in TV abreast of the current events surrounding this matter. The IRS investigation is a serious issue and I will not even consider buying a home in TV until this issue has been resolved. For anyone unfamiliar with the IRS investigation please read Lauren Ritchie’s columns at the Orlando Sentinel (online). She has done a superb job of covering this story.

Annabelle,
PS Leafpoker, who the heck is Troy?!!!

Thanks for expressing some support for those posters.

[ilovetv]

Excellent post by Cabo35.....which I now see he has removed. The link he had there tells everything we need to know about Lauren Ritchie's motives and Trickle-Up Poverty "solution" she doesn't have the guts to say flat out is her goal.

It was obvious from the very first Sentinel article I read linked on TOTV, by Lauren Ritchie, that she has a giant political axe to grind......and is anti-business, anti-development and anti-anything a Villager--who worked all their life, paid their taxes, lived within their means, thinks they pay enough taxes already, and paid cash for their home--might say.

The link did not work when I clicked it in Cabo's post, but on the page where it says "Oops...article not found", there is a Search box to use. I found it by putting the tersm "Ritchie" and "hypocrite" in the search box (don't use quote marks). The article is from March, 2010. Here is the link again...see if it works.
http://lakecountygov.info/2010/03/31/lauren-ritchie-hypocrite-4/

By the way, Lauren Ritchie and the writer of that column in the blog "Right side of the Lake" are lightyears apart in writing and communicating ability. It was an absolute treat to read the blog column writer's command of language and comprehension of concepts involved.

[RVRoadie]

A couple of things. First, what scandal. It is clear that the Florida Legislature passed laws to allow CDDs to qualify to sell tax free municiple bonds. Did the developer do it exactly right? Maybe, maybe not. A scandal, or a technical violation of a complex set of State and Federal laws.

Did the CDDs and VCDDs pay too much for the amenities? Maybe, maybe not. So what. The deal works and we get the best amenities in all of Florida for the lowest price of anything comparable. Add in all the defunct CDDs around the state, and things are looking pretty good here.

So, run some numbers. Worst case, about $400 million in bonds over 8 years at maybe 6% get disqualified. That is $192 million in total interest. Lost taxes to the IRS at 33% is $63 million. Make it $100 million with interest and penalties. Not sure how many homes in The Villages, buy say 85,000 at build out. That is about $1,200 per home. Worst case, which is not likely to happen.

With a $100 million tax bill, maybe someone will give Tax Masters a call.

[villagegolfer]

Excellent post by Cabo35.....which I now see he has removed. The link he had there tells everything we need to know about Lauren Ritchie's motives and Trickle-Up Poverty "solution" she doesn't have the guts to say flat out is her goal.

It was obvious from the very first Sentinel article I read linked on TOTV, by Lauren Ritchie, that she has a giant political axe to grind......and is anti-business, anti-development and anti-anything a Villager--who worked all their life, paid their taxes, lived within their means, thinks they pay enough taxes already, and paid cash for their home--might say.

The link did not work when I clicked it in Cabo's post, but on the page where it says "Oops...article not found", there is a Search box to use. I found it by putting the tersm "Ritchie" and "hypocrite" in the search box (don't use quote marks). The article is from March, 2010. Here is the link again...see if it works.
http://lakecountygov.info/2010/03/31/lauren-ritchie-hypocrite-4/

By the way, Lauren Ritchie and the writer of that column in the blog "Right side of the Lake" are lightyears apart in writing and communicating ability. It was an absolute treat to read the blog column writer's command of language and comprehension of concepts involved.
Thanks for the link ilovetv. I think it should be mandatory reading for all the Village bashers that post here at TOTV. (and everyone else, for that matter)

[misky]

A couple of things. First, what scandal. It is clear that the Florida Legislature passed laws to allow CDDs to qualify to sell tax free municiple bonds. Did the developer do it exactly right? Maybe, maybe not. A scandal, or a technical violation of a complex set of State and Federal laws.

Did the CDDs and VCDDs pay too much for the amenities? Maybe, maybe not. So what. The deal works and we get the best amenities in all of Florida for the lowest price of anything comparable. Add in all the defunct CDDs around the state, and things are looking pretty good here.

So, run some numbers. Worst case, about $400 million in bonds over 8 years at maybe 6% get disqualified. That is $192 million in total interest. Lost taxes to the IRS at 33% is $63 million. Make it $100 million with interest and penalties. Not sure how many homes in The Villages, buy say 85,000 at build out. That is about $1,200 per home. Worst case, which is not likely to happen.

With a $100 million tax bill, maybe someone will give Tax Masters a call.

Finally something that makes sense! I bought a home in 2010 knowing full well about this issue. I ran a quick #'s calculation also and realized it's not a significant # so I bought. And it will probably never happen and if it does, at $1,200, I would still buy.

[cabo35]

Here we go again with Lauren Ritchie. To her credit, she has stated that she is not a reporter.....she is a columnist unencumbered by the constraints of balance and objectivity. The "usual suspects" frequently cite her as a credible source for all things related to The Villages. Therein lies the rub. I respectfully disagree, especially in matters where important decisions are at stake. For balance, you should read the attached link that offers another perspective. The context has nothing to do with The Villages, but, stunningly, suggests a pattern and agenda based on anti-development and anti-big business advocacy. It is a sometimes tedious, long read, but offers eye-opening details you have not and will never see posted here by the usual suspects. With your indulgence, I will attempt to connect what may seem like abstract forays, to the dynamics of the IRS issue. Of course I am an amateur and it's just my opinion.

http://lakecountygov.info/2010/03/31/lauren-ritchie-hypocrite-4/

For starters, the Lake County Government blog cited, attributes this revealing gem to Ritchie, "Amendment 4 would stop companies from swooping down in Lake County just to make a profit and it would encourage only local people to do business here."

Stop companies from swooping down? Only locals?

In an earlier post, I said, "For balance, I guess if I was born and raised here, I may have some resentment about what progress has taken away. A quiet, idyllic countryside dotted with watermelon patches, horse farms, cattle grazing peacefully and fishing holes that never heard the whine of an outboard motor. A lifestyle that insulates you from car, truck and traffic noises. A lifestyle that keeps you from the pollution of progress. Damn Walt Disney and Gary Morse."

Another interesting assertion in the story is as follows:

Finally, Lauren Ritchie’s actual bark doesn’t match her pen’s bite. Her presentation at the Chamber Alliance meeting was that of a mealy mouthed scriber who couldn’t put two reasonable arguments together. After the meeting, Alliance Members said that when Ritchie was asked to speak to the group, she asked if there was going to be a debate on Amendment #4. Ritchie was okay with a debate format, as long as she wasn’t debating Don Magruder, Chairman of Citizens for Better Government, L.L.C. After hearing the comment, Magruder said, “Lauren Ritchie hides behind innuendo and lies on most of her arguments. The reason she is scared of an honest debate with me is because her ideas are devoid of reason – but any place, any time she would like to debate – I welcome the opportunity.”

The author in some detail, describes Ritchie as an anti-development and anti-growth "zealot", a hypocrite and links her to political interests. You will have to read the details and draw your own conclusions. In fairness to Lauren, keep in mind both sides are driving agendas. This is hardball stuff.

The writer, no shrinking violet, says "Lauren Ritchie is so far out in the black hole of the universe that it's really hard to understand how she can write such nonsense. If you've ever questioned whether Ritchie tells the truth, then this confirms one real important fact - she's a liar."

Permit me to digress briefly as I recall a Ritchie hatchet headline. We Villagers are such a "greedy" lot.......according to our new best friend...Lauren Ritchie.

The headline story screamed, Greedy Villages fires first salvo in water war .....Commentary- LakefrontMarch 11, 2007|By Lauren Ritchie, Sentinel Columnist

Starting to see a pattern?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-11/news/LRITCHIE11_1_reclaimed-water-drinking-water-villages

Where is the balance in Ritchie's commentary? Where are the articles on the positive economical impacts The Villages have had on the region, the new schools, commerce, hospitals, jobs, and medical facilities that came with Villages development? Where are the articles about the wonderful volunteerism and charitable contributions Villagers, including so many of my friends and neighbors, have made to the benefit of Ritchie's "locals"? Have Ritchie's "locals" enjoyed the shopping and entertainment that is available to them? Where is the balance in her commentary?

I noted in an earlier post that "She (Ritchie) lost significant credibility with many when in an early article, she admonished with cavalier arrogance and unbridled presumptuousness, "And it is time for homeowners to worry less about their tee time and marvelous activities and more about their future property values and financial liability."

Give special attention to the headline below. Is it accurate and truthful or wishful thinking? Her admonishment is at the end.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qphnzad29q8J:articles.orlandosentin el.com/2009-03-04/news/lritchie04_1_bonds-irs-villages/4+Lauren+Ritchie+it+is+time+for+homeowners+to+worr y+less&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Like many others, I didn't work for fifty years, raise a family and serve my country to have Lauren Ritchie tell me what I should or should not worry about.

Back to the Lake County blog. Before I comment further, let me say that while professionally presented, this blog is just that, a blog of someone's opinion. Like Lauren's blog, it will never win a Pulitzer Prize for journalistic integrity and objectivity. As I previously stated, it should be viewed through the prism of skepticism. Objectivity needs to be factored into the equation and agendas need to recognized. However, what is noteworthy to me is the similarity in attack styles by the paper and its columnist. If you suspend belief briefly, replace the Lake County targets with the Villages and Morse, after a full careful read of the link, you may realize the attack tactics are eerily similar if not clones. Striking at least. The same anti-development and anti-growth disposition is evident. A thorough, patient read of the article with a little follow-up research reveals a lot.

Once again, "I cannot attest to the claims made by the article." What I do see are stunning similarities in attack styles that suggest and anti-business, anti-growth and anti-development agenda by a columnist who could have a biased interest on issues related to The Villages. Those agendas are arguable and stand or fall on their own merits.

I agree with those who hold that the IRS issue should be monitored. It would be helpful if there was more professional reporting and less agenda driven speculation on the subject......especially speculation that relies on commentary instead of facts.....and finally........that is the point of my excursion into what some may consider a hijack of the thread.

I respectfully request that before commenting, you read the articles in their entirety and make your own evaluations.

That said.....I have retreated to the bunker to brace for incoming. Yes...I have a rich, full life beyond the keyboard. This is what happens when your waiting for a contractor and your wife is out of town. :posting: I hope the new admin doesn't count keystrokes.

I also hope the links open properly.....I had a little trouble at first.

Have a great day in The Villages.

[The Great Fumar]

CABO 35..... What a great summation of the entire subject........probably the best I've read so far..
Keep up the good work and don't stay in your bunker to long as we need your analytical thoughts.

Keep your helmet on , I think INCOMING is immanent...:thumbup:

fumar

[Harry Gilbert]

A couple of things. First, what scandal. It is clear that the Florida Legislature passed laws to allow CDDs to qualify to sell tax free municiple bonds. Did the developer do it exactly right? Maybe, maybe not. A scandal, or a technical violation of a complex set of State and Federal laws.

Did the CDDs and VCDDs pay too much for the amenities? Maybe, maybe not. So what. The deal works and we get the best amenities in all of Florida for the lowest price of anything comparable. Add in all the defunct CDDs around the state, and things are looking pretty good here.

So, run some numbers. Worst case, about $400 million in bonds over 8 years at maybe 6% get disqualified. That is $192 million in total interest. Lost taxes to the IRS at 33% is $63 million. Make it $100 million with interest and penalties. Not sure how many homes in The Villages, buy say 85,000 at build out. That is about $1,200 per home. Worst case, which is not likely to happen.

With a $100 million tax bill, maybe someone will give Tax Masters a call.

The 2010 census shows 35,587 housing units in the villages.
http://www.ledgerdata.com/census/florida/the-villages-cdp/71625/
anyone know what the total buildout number is expected to be?

[rubicon]

Here we go again with Lauren Ritchie. To her credit, she has stated that she is not a reporter.....she is a columnist unencumbered by the constraints of balance and objectivity. The "usual suspects" frequently cite her as a credible source for all things related to The Villages. Therein lies the rub. I respectfully disagree, especially in matters where important decisions are at stake. For balance, you should read the attached link that offers another perspective. The context has nothing to do with The Villages, but, stunningly, suggests a pattern and agenda based on anti-development and anti-big business advocacy. It is a sometimes tedious, long read, but offers eye-opening details you have not and will never see posted here by the usual suspects. With your indulgence, I will attempt to connect what may seem like abstract forays, to the dynamics of the IRS issue. Of course I am an amateur and it's just my opinion.

http://lakecountygov.info/2010/03/31/lauren-ritchie-hypocrite-4/

For starters, the Lake County Government blog cited, attributes this revealing gem to Ritchie, "Amendment 4 would stop companies from swooping down in Lake County just to make a profit and it would encourage only local people to do business here."

Stop companies from swooping down? Only locals?

In an earlier post, I said, "For balance, I guess if I was born and raised here, I may have some resentment about what progress has taken away. A quiet, idyllic countryside dotted with watermelon patches, horse farms, cattle grazing peacefully and fishing holes that never heard the whine of an outboard motor. A lifestyle that insulates you from car, truck and traffic noises. A lifestyle that keeps you from the pollution of progress. Damn Walt Disney and Gary Morse."

Another interesting assertion in the story is as follows:

Finally, Lauren Ritchie’s actual bark doesn’t match her pen’s bite. Her presentation at the Chamber Alliance meeting was that of a mealy mouthed scriber who couldn’t put two reasonable arguments together. After the meeting, Alliance Members said that when Ritchie was asked to speak to the group, she asked if there was going to be a debate on Amendment #4. Ritchie was okay with a debate format, as long as she wasn’t debating Don Magruder, Chairman of Citizens for Better Government, L.L.C. After hearing the comment, Magruder said, “Lauren Ritchie hides behind innuendo and lies on most of her arguments. The reason she is scared of an honest debate with me is because her ideas are devoid of reason – but any place, any time she would like to debate – I welcome the opportunity.”

The author in some detail, describes Ritchie as an anti-development and anti-growth "zealot", a hypocrite and links her to political interests. You will have to read the details and draw your own conclusions. In fairness to Lauren, keep in mind both sides are driving agendas. This is hardball stuff.

The writer, no shrinking violet, says "Lauren Ritchie is so far out in the black hole of the universe that it's really hard to understand how she can write such nonsense. If you've ever questioned whether Ritchie tells the truth, then this confirms one real important fact - she's a liar."

Permit me to digress briefly as I recall a Ritchie hatchet headline. We Villagers are such a "greedy" lot.......according to our new best friend...Lauren Ritchie.

The headline story screamed, Greedy Villages fires first salvo in water war .....Commentary- LakefrontMarch 11, 2007|By Lauren Ritchie, Sentinel Columnist

Starting to see a pattern?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-11/news/LRITCHIE11_1_reclaimed-water-drinking-water-villages

Where is the balance in Ritchie's commentary? Where are the articles on the positive economical impacts The Villages have had on the region, the new schools, commerce, hospitals, jobs, and medical facilities that came with Villages development? Where are the articles about the wonderful volunteerism and charitable contributions Villagers, including so many of my friends and neighbors, have made to the benefit of Ritchie's "locals"? Have Ritchie's "locals" enjoyed the shopping and entertainment that is available to them? Where is the balance in her commentary?

I noted in an earlier post that "She (Ritchie) lost significant credibility with many when in an early article, she admonished with cavalier arrogance and unbridled presumptuousness, "And it is time for homeowners to worry less about their tee time and marvelous activities and more about their future property values and financial liability."

Give special attention to the headline below. Is it accurate and truthful or wishful thinking? Her admonishment is at the end.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qphnzad29q8J:articles.orlandosentin el.com/2009-03-04/news/lritchie04_1_bonds-irs-villages/4+Lauren+Ritchie+it+is+time+for+homeowners+to+worr y+less&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Like many others, I didn't work for fifty years, raise a family and serve my country to have Lauren Ritchie tell me what I should or should not worry about.

Back to the Lake County blog. Before I comment further, let me say that while professionally presented, this blog is just that, a blog of someone's opinion. Like Lauren's blog, it will never win a Pulitzer Prize for journalistic integrity and objectivity. As I previously stated, it should be viewed through the prism of skepticism. Objectivity needs to be factored into the equation and agendas need to recognized. However, what is noteworthy to me is the similarity in attack styles by the paper and its columnist. If you suspend belief briefly, replace the Lake County targets with the Villages and Morse, after a full careful read of the link, you may realize the attack tactics are eerily similar if not clones. Striking at least. The same anti-development and anti-growth disposition is evident. A thorough, patient read of the article with a little follow-up research reveals a lot.

Once again, "I cannot attest to the claims made by the article." What I do see are stunning similarities in attack styles that suggest and anti-business, anti-growth and anti-development agenda by a columnist who could have a biased interest on issues related to The Villages. Those agendas are arguable and stand or fall on their own merits.

I agree with those who hold that the IRS issue should be monitored. It would be helpful if there was more professional reporting and less agenda driven speculation on the subject......especially speculation that relies on commentary instead of facts.....and finally........that is the point of my excursion into what some may consider a hijack of the thread.

I respectfully request that before commenting, you read the articles in their entirety and make your own evaluations.

That said.....I have retreated to the bunker to brace for incoming. Yes...I have a rich, full life beyond the keyboard. This is what happens when your waiting for a contractor and your wife is out of town. :posting: I hope the new admin doesn't count keystrokes.

I also hope the links open properly.....I had a little trouble at first.

Have a great day in The Villages.

Based on the above you seem to have a great dislike for Lauren Ritchie. Why? However when the POA settled the amenities lawsuit no one but Lauren Ritchie reported that the 5 plaintiffs settled separately and that the plaintiff attorney (POA Atty) made over $6million dollars for 15 months work. this information forced a special meeting by the POA in the middle of march 2008. Why did the POA Village Voice, Daily sun neglect to explain these settlements? That was the basis for the special meeting. Had Ritchie not reported this residents would have never known about those settlements. However after the fact they would deny this

When the IRS filed its petitions in January 2009 again it was Lauren Ritchie who reported the details of Proposed Notice of Issues. Again forcing the POA, Village Voice and Daily Sun to make mention which was all that they did by the way.

So say what you will or will what you say but it appears Lauren Ritchie is doing a better job of watch dog for the residents of The villages then the POA, Village voice or Daily Sun

I could cite other issues of concern to residents that she advanced way ahead of watch dog but to what point.

Bottome line I don't care what Lauren Ritchie's motives every report in her columns have been accurate as to the facts. so I view her as a blessing for residents and one reason why I subscribe to the Orlando Sentinel

[Harry Gilbert]

As a potential buyer this issue is a consideration. A deal breaker? only time will tell.

But I'm curious. Is there a list of the buyers of the bonds?

[Russ_Boston]

I will not even consider buying a home in TV until this issue has been resolved.

That's your choice but I just felt, for us, the possible $ imposition on the basic resident, if any, would be small and not worth the risk of waiting for the IRS to rule.

But again, your choice.

[Russ_Boston]

The 2010 census shows 35,587 housing units in the villages.
http://www.ledgerdata.com/census/florida/the-villages-cdp/71625/
anyone know what the total buildout number is expected to be?

I saw somewhere that the average per houshold is 1.87 people. SO if they say eventual 110,000 residents that would be 58,500 homes give or take.

[Mikeod]

So the belief is, if the IRS successfully rules against the district with the resulting fines and expenses related to the recalling and reissuing of the bonds, that the Morse's will sit back, let the district take the hit, watch the community amenities be sold or scaled back, watch their reputation take a big hit, watch sales of new homes plummet, watch the value of the championship courses and retail buildings disappear, accept the inevitable lawsuits from residents, and do nothing. Really?

[Russ_Boston]

Are you serious? The IRS issue affects every villager because their amenities fees and the amenities themselves are at issue and could be affected by a negative outcome. I am saying they should be informed, not that I am convinced YET they must be informed legally. All I know is that if I bought a house in TV and found out about the IRS issue afterwards, I would be upset that no one told me, especially if an adverse ruling significantly affected the amenities.
One simple question for you. After you first heard about it, did you take the time to become informed before you bought in TV. I think I know the answer and you know the reason you did.
JJ

Yes I was serious. Remember I'm talking about legal reasoning, not being nice. I wouldn't disclose if I didn't have to. You might be upset but they are under no obligation.

Yes, I knew about the IRS thing and as I said ealier I don't feel it will impact us greatly. But that's just my read on the situation, I may be wrong. It didn't rise high enough on my concerns list to be a deal breaker.

[JimJoe]

Yes I was serious. Remember I'm talking about legal reasoning, not being nice. I wouldn't disclose if I didn't have to. You might be upset but they are under no obligation.

Yes, I knew about the IRS thing and as I said ealier I don't feel it will impact us greatly. But that's just my read on the situation, I may be wrong. It didn't rise high enough on my concerns list to be a deal breaker.

My point was that when you found out about the IRS issue you had a chance to research the issue AND YOU DID before you decided to buy in TV. I think everyone should have that opportunity. Don't you agree?

[Russ_Boston]

My point was that when you found out about the IRS issue you had a chance to research the issue AND YOU DID before you decided to buy in TV. I think everyone should have that opportunity. Don't you agree?

Yes they should. But don't expect TV development to tell them was my point. That's why TOTV was (and is) so valuable to me.

[nitehawk]

Based on the above you seem to have a great dislike for Lauren Ritchie. Why? However when the POA settled the amenities lawsuit no one but Lauren Ritchie reported that the 5 plaintiffs settled separately and that the plaintiff attorney (POA Atty) made over $6million dollars for 15 months work. this information forced a special meeting by the POA in the middle of march 2008. Why did the POA Village Voice, Daily sun neglect to explain these settlements? That was the basis for the special meeting. Had Ritchie not reported this residents would have never known about those settlements. However after the fact they would deny this

When the IRS filed its petitions in January 2009 again it was Lauren Ritchie who reported the details of Proposed Notice of Issues. Again forcing the POA, Village Voice and Daily Sun to make mention which was all that they did by the way.

So say what you will or will what you say but it appears Lauren Ritchie is doing a better job of watch dog for the residents of The villages then the POA, Village voice or Daily Sun

I could cite other issues of concern to residents that she advanced way ahead of watch dog but to what point.

Bottome line I don't care what Lauren Ritchie's motives every report in her columns have been accurate as to the facts. so I view her as a blessing for residents and one reason why I subscribe to the Orlando Sentinel

:BigApplause: Thank You :BigApplause:

[Advogado]

FYI: The "engineer's report" alluded to (but not described) in the Daily Sun article that provoked this thread is now publicly available: http://districtgov.org/images/IRSupdates/20110727-IRSUpdate.pdf

The conclusion of the report is that the value of the amenity income stream that was used in the Developer's sale of assets to the Village Center Community Development District "is overestimated and not credible".

[Taj44]

Thanks for posting the link to the report. The IRS has been known to make mistakes. With any luck, they've made mistakes in this matter, and The Villages will prevail. If not, we'll just have to see what happens and how it impacts the residents. My gut feeling is, the IRS has put so much time and money into this investigation, that they're not going to let The Villages escape without some sort of penalty.

[EdV]

.... First, what scandal. It is clear that the Florida Legislature passed laws to allow CDDs to qualify to sell tax free municiple bonds....

Oh really? Well here’s a link to a searchable copy of that law. http://www.ccfj.net/FS190CDD.html

Perhaps you can tell us which paragraph mentions “tax free” bonds.

No state has the authority to dictate what is or is not federally taxable.

[RVRoadie]

No state has the authority to dictate what is or is not federally taxable.

True, but States decide what is and isn't a municipality. Florida has decided that CCDs are municipalities for tax purposes. This was done in the 80s.

[EdV]

They can only dictate what is free from their own state tax. The fact that a bond is a municipal bond does not automatically qualify it as federally tax free. If a city wants to build a new NFL stadium, it can issue a municipal bond to pay for it but it would be a taxable municipal bond.

[JimJoe]

Here is why TV might lose the IRS issue.. and its not TV's fault.
I think the IRS issue is part of the bigger HOT political issue of our time.. Getting rid of loopholes.
I am not arguing either side of this issue... I just want to point out where I think this issue may be heading...
When TV or any other "municipality" uses tax free bonds to finance projects, they are effectively shifting part of the cost of financing the project to every other federal taxpayer. "Municipalities" are allowed to do this because they are for the general welfare and theoretically anyone in the nation could use the public project or promote some general welfare issue. The problem with TV is that the projects are arguably not for the general welfare. They are only available for TV residents or their guests.
I love TV and think it is fantastic... but...
Is it "fair" for people who live outside TV and pay federal taxes to help finances the amenities of "rich" people who bar others from the enjoying the amenities the outsiders helped to finance, including pools, rec centers, golf courses, etc.
If Ocala sells tax free bonds, should they bar villagers from using their pool, attending sporting events, playing on their golf courses, or attending meetings in their public buildings?
I know others get federal subsidies, but can TV really claim it is "poor" or "religion", or providing a "public service".
Don't shoot the messenger. I think if this issue went nation wide, TV would be the new "corporate jet" loophole.

I understand this message involves some politics but everything does to some degree. I think it is important for those interested in the IRS issue to understand what really may be underlying the issue.. not just the legal arguments for or against the IRS.
If this message belongs in Political, I invite the Admins to move it and if so, I apologize in advance.
JJ

[aljetmet]

:BigApplause:
This has been boggling my mind.
I am curious. When the bonds were sold, were they for amenities for at the time current units or all future units being built?

I am not going to touch ensuing questions.

[JimJoe]

:BigApplause:
This has been boggling my mind.
I am curious. When the bonds were sold, were they for amenities for at the time current units or all future units being built?

I am not going to touch ensuing questions.

It is my understanding the bonds were sold to pay for amenities that had been built and paid for by the developer, were in current use, and were sold to investors to raise money to buy the amenities from the developer. I think the developer uses his own money to build and pay for amenities and then once the areas are built out, he sells them to the district... something like that. Hope that helps. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

[EdV]

Here is why TV might lose the IRS issue.. and its not TV's fault.
I think the IRS issue is part of the bigger HOT political issue of our time.. Getting rid of loopholes.
I am not arguing either side of this issue... I just want to point out where I think this issue may be heading...
When TV or any other "municipality" uses tax free bonds to finance projects, they are effectively shifting part of the cost of financing the project to every other federal taxpayer. "Municipalities" are allowed to do this because they are for the general welfare and theoretically anyone in the nation could use the public project or promote some general welfare issue. The problem with TV is that the projects are arguably not for the general welfare. They are only available for TV residents or their guests.
I love TV and think it is fantastic... but...
Is it "fair" for people who live outside TV and pay federal taxes to help finances the amenities of "rich" people who bar others from the enjoying the amenities the outsiders helped to finance, including pools, rec centers, golf courses, etc.
If Ocala sells tax free bonds, should they bar villagers from using their pool, attending sporting events, playing on their golf courses, or attending meetings in their public buildings?
I know others get federal subsidies, but can TV really claim it is "poor" or "religion", or providing a "public service".
Don't shoot the messenger. I think if this issue went nation wide, TV would be the new "corporate jet" loophole.

I understand this message involves some politics but everything does to some degree. I think it is important for those interested in the IRS issue to understand what really may be underlying the issue.. not just the legal arguments for or against the IRS.
If this message belongs in Political, I invite the Admins to move it and if so, I apologize in advance.
JJ

Indeed Jim. In fact, the IRS agent used this argument as one of the tests for concluding that the bonds in question were not qualified for tax free status.

[EdV]

Well once again we have some new TOTV members trying to understand the facts of this ‘IRS investigation’ and raising a lot of uncertainties. So I thought a little refresher course is in order, so here goes:

What is the likely resolution to all of this? It won’t be to penalize the bond buyers. That would be way, way, way too complicated. You’d be talking about thousands of bond holders and municipal bond mutual funds and reassessing past tax filings over many years. There’s a much simpler resolution. In fact, it’s the one already proposed by the initial IRS agent.

In a letter dated May 18 2009, IRS agent Dominick Servadio told the Village Center CCD it could settle the audit by redeeming $355.35 million of bonds it issued from 1993 to 1995, paying the federal government at least $2.85 million, and agreeing to refrain from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds. The bonds are ‘callable’ so they can be bought back at any time by the issuer without recourse from the bondholders, but the VCCDD rejected the offer.

The whole IRS investigation is likely to end up in Federal Tax Court for a final ruling. But if the IRS were to prevail and a settlement similar to Servadio’s proposal were issued, who would be financially responsible? It certainly won’t be TV homeowners or the numbered CDD’s that the homes are a part of. It would be the two special CDDs that all of the amenities (exec golf courses, sports courts, pools, and Rec centers) are organized under. And who is the majority land owner of the property in those two CDDs? Why none other than Gary Morse the developer and/or his myriad holding companies. And we know he’s the majority landowner in those two CDDs because he and he alone appoints their board members every year. Now consider this:

When you purchase a home in TV, it is placed under one of the ten numbered CDDs. Each of these CDDs have taxing power over the properties within them, but not against any property outside that CDD. And each year you pay a property tax to your CDD to cover the cost of maintenance of the common grounds. It’s called a ‘Development District Assessment’ and can be roughly $1000-$2000 per year. So that pays for all those beautiful flowers at your village entrance that are replaced 4 times a year, among other things.

Similarly, the two special CDDs have taxing power over the owners of property within them but not property outside of them. Their sole relationship with TV homeowners is a contractual agreement to provide ongoing maintenance of the amenities within them in exchange for a guaranteed monthly amenity fee. And by contractual agreement with you, that fee can never be raised by more than the rise in the Consumer Price Index within a given year. So there’s no capability for the two special CDDs to pass on any substantial settlement obligations to TV homeowners. They already customarily raise the amenity fee by the CPI increase anyway.

And they’re not going to try to siphon off amenity funds by drastically cutting back on maintenance of the amenities. Remember that a few years ago they got a little too cavalier about dealing with mold issues in some Rec centers as well as trying to pass off maintenance of the multimodal paths onto the numbered CDDs that had these paths. The Villages Property Owners Association (POA) sued them and got an out of court settlement of 40 million dollars to be pumped back into the special CDD over the next nine years. The first major benefit of this was the funding of widening of the paths that was just completed.

So while I can’t predict exactly what will happen with this, I can say with certainty and facts what cannot happen and that it will have little if any impact on TV homeowners unless of course they allow some of the fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) being tossed about, to get to them.

The financial impact of this rests solely with the developer and/or the companies he controls that own the majority of the property within the two CDDs that are being audited by the IRS. And let’s face it, he can afford it.

[Russ_Boston]

Bravo Ed. Thanks for the refresher. You're a fountain of knowledge once again.

[aljetmet]

Very clever way of the developer to get very inexpensive financing!

Edvin and JimJoe thanks for your posts!

[The Great Fumar]

Well once again we have some new TOTV members trying to understand the facts of this ‘IRS investigation’ and raising a lot of uncertainties. So I thought a little refresher course is in order, so here goes:

What is the likely resolution to all of this? It won’t be to penalize the bond buyers. That would be way, way, way too complicated. You’d be talking about thousands of bond holders and municipal bond mutual funds and reassessing past tax filings over many years. There’s a much simpler resolution. In fact, it’s the one already proposed by the initial IRS agent.

In a letter dated May 18 2009, IRS agent Dominick Servadio told the Village Center CCD it could settle the audit by redeeming $355.35 million of bonds it issued from 1993 to 1995, paying the federal government at least $2.85 million, and agreeing to refrain from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds. The bonds are ‘callable’ so they can be bought back at any time by the issuer without recourse from the bondholders, but the VCCDD rejected the offer.

The whole IRS investigation is likely to end up in Federal Tax Court for a final ruling. But if the IRS were to prevail and a settlement similar to Servadio’s proposal were issued, who would be financially responsible? It certainly won’t be TV homeowners or the numbered CDD’s that the homes are a part of. It would be the two special CDDs that all of the amenities (exec golf courses, sports courts, pools, and Rec centers) are organized under. And who is the majority land owner of the property in those two CDDs? Why none other than Gary Morse the developer and/or his myriad holding companies. And we know he’s the majority landowner in those two CDDs because he and he alone appoints their board members every year. Now consider this:

When you purchase a home in TV, it is placed under one of the ten numbered CDDs. Each of these CDDs have taxing power over the properties within them, but not against any property outside that CDD. And each year you pay a property tax to your CDD to cover the cost of maintenance of the common grounds. It’s called a ‘Development District Assessment’ and can be roughly $1000-$2000 per year. So that pays for all those beautiful flowers at your village entrance that are replaced 4 times a year, among other things.

Similarly, the two special CDDs have taxing power over the owners of property within them but not property outside of them. Their sole relationship with TV homeowners is a contractual agreement to provide ongoing maintenance of the amenities within them in exchange for a guaranteed monthly amenity fee. And by contractual agreement with you, that fee can never be raised by more than the rise in the Consumer Price Index within a given year. So there’s no capability for the two special CDDs to pass on any substantial settlement obligations to TV homeowners. They already customarily raise the amenity fee by the CPI increase anyway.

And they’re not going to try to siphon off amenity funds by drastically cutting back on maintenance of the amenities. Remember that a few years ago they got a little too cavalier about dealing with mold issues in some Rec centers as well as trying to pass off maintenance of the multimodal paths onto the numbered CDDs that had these paths. The Villages Property Owners Association (POA) sued them and got an out of court settlement of 40 million dollars to be pumped back into the special CDD over the next nine years. The first major benefit of this was the funding of widening of the paths that was just completed.

So while I can’t predict exactly what will happen with this, I can say with certainty and facts what cannot happen and that it will have little if any impact on TV homeowners unless of course they allow some of the fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) being tossed about, to get to them.

The financial impact of this rests solely with the developer and/or the companies he controls that own the majority of the property within the two CDDs that are being audited by the IRS. And let’s face it, he can afford it.

Excellent article Ed,

Very well written........

Even fumar can understand this......:thumbup:

[Bill-n-Brillo]

Excellent article Ed,

Very well written........

Even fumar can understand this......:thumbup:

Ed, if you've got Fubar.....uh, I mean Fumar.....(sorry).....on board, then you've knocked it out of the park! :1rotfl: :icon_wink:

Seriously, very well written assessment - great job! Thanks -

Bill :wave:

[ilovetv]

Well once again we have some new TOTV members trying to understand the facts of this ‘IRS investigation’ and raising a lot of uncertainties. So I thought a little refresher course is in order, so here goes:

What is the likely resolution to all of this? It won’t be to penalize the bond buyers. That would be way, way, way too complicated. You’d be talking about thousands of bond holders and municipal bond mutual funds and reassessing past tax filings over many years. There’s a much simpler resolution. In fact, it’s the one already proposed by the initial IRS agent...........

So while I can’t predict exactly what will happen with this, I can say with certainty and facts what cannot happen and that it will have little if any impact on TV homeowners unless of course they allow some of the fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) being tossed about, to get to them.

The financial impact of this rests solely with the developer and/or the companies he controls that own the majority of the property within the two CDDs that are being audited by the IRS. And let’s face it, he can afford it.

Thank you so much for pulling together the facts and stating this so coherently.

I think your post warrants starting a whole new thread with it, to bring it to the forefront. There is too much conjecture and "the sky is falling" in this thread for newbies and wannabees to make any sense of it in deciding whether to buy here in TV.

[JimJoe]

Well once again we have some new TOTV members trying to understand the facts of this ‘IRS investigation’ and raising a lot of uncertainties. So I thought a little refresher course is in order, so here goes:

What is the likely resolution to all of this? It won’t be to penalize the bond buyers. That would be way, way, way too complicated. You’d be talking about thousands of bond holders and municipal bond mutual funds and reassessing past tax filings over many years. There’s a much simpler resolution. In fact, it’s the one already proposed by the initial IRS agent.

In a letter dated May 18 2009, IRS agent Dominick Servadio told the Village Center CCD it could settle the audit by redeeming $355.35 million of bonds it issued from 1993 to 1995, paying the federal government at least $2.85 million, and agreeing to refrain from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds. The bonds are ‘callable’ so they can be bought back at any time by the issuer without recourse from the bondholders, but the VCCDD rejected the offer.

The whole IRS investigation is likely to end up in Federal Tax Court for a final ruling. But if the IRS were to prevail and a settlement similar to Servadio’s proposal were issued, who would be financially responsible? It certainly won’t be TV homeowners or the numbered CDD’s that the homes are a part of. It would be the two special CDDs that all of the amenities (exec golf courses, sports courts, pools, and Rec centers) are organized under. And who is the majority land owner of the property in those two CDDs? Why none other than Gary Morse the developer and/or his myriad holding companies. And we know he’s the majority landowner in those two CDDs because he and he alone appoints their board members every year. Now consider this:

When you purchase a home in TV, it is placed under one of the ten numbered CDDs. Each of these CDDs have taxing power over the properties within them, but not against any property outside that CDD. And each year you pay a property tax to your CDD to cover the cost of maintenance of the common grounds. It’s called a ‘Development District Assessment’ and can be roughly $1000-$2000 per year. So that pays for all those beautiful flowers at your village entrance that are replaced 4 times a year, among other things.

Similarly, the two special CDDs have taxing power over the owners of property within them but not property outside of them. Their sole relationship with TV homeowners is a contractual agreement to provide ongoing maintenance of the amenities within them in exchange for a guaranteed monthly amenity fee. And by contractual agreement with you, that fee can never be raised by more than the rise in the Consumer Price Index within a given year. So there’s no capability for the two special CDDs to pass on any substantial settlement obligations to TV homeowners. They already customarily raise the amenity fee by the CPI increase anyway.

And they’re not going to try to siphon off amenity funds by drastically cutting back on maintenance of the amenities. Remember that a few years ago they got a little too cavalier about dealing with mold issues in some Rec centers as well as trying to pass off maintenance of the multimodal paths onto the numbered CDDs that had these paths. The Villages Property Owners Association (POA) sued them and got an out of court settlement of 40 million dollars to be pumped back into the special CDD over the next nine years. The first major benefit of this was the funding of widening of the paths that was just completed.

So while I can’t predict exactly what will happen with this, I can say with certainty and facts what cannot happen and that it will have little if any impact on TV homeowners unless of course they allow some of the fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) being tossed about, to get to them.

The financial impact of this rests solely with the developer and/or the companies he controls that own the majority of the property within the two CDDs that are being audited by the IRS. And let’s face it, he can afford it.

I hope you are right but where is the money coming from to pay for the costs of the defense and attorney fees right now? Does it come from the developer's pocket, the pocket of the home owners in the commercial districts, or from the account that is funded by the amenity fees? I am concerned it is the latter but not sure, and if it is, why would you think paying the IRS claim would be any different if the costs of the defense are being paid by amenity fees?
Can anyone tell us who is paying the defense costs and attorney fees so far in this case? If it comes from the amenity fees, that would be a bad sign. If it is coming from somewhere else, that would be FANTASTIC and everyone should know that.
Thanks for answering this. JJ

[EdV]

They will be paid for out of the budget for legal fees (approximately $250,000 this year) for the two special CDDs. The IRS is challenging the bonds issued by those two CDD’s not you or your numbered CDD so it’s appropriate.

You need to change your thinking about the amenity fee and the two special CDDs. You are obligated to pay that fee and expect a reasonable level of service to maintain the amenities at an acceptable level as they were when they were built. But you have no say in how the money is spent. Your contract clearly states this.

As I stated before, if a multi-million dollar judgment is eventually leveled against those two CDDs, then it will be up to the majority owners of the property in those two CDDs to rectify it without impacting the level of service they are contractually obligated to provide to you.

[Advogado]

Well once again we have some new TOTV members trying to understand the facts of this ‘IRS investigation’ and raising a lot of uncertainties. So I thought a little refresher course is in order, so here goes:

What is the likely resolution to all of this? It won’t be to penalize the bond buyers. That would be way, way, way too complicated. You’d be talking about thousands of bond holders and municipal bond mutual funds and reassessing past tax filings over many years. There’s a much simpler resolution. In fact, it’s the one already proposed by the initial IRS agent.

In a letter dated May 18 2009, IRS agent Dominick Servadio told the Village Center CCD it could settle the audit by redeeming $355.35 million of bonds it issued from 1993 to 1995, paying the federal government at least $2.85 million, and agreeing to refrain from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds. The bonds are ‘callable’ so they can be bought back at any time by the issuer without recourse from the bondholders, but the VCCDD rejected the offer.

The whole IRS investigation is likely to end up in Federal Tax Court for a final ruling. But if the IRS were to prevail and a settlement similar to Servadio’s proposal were issued, who would be financially responsible? It certainly won’t be TV homeowners or the numbered CDD’s that the homes are a part of. It would be the two special CDDs that all of the amenities (exec golf courses, sports courts, pools, and Rec centers) are organized under. And who is the majority land owner of the property in those two CDDs? Why none other than Gary Morse the developer and/or his myriad holding companies. And we know he’s the majority landowner in those two CDDs because he and he alone appoints their board members every year. Now consider this:

When you purchase a home in TV, it is placed under one of the ten numbered CDDs. Each of these CDDs have taxing power over the properties within them, but not against any property outside that CDD. And each year you pay a property tax to your CDD to cover the cost of maintenance of the common grounds. It’s called a ‘Development District Assessment’ and can be roughly $1000-$2000 per year. So that pays for all those beautiful flowers at your village entrance that are replaced 4 times a year, among other things.

Similarly, the two special CDDs have taxing power over the owners of property within them but not property outside of them. Their sole relationship with TV homeowners is a contractual agreement to provide ongoing maintenance of the amenities within them in exchange for a guaranteed monthly amenity fee. And by contractual agreement with you, that fee can never be raised by more than the rise in the Consumer Price Index within a given year. So there’s no capability for the two special CDDs to pass on any substantial settlement obligations to TV homeowners. They already customarily raise the amenity fee by the CPI increase anyway.

And they’re not going to try to siphon off amenity funds by drastically cutting back on maintenance of the amenities. Remember that a few years ago they got a little too cavalier about dealing with mold issues in some Rec centers as well as trying to pass off maintenance of the multimodal paths onto the numbered CDDs that had these paths. The Villages Property Owners Association (POA) sued them and got an out of court settlement of 40 million dollars to be pumped back into the special CDD over the next nine years. The first major benefit of this was the funding of widening of the paths that was just completed.

So while I can’t predict exactly what will happen with this, I can say with certainty and facts what cannot happen and that it will have little if any impact on TV homeowners unless of course they allow some of the fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) being tossed about, to get to them.

The financial impact of this rests solely with the developer and/or the companies he controls that own the majority of the property within the two CDDs that are being audited by the IRS. And let’s face it, he can afford it.

The IRS investigation is complicated enough so as to make a brief summary difficult. The above is a good one of the basic facts, including the relationship of the facts in the IRS investigation to those underlying the class-action lawsuit settled by the Developer. However, I would like to make an important addition to the summary, clarify a point about the "Developer", and raise three questions about the conclusions in the last two paragraphs.

First, the addition: It is important to understand that, after the VCCDD rejected the IRS settlement offer, the IRS further expanded its audit (in July 2009) to include all recreational and utility revenue bonds issued by VCCDD, as well as similar bonds issued by Sumter Landing CDD. (The IRS has not included the numbered Districts.)

Second, a clarification about the Develper. I completely agree that the ultimate responsibility rests with the Developer. But having responsibilty is not the same as paying. In the event that the IRS prevails and imposes significant costs on the VCCDD, collecting from the Developer may not be so easy.

In Villagese, we refer to the developer as "he", but the Developer is not a "he". Technically, the Developer is an "it"-- a corporation: The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. That corporation is one of a large number of corporations owned by the Morse family, directly or indirectly. I have no idea as to the present net worth of that corporation or what it will be at the time of of a hypothetical IRS victory. In any event, one would think that there might just be resistance to any attempt to "pierce the corporate veil" in order to reach a large enough pool of assets to make the VCCDD whole and to continue the amenity system.

Three questions of EdVin, and they are honest ones:
1. Are you confident that the IRS will not expand its investigation still further?
2. Do you have any information about the present net worth of The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. (I don't think the financial statements are public.)?
3. Who do you think will take the necessary legal action to actually collect from the Developer in the event that an IRS "victory" results in the VCCDD not having adequate cash to continue the amenities system? I note that the Developer is sticking the VCCDD with the responsibility for paying the legal fees involved in defense of the IRS investigation and has not issued a word of assurance to Villagers about the possible impact on them of the investigation.

BTW, I have never commented on, and do not intend to do so for the time being, the merits of the IRS case. I also am not saying Doomsday is upon us. My view is that the IRS investigation is a matter with potentially serious consequences for us and that it behooves us to try to understand it, to follow developments, and to be prepared to act IF necessary.

I certainly do not consider myself a Villages "basher", as has been alleged. I have never said anything derogatory about The Villages. In fact, I like it here-- but I don't like to close my eyes to reality.

[JimJoe]

They will be paid for out of the budget for legal fees (approximately $250,000 this year) for the two special CDDs. The IRS is challenging the bonds issued by those two CDD’s not you or your numbered CDD so it’s appropriate.

You need to change your thinking about the amenity fee and the two special CDDs. You are obligated to pay that fee and expect a reasonable level of service to maintain the amenities at an acceptable level as they were when they were built. But you have no say in how the money is spent. Your contract clearly states this.

As I stated before, if a multi-million dollar judgment is eventually leveled against those two CDDs, then it will be up to the majority owners of the property in those two CDDs to rectify it without impacting the level of service they are contractually obligated to provide to you.

Where does the money come from for the legal fee budget? Is that budget funded by amenity fees?.. that is my question... Can you answer that please?.

[Advogado]

Fort those of you not on the POA e-mail list, this just arrived:

***** POA NEWS Alert *****
AUGUST 4, 2011 --- IRS UPDATE ---
On July 27, 2011, the VCCDD (Village Center Community Development District) received the Report of Alice Price, State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of Florida, which was solicited by the IRS, to address the 2nd issue presented by the original IRS investigator, which is as Follows:
“The Opinions of Value (Fishkind and PRMG appraisals) do not support the price paid by the District to the Developer - facilities were purchased from a related party, the Developer, who has controlling ownership of the property within the District and thereby maintains control of the governing board of the District… The proceeds of the Bonds exceeded the amount necessary for the governmental purpose of the issue by more than 5% of such amount. This is considered an ’over issuance’ and therefore interest is not excludable… The payment of the $59+M sales price to the Developer by the District is the payment of gross proceeds of the Bonds to a related party and therefore not a governmental use of those Proceeds… Using tax-exempt bond proceeds to provide private golf courses not available for use to the general public on the same basis as the residents of a private gated community is not an essential government function. Therefore, these Bonds are taxable bonds…” Ms. Price's conclusions were as follows:
“Based upon my review of the Public Resources Management Group (PRMG), Inc. report, I have concluded that the estimate of the value of the amenity stream of $60,500,000 is overestimated and not credible. It should be noted that for analytical purposes and using data contained in the appraisal report under review as well as data provided by the VCCDD, I developed an opinion of the value of the Subject Purchased Assets. Based upon my analysis as outlined within the attached Appraisal Review Report was as follows:
Real Estate and Personal Property $3,990,000
Amenity Fees Income Stream $24,000,000
Total Market Value of Purchased Assets $27,900,000 ”

Excerpts from Ms. Tutt’s email to the VCDD Supervisors on July 27, 2011, regarding this finding by the IRS are as follows:
“…Importantly, the Appraisal Review does correct the essential error that was made by the initial IRS agent handling the audit, by not excluding the value of the amenities fees from the value of the assets purchased with the proceeds of the bonds. However, I believe the value arrived at in the Appraisal Review is substantially less than the actual value of the purchased assets…” “…it has been my experience that while bond issues may vary in length, municipal bonds issued for infrastructure and other governmental operations such as water and sewer systems (which is the model the District used) have used a 30 year income stream when determining value based upon the capitalization of revenue method. I believe that Ms. Price’s use of a 15 year period is based on the assumption that is the typical holding period for a business or property, which is not an assumption that is applicable to this purchase by the District…” (Mr. Ori from PRMG, had advised Ms. Tutt that the 30-year holding period was appropriate because the time frame for such period was equal to or less than the useful life of the capital facilities acquired and the revenue stream being generated supported the acquisition. Additionally he said that he also recognized the 30 year holding period has been a typical holding period for state and local goverments." “The second item of concern is the Amenity Fee Cash Flow Analysis prepared by Ms. Price . . . Initial review of the figures indicates that some of the analysis and assumptions are not accurate which lead her to assert an incorrect value of the net amenity fee cash flow after taking into account the expenses allocable to the amenity fees purchased…”
“Finally, it appears an arbitrary decision was made to change the capitalization rate assumption used to determine the present value of the cash flow…” Ms. Tutt concluded the report to the VCCD by stating that, “…staff will be reviewing the valuation, addressing the issues with the District’s attorneys, and preparing questions and comments for the IRS regarding Ms. Price’s Appraisal Review.”

The POA'S Position in this Matter.
The POA has not taken a position on the relative merits of the positions of the IRS and the VCCDD in this controversy, although we sincerely hope that the VCCDD is able to prevail. In regard to the current IRS investigation, the POA's primary objective is to try to protect the rights and interests of the residents of the Villages, who have made The Villages their retirement home.

Most Villagers are not wealthy and have worked hard in order to now enjoy an active life style in The Villages. Any action that takes away what Villagers have worked so hard to gain is an action that the POA opposes. In this regard, we continue to follow closely the developments in order to try to ensure that any resolution of the IRS investigation does not jeopardize the residents' amenities or result in the costs of an IRS victory being passed on to the residents.
P. S.’s
1) If you are new to the area or want a ‘refresher course’ about the issues we would suggest you review the article entitled “How the IRS Bond Inquiry Affects You” which can be found on our website, poa4us.org. Click on the archived Bulletin link and go to the August 2009, issue.
2) Both Janet Tutt’s memo to the VCDD Supervisors and Ms. Price’s Report are on the District web site. (districtgov.org - left hand column of home page – click on IRS Updates)

[CarGuys]

Very nice job of putting it all together after a previous Zillion Posts

[Advogado]

Where does the money come from for the legal fee budget? Is that budget funded by amenity fees?.. that is my question... Can you answer that please?.
It comes out of the amenity fees.

[EdV]

Where does the money come from for the legal fee budget? ...

It comes from the nearly 60 million dollars per year that the two special CDDs receive in amenity fees and other charges such as trail fees and rec facility rentals.

[JimJoe]

It comes from the nearly 60 million dollars per year that the two special CDDs receive in amenity fees and other charges such as trail fees and rec facility rentals.

Thanks.. now.. if the attorney fees and costs of defense are being paid from those funds, what makes you think those same funds would not be used to pay the judgment if any?
Do you think the Developer would pay it to avoid an impact on amenities?.. Why would you think that? Didn't it take a lawsuit in an unrelated amenities dispute previously to get the 39 million over 10 years?

[EdV]

Thanks.. now.. if the attorney fees and costs of defense are being paid from those funds, what makes you think those same funds would not be used to pay the judgment if any?
Do you think the Developer would pay it to avoid an impact on amenities?.. Why would you think that? Didn't it take a lawsuit in an unrelated amenities dispute previously to get the 39 million over 10 years?

I already explained that.

[EdV]

Three questions of EdVin, and they are honest ones:
1. Are you confident that the IRS will not expand its investigation still further?
I am confident that the IRS will not go after the bonds issued by the numbered CDD’s since they were primarily issued to build the infrastructure of the residential villages within them.


2. Do you have any information about the present net worth of The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. (I don't think the financial statements are public.)?
No, it’s privately held I believe.

3. Who do you think will take the necessary legal action to actually collect from the Developer in the event that an IRS "victory" results in the VCCDD not having adequate cash to continue the amenities system? I note that the Developer is sticking the VCCDD with the responsibility for paying the legal fees involved in defense of the IRS investigation and has not issued a word of assurance to Villagers about the possible impact on them of the investigation..

If the IRS ruling is upheld by the courts and the two CDD’s refuse to comply with the court order, the IRS will foreclose on the two CDDs. This is something that the developer and/or the corporation he hides behind cannot afford to let happen under any circumstances.

[JimJoe]

I already explained that.

I guess I was not convinced that they would not use amenity fees .. for two reasons.
1. I wonder whether they have any other source... if they had another source, wouldn't the attorney fees and costs of defense would be paid from that source?
2. Your statement:
And they’re not going to try to siphon off amenity funds by drastically cutting back on maintenance of the amenities. Remember that a few years ago they got a little too cavalier about dealing with mold issues in some Rec centers as well as trying to pass off maintenance of the multimodal paths onto the numbered CDDs that had these paths. The Villages Property Owners Association (POA) sued them and got an out of court settlement of 40 million dollars to be pumped back into the special CDD over the next nine years. The first major benefit of this was the funding of widening of the paths that was just completed.

Why would you think the developer would voluntarily pay an irs claim without a lawsuit this time? I am sorry but I just don't get it.

[EdV]

Jim, the lawsuit that the POA brought against the developer had nothing to do with the IRS. It was simply based on the developer's CDDs not living up to the contractual amenity agreement. And the POA prevailed.

And once the the US Tax Court rules against you, either pay up or turn over the assets. There’s nothing voluntary about it.

[JimJoe]

Jim, the lawsuit that the POA brought against the developer had nothing to do with the IRS. It was simply based on the developer's CDDs not living up to the contractual amenity agreement. And the POA prevailed.

And once the the US Tax Court rules against you, either pay up or turn over the assets. There’s nothing voluntary about it.

I knew the POS lawsuit had nothing to do with the IRS.. I said that in my post. I referred to it as "unrelated amenities dispute".

If you are right that "once the US Tax Court rules against you, either pay up or turn over the assets".. who is the defendant in the tax dispute with the IRS? Isn't it the District, not the Developer??.. the district you said is funded with amenity fees and some other fees. What funds will the district use to pay up? What assets do they have that they can turn over?

[rubicon]

Here is why TV might lose the IRS issue.. and its not TV's fault.
I think the IRS issue is part of the bigger HOT political issue of our time.. Getting rid of loopholes.
I am not arguing either side of this issue... I just want to point out where I think this issue may be heading...
When TV or any other "municipality" uses tax free bonds to finance projects, they are effectively shifting part of the cost of financing the project to every other federal taxpayer. "Municipalities" are allowed to do this because they are for the general welfare and theoretically anyone in the nation could use the public project or promote some general welfare issue. The problem with TV is that the projects are arguably not for the general welfare. They are only available for TV residents or their guests.
I love TV and think it is fantastic... but...
Is it "fair" for people who live outside TV and pay federal taxes to help finances the amenities of "rich" people who bar others from the enjoying the amenities the outsiders helped to finance, including pools, rec centers, golf courses, etc.
If Ocala sells tax free bonds, should they bar villagers from using their pool, attending sporting events, playing on their golf courses, or attending meetings in their public buildings?
I know others get federal subsidies, but can TV really claim it is "poor" or "religion", or providing a "public service".
Don't shoot the messenger. I think if this issue went nation wide, TV would be the new "corporate jet" loophole.

I understand this message involves some politics but everything does to some degree. I think it is important for those interested in the IRS issue to understand what really may be underlying the issue.. not just the legal arguments for or against the IRS.
.JJ

That is part of the dispute. Also that the Developer has exclusive control of TV, which is being denied. Also as mentioned in an earlier post the IRS contends that the facilties purchased by the district as well as the amenities income stream where overstated and hence the amount of the tax free bond issue is more than what was required. These are some of the allegation. How the IRS determined these allegations makes interesting reading

An earlier poster did not believe the Developer would stand by and let the District take the hit..Well from the poster's lips to God's ears but I am not holding my breath. The Developer's main focus revolves around profits..period

[Advogado]

Jim, the lawsuit that the POA brought against the developer had nothing to do with the IRS. It was simply based on the developer's CDDs not living up to the contractual amenity agreement. And the POA prevailed.

And once the the US Tax Court rules against you, either pay up or turn over the assets. There’s nothing voluntary about it.

Two observations:

First, the lawsuit (which was supported by, but not brought by, the POA), was against the VCCDD AND the Developer. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the VCCDD did not live up to its obligations because the Developer overpriced the amenities that the Developer sold to the VCCDD, and therefore the VCCDD had inadequate assets to continue to furnish the amenities. That overpricing is the one of the allegations that the IRS is making. In the lawsuit settlement, the Developer agreed to pay the $40 million to the VCCDD so that the VCCDD would be able to fulfill its obligations.

Second, as indicated in my earlier posts, if the VCCDD incurs huge costs as a result of the IRS's actions, how to get the VCCDD to collect from the Developer becomes the question. Since the Developer seems to still control the VCCDD, it seems somewhat possible that the VCCDD will not be real aggressive in pursuing the Developer or in raising taxes (which could have to be prohibitively high) on properties within the VCCDD. It may or may not be in the Developer's financial interest to "voluntarily" pay, depending on the amount involved and on a number of other factors. E.g., by that time, has the Developer finished building out The Villages and paid out the proceeds to the stockholders of The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc.?

Again, keep in mind that we have not received one word of assurance from the Developer that everything will be okay. The "don't-worry-about-it" posters on this thread seem a lot more confident than the Developer.

[rubicon]

Two observations:

First, the lawsuit (which was supported by, but not brought by, the POA), was against the VCCDD AND the Developer. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the VCCDD did not live up to its obligations because the Developer overpriced the amenities that the Developer sold to the VCCDD, and therefore the VCCDD had inadequate assets to continue to furnish the amenities. That overpricing is the one of the allegations that the IRS is making. In the lawsuit settlement, the Developer agreed to pay the $40 million to the VCCDD so that the VCCDD would be able to fulfill its obligations.

Second, as indicated in my earlier posts, if the VCCDD incurs huge costs as a result of the IRS's actions, how to get the VCCDD to collect from the Developer becomes the question. Since the Developer seems to still control the VCCDD, it seems somewhat possible that the VCCDD will not be real aggressive in pursuing the Developer or in raising taxes (which could have to be prohibitively high) on properties within the VCCDD. It may or may not be in the Developer's financial interest to "voluntarily" pay, depending on the amount involved and on a number of other factors. E.g., by that time, has the Developer finished building out The Villages and paid out the proceeds to the stockholders of The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc.?

Again, keep in mind that we have not received one word of assurance from the Developer that everything will be okay. The "don't-worry-about-it" posters on this thread seem a lot more confident than the Developer.

Exactly right!

[villagegolfer]

That is part of the dispute. Also that the Developer has exclusive control of TV, which is being denied. Also as mentioned in an earlier post the IRS contends that the facilties purchased by the district as well as the amenities income stream where overstated and hence the amount of the tax free bond issue is more than what was required. These are some of the allegation. How the IRS determined these allegations makes interesting reading

An earlier poster did not believe the Developer would stand by and let the District take the hit..Well from the poster's lips to God's ears but I am not holding my breath. The Developer's main focus revolves around profits..period

Are you telling us that this beautiful place is inspired by profits alone? I do not think so. Look around. Do you not see?

[iaudit]

First, the lawsuit (which was supported by, but not brought by, the POA), was against the VCCDD AND the Developer. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the VCCDD did not live up to its obligations because the Developer overpriced the amenities that the Developer sold to the VCCDD, and therefore the VCCDD had inadequate assets to continue to furnish the amenities. That overpricing is the one of the allegations that the IRS is making. In the lawsuit settlement, the Developer agreed to pay the $40 million to the VCCDD so that the VCCDD would be able to fulfill its obligations.



This summary above of the settlement is incorrect. Please refer to Villages Kahuna's post number 37 in the following link:

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11447&page=2&highlight=settlement

It wasn't about overpricing but rather not creating sufficient reserve funds to maintain the recreation facilities.

[Advogado]

This summary above of the settlement is incorrect. Please refer to Villages Kahuna's post number 37 in the following link:

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11447&page=2&highlight=settlement

It wasn't about overpricing but rather not creating sufficient reserve funds to maintain the recreation facilities.
Basically the same thing.

The class-action lawsuit focused on the lack of an adequate provision for depreciation when calculating the present value of the income stream that was used to value the assets. Had the present value been properly calculated (assuming that present-value methodology is even appropriate), the sale price would have been lower. That is just another way of saying that the assets were overpriced.

In fact, the whole thrust of the class-action lawsuit was that the Developer overpriced the assets. As a consequence, after paying interest on the bonds used to finance the purchase, the VCCDD didn't have enough cash to maintain the amenity facilities-- thus, the deterioration that provoked the lawsuit.

In other words, the whole thrust of the class-action lawsuit was alleged overpricing by the Developer. Why else do you think that the Developer had to pony up the $40 million?

[EdV]

Two observations:

First, the lawsuit (which was supported by, but not brought by, the POA), was against the VCCDD AND the Developer. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the VCCDD did not live up to its obligations because the Developer overpriced the amenities that the Developer sold to the VCCDD, and therefore the VCCDD had inadequate assets to continue to furnish the amenities. That overpricing is the one of the allegations that the IRS is making. In the lawsuit settlement, the Developer agreed to pay the $40 million to the VCCDD so that the VCCDD would be able to fulfill its obligations.

Second, as indicated in my earlier posts, if the VCCDD incurs huge costs as a result of the IRS's actions, how to get the VCCDD to collect from the Developer becomes the question. Since the Developer seems to still control the VCCDD, it seems somewhat possible that the VCCDD will not be real aggressive in pursuing the Developer or in raising taxes (which could have to be prohibitively high) on properties within the VCCDD. It may or may not be in the Developer's financial interest to "voluntarily" pay, depending on the amount involved and on a number of other factors. E.g., by that time, has the Developer finished building out The Villages and paid out the proceeds to the stockholders of The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc.?

Again, keep in mind that we have not received one word of assurance from the Developer that everything will be okay. The "don't-worry-about-it" posters on this thread seem a lot more confident than the Developer.

I stand corrected regarding the lawsuit. It was initiated by active members and officers of the POA but not by the POA itself.

As for assets of the two special CDDs, the IRS would go after all of the assets sold to those two CDDs by the developer. And that would include the facilities and executive golf courses that the IRS agent alleges were overpriced.

[Leafpoker]

Never forget, that all this was a plan via the developer. Ther constant goal is to make money. Any way they can, legally or illegally. ( it is only illegal if you get caught). To get those dollars out our wallet is there goal. We just want no hassles, we are tired of hassle in our lives. We just want finish out our golden years with what time we have here on earth in a peaceful life, so just take my money! Well they know that and will take take take! I am very grateful for the IRS being a watchdog. There a reasons they are stalling with the ball on future building. When you get caught.with your hand in the cookie jar you lay low. I hope the IRS prevails. 355 million plus fines will come out our pockets like it or not. I have committed a mortal sin here, I said something negative about this facade of paradise. I just thank the IRS for pulling back curtain of utopia and showing the slimy underbelly that is the foundation thievery that has taken place.

[villagegolfer]

Never forget, that all this was a plan via the developer. Ther constant goal is to make money. Any way they can, legally or illegally. ( it is only illegal if you get caught). To get those dollars out our wallet is there goal. We just want no hassles, we are tired of hassle in our lives. We just want finish out our golden years with what time we have here on earth in a peaceful life, so just take my money! Well they know that and will take take take! I am very grateful for the IRS being a watchdog. There a reasons they are stalling with the ball on future building. When you get caught.with your hand in the cookie jar you lay low. I hope the IRS prevails. 355 million plus fines will come out our pockets like it or not. I have committed a mortal sin here, I said something negative about this facade of paradise. I just thank the IRS for pulling back curtain of utopia and showing the slimy underbelly that is the foundation thievery that has taken place.

I bet you don't go to Crispers!!!~chilout

[EdV]

For the rational members of this forum, be advised that the IRS has not in any way even insinuated that anything illegal has been identified in their audit.

[ilovetv]

Never forget, that all this was a plan via the developer. Ther constant goal is to make money. Any way they can, legally or illegally.........I am very grateful for the IRS being a watchdog.......I hope the IRS prevails. 355 million plus fines will come out our pockets like it or not......I just thank the IRS for pulling back curtain........

Oh good grief.....the "Beneficent" IRS....

And what makes you think the IRS's "constant goal" is not "to make money...any way they can"?????

It's all about the political power to be grabbed by the power/money mongers on either side.

[Challenger]

For the rational members of this forum, be advised that the IRS has not in any way even insinuated that anything illegal has been identified in their audit.

Nice to have someone comment who knows what they are talking about and uses a rational approach to the issues . Some of the speculation contained is these posts are absolutely baseless, and made with little knowledge of the law. Do we have an issue to watch? Yes. Is the sky falling? Surely no.

Thanks Ed-- I, for one, appreciated your well though out Posts.

[cabo35]

For the rational members of this forum, be advised that the IRS has not in any way even insinuated that anything illegal has been identified in their audit.

For the rational ones.......with apologies to Rudyard Kipling for contextual editorial license ......

If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise ........

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools .........

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

To the men and women of TOTV who contribute time and keystrokes for the benefit, enlightenment, information and welfare of so many......:BigApplause:

"If" by Rudyard Kipling unedited.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:28MhyeBaEzMJ:www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm+kipling+if&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

[Challenger]

Cabo 35-

Wish I had said that:BigApplause:

[villagegolfer]

:beer3:Cabo 35-

Wish I had said that:BigApplause:

[rubicon]

Basically the same thing.

The class-action lawsuit focused on the lack of an adequate provision for depreciation when calculating the present value of the income stream that was used to value the assets. Had the present value been properly calculated (assuming that present-value methodology is even appropriate), the sale price would have been lower. That is just another way of saying that the assets were overpriced.

In fact, the whole thrust of the class-action lawsuit was that the Developer overpriced the assets. As a consequence, after paying interest on the bonds used to finance the purchase, the VCCDD didn't have enough cash to maintain the amenity facilities-- thus, the deterioration that provoked the lawsuit.

In other words, the whole thrust of the class-action lawsuit was alleged overpricing by the Developer. Why else do you think that the Developer had to pony up the $40 million?

Let me add this into the mix....Some one on behalf of the residents needs to file an action to watch out and protect our interests. The District is being accused of wrong doing which the residents ahd no knowledge, no involvement or control and hence creates a conflict of sorts between the residents and the district. I do not believe we should be using the amenties fees to defend this lawsuit. The POA continues to sit on the fence . Why? If the district was negligent in their dealings don't they have some sort of liability insurance for that and shouldn't they contact their insurance company to see if they will cover this situation? I wonder if the POA had asked the district about this insurance stuff since they are the watch dog group for residents? I wonder why the POA doesn't get its attorney(s) involved to see what is best for us? We may be losing some important time and or opportunities to direct this legal action away from us and point it to where it belongs. If the information is accurate in the POA Alert then what occurred is that the Developer threw a big party that overstated profits and not only were we not invited also are getting stuck with the bill

[EdV]

Rubicon, let me see if I’ve got this straight. Your solution is to start a class action suit against the two CDDs that would require legal fees to defend against so that you could get them to stop paying legal fees to defend themselves ?

Wow.

[Advogado]

Let me add this into the mix....Some one on behalf of the residents needs to file an action to watch out and protect our interests. The District is being accused of wrong doing which the residents ahd no knowledge, no involvement or control and hence creates a conflict of sorts between the residents and the district. I do not believe we should be using the amenties fees to defend this lawsuit. The POA continues to sit on the fence . Why? If the district was negligent in their dealings don't they have some sort of liability insurance for that and shouldn't they contact their insurance company to see if they will cover this situation? I wonder if the POA had asked the district about this insurance stuff since they are the watch dog group for residents? I wonder why the POA doesn't get its attorney(s) involved to see what is best for us? We may be losing some important time and or opportunities to direct this legal action away from us and point it to where it belongs. If the information is accurate in the POA Alert then what occurred is that the Developer threw a big party that overstated profits and not only were we not invited also are getting stuck with the bill

I agree 100% with your concerns.

It particularly irritates me that the VCCDD is paying the legal-defense costs out of the amenity fees, and I wish that the POA had spoken out more forcefully on that issue. However, in fairness to the Developer and the VCCDD, their contractual obligation is to continue to furnish the amenities at the pre-existing levels, and I have not noticed a degradation as a result of the drain on amenity-fee revenue from paying the legal-defense costs.

In other words, the problem is that AT THIS POINT, it seems awfully hard to figure out what legal action the POA or anybody else can take. Also, where would the money for attorney fees come from? (You refer to the POA's attorney, but there is no such person on retainer.) I think, that by:
1. informing residents of the facts of the IRS investigation, at meetings and through the POA Bulletin;
2. starting a legal defense fund; and
3. writing the IRS and asking that the IRS be sensitive to the impact of its actions on Village residents
the POA has done about all it can for the time being.

It is unfortunate (or perhaps deviousness on the Developer's part) that the Developer structured The Villages so that we do not have a regular home owners' association-- with mandatory membership, dues, and the legal power to represent us. Then, when the POA became a nuisance to him, the Developer supported and subsidized a rival organization, the VHA in order to weaken the POA.

I have personally expressed my concerns about the IRS investigation to the POA officers and board members. I am personally convinced that they are both aware of, and concerned about, the situation. Let's also remember that these folks are all volunteers, and the ultimate responsibility for protecting our interests rests with us, not with them. Do I always agree with the POA? No. But in this kind of situation, it's the only organization we have.

I would suggest you attend the next POA meeting (I will be out of town, myself or I would be there) and ask the kind of questions that you raise here. They are good ones and thought-provoking, but I think that we all need to be aware to keep in mind that this Forum is a good way to exchange thoughts and information, especially in the absence of a genuine newspaper in The Villages. But posting, in and of itself, doesn't get anything done. If the IRS investigation does "go south", we are all going to have to get off behinds and away from our keyboards and take some kind of action ourselves.

[rubicon]

I agree 100% with your concerns.

It particularly irritates me that the VCCDD is paying the legal-defense costs out of the amenity fees, and I wish that the POA had spoken out more forcefully on that issue. However, in fairness to the Developer and the VCCDD, their contractual obligation is to continue to furnish the amenities at the pre-existing levels, and I have not noticed a degradation as a result of the drain on amenity-fee revenue from paying the legal-defense costs.

In other words, the problem is that AT THIS POINT, it seems awfully hard to figure out what legal action the POA or anybody else can take. Also, where would the money for attorney fees come from? (You refer to the POA's attorney, but there is no such person on retainer.) I think, that by:
1. informing residents of the facts of the IRS investigation, at meetings and through the POA Bulletin;
2. starting a legal defense fund; and
3. writing the IRS and asking that the IRS be sensitive to the impact of its actions on Village residents
the POA has done about all it can for the time being.

It is unfortunate (or perhaps deviousness on the Developer's part) that the Developer structured The Villages so that we do not have a regular home owners' association-- with mandatory membership, dues, and the legal power to represent us. Then, when the POA became a nuisance to him, the Developer supported and subsidized a rival organization, the VHA in order to weaken the POA.

I have personally expressed my concerns about the IRS investigation to the POA officers and board members. I am personally convinced that they are both aware of, and concerned about, the situation. Let's also remember that these folks are all volunteers, and the ultimate responsibility for protecting our interests rests with us, not with them. Do I always agree with the POA? No. But in this kind of situation, it's the only organization we have.

I would suggest you attend the next POA meeting (I will be out of town, myself or I would be there) and ask the kind of questions that you raise here. They are good ones and thought-provoking, but I think that we all need to be aware to keep in mind that this Forum is a good way to exchange thoughts and information, especially in the absence of a genuine newspaper in The Villages. But posting, in and of itself, doesn't get anything done. If the IRS investigation does "go south", we are all going to have to get off behinds and away from our keyboards and take some kind of action ourselves.

Oh ye of little faith... If you are upset concerning the use of amenity fees being used to defend this IRS action then you and EdVinMass might consider this. While the POA does not have an attorney on retainer they do consult with one or two. Secondly it was stated that the Developer is not a party to this IRS investigation and I can't think of a faster and better way than to bring an action that protects the interests of the residents from negligence of the District, its officers, superviusors, etc for any mistakes they may have made when purchasing bonds and also any responsibility that the Developer had during these business transactions and by naming the Developere they are not a part of the action. If the insurance company accepts defending this matter they do so with defense being paid from the district's liability policy. this suggestion is no different than your being in an auto accident getting injured and suing the driver of the car you occupied. that driver may be your neighbor but if you are injured and facing loss of wages, serious and lastly injuries you would sue. why because you are really suing the driver's insurance company and that's why he bought car insurance in the first place. The same applies to people who run governments or corporation and get insurance to protect them if they do something wrong.
From a strategic point by filing an acton residents are saying to the Developer and/or the district if you did something wrong know we are coming after you to pay the bill. If the insurance company accepts the claim then it will come out of their pockets. One point here if the district did not contact their insurance company about this they may have problems. finally by filing the action may great a motive for the Developer to come forward and make this situation right. the Developer surely will not volunteer

[EdV]

If you really expect people to read your ramblings, you should at least consider breaking it up into a few paragraphs.

But instead of bandying the ‘class action suit’ idea around here, why not contact the attorneys that got a settlement of the previous suit. Let us know what they have to say about your plan, we’re all ears.

Anderson & Anderson
11950 County Road 101 # 201
The Villages, FL 32162-9334
Phone: (352) 391-9613

You are of course the type of person that will back up their words with action, right?

[rubicon]

If you really expect people to read your ramblings, you should at least consider breaking it up into a few paragraphs.

But instead of bandying the ‘class action suit’ idea around here, why not contact the attorneys that got a settlement of the previous suit. Let us know what they have to say about your plan, we’re all ears.

Anderson & Anderson
11950 County Road 101 # 201
The Villages, FL 32162-9334
Phone: (352) 391-9613

You are of course the type of person that will back up their words with action, right?

EdVinMass> I didn't mean to offend you or anyone. One option in the decision model is to do nothing. I happen not to agree with that choice here. I detest lawsuits for more reasons than you can imagine. But residents need
an independent review and assessment of their financial exposure.
I personally believe that the Developer, Village Voice, Daily Sun and POA monitor threads on TOTV and rightly so. I am not an officer of any organization here and have no authority to act in behalf of residents. So your comment concerning my backing up words with actions is a little unkind

[Advogado]

EdVinMass> I didn't mean to offend you or anyone. One option in the decision model is to do nothing. I happen not to agree with that choice here. I detest lawsuits for more reasons than you can imagine. But residents need
an independent review and assessment of their financial exposure.
I personally believe that the Developer, Village Voice, Daily Sun and POA monitor threads on TOTV and rightly so. I am not an officer of any organization here and have no authority to act in behalf of residents. So your comment concerning my backing up words with actions is a little unkind

While you have no authority to act on behalf of residents, you can always act on behalf of yourself.

I have explained previously why I don't think that a lawsuit, at this time, is feasible. You feel otherwise. As EdVin suggested, please go ahead and take the initiative. You can take the initiative by doing one or more of the following:
1. retain an attorney to sue on your behalf;
2. go to a POA meeting and explain why you think that the POA should bring a lawsuit now; or
3. if you really want to have some fun, raise your thoughts at a VHA meeting and try to talk the VHA into actually acting on behalf or residents when there is a conflict between the residents' interests and those of the Developer.

If you do anything along those lines, I sincerely wish you success. I just am doubtful that anybody can bring a successful lawsuit unless and until the amenity-system takes a hit because of the outcome of the IRS investigation. Unless and until that happens, what are your damages? If you can answer that and prove your damages, you probably have the makings for a successful lawsuit.

[golf2140]

Please let this issue go. No one know what the IRS thinks. :cold:

[villagegolfer]

Please let this issue go. No one know what the IRS thinks. :cold:

Amen!!!

[Advogado]

Please let this issue go. No one know what the IRS thinks. :cold:

Unfortunately, the IRS has told us exactly what it thinks.

[ilovetv]

Maybe this agreement linked below has been discussed here before, but I wonder if it sheds any light on some of the questions here.

"Attachment A" at the end of this agreement signed by the developer, VCCDD, etc. has all the bond series information, and bond counsel, bond underwriter, underwriter counsel, and district counsel are listed for each bond series the IRS is examining. I think somebody here was asking who these people/entities were.

See: http://dev.districtgov.org/PDFView/PDFMeeting.aspx?id=20101208aa1012

[Bogie Shooter]

Please let this issue go. No one know what the IRS thinks. :cold:

But there are many, many who think they know what everyone is thinking. Can't you tell from all the repetative posts saying the same thing. I look forward to seeing a post with some new information.

[EdV]

EdVinMass> I didn't mean to offend you or anyone. One option in the decision model is to do nothing. I happen not to agree with that choice here. I detest lawsuits for more reasons than you can imagine. But residents need
an independent review and assessment of their financial exposure.
I personally believe that the Developer, Village Voice, Daily Sun and POA monitor threads on TOTV and rightly so. I am not an officer of any organization here and have no authority to act in behalf of residents. So your comment concerning my backing up words with actions is a little unkind

You didn’t offend me and I wasn’t trying to be unkind to you. It’s just that the Andersons would be the best people to be talking to about class action suits against the developer.

I do agree with Advogado that the POA is the best place to go for information on the latest developments. Unlike the VHA, the POA has no ties to the developer and whether you agree with some of their positions, they at least try to present both sides of an argument.

[DeafDeaf]

Latest News about bonds is found on this link: http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/east-volusia/2011/08/29/special-district-costs-lpga-residents-more.html

[memason]

Latest News about bonds is found on this link: http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/east-volusia/2011/08/29/special-district-costs-lpga-residents-more.html

From reading that article, the CDD in Daytona is a FAILING CDD. This is not even close to the case in The Villages.

No relevance to TV...

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me....

[helios]

Correct me if I am wrong, but seems that I read on this site, that the turnpike interchange was being funded by the villages.

I am speaking of the morse blvd extended down 468 to the turnpike.

That would certainly be a future relevance.

[Bogie Shooter]

Correct me if I am wrong, but seems that I read on this site, that the turnpike interchange was being funded by the villages.

I am speaking of the morse blvd extended down 468 to the turnpike.

That would certainly be a future relevance.

How would that be relevant to the IRS bond issue?

[villages07]

Helios ... The Villages Developer is contributing to the proposed turnpike exchange. He and his corporations are separate and apart from the residential community development districts and the two central CDDS. Nothing he has agreed to obligates residents or the CDDs.

And, I agree with memason that the linked article, while interesting reading, is not directly relevant to Villages CDDs. As long as the house building/selling machine is cranking along, the financial stability of the Villages Developer and the unsold land appears strong. Once buildout is done, each homeowner has an obligation to pay their bond, CDD fees, and amenity fees. Failure to pay could lead to foreclosure. I would imagine the delinquency rate here is very low.

All IMHO, of course.

[rubicon]

How would that be relevant to the IRS bond issue?

I think the poster means to say that the costs will be past back to us????

[helios]

It would be relevant to the article, as its in there.

Also, if the developer continues to do these bonds, then its relevant to the payers.

[helios]

07,
If the developer isnt committing villagers to future bonds, then its kosher.

Its just hard to know, when we glean bits and pieces from meeting minutes.

I say this, might bear watching.

[collie1228]

This has been very informative - the interplay between EdVinMass, Avogado and others has been enlightening for me, and I appreciate the information. I have a couple of questions that maybe someone can address. (1) Let's assume the IRS prevailed in tax court, what would happen if the VCCDDs decided not to appeal, but declared bankruptcy instead or simply refuses to pay up? Since the VCCDDs now own the amenities, wouldn't the IRS have the right to foreclose on them, despite any contracts the VCCDDs might have with residents? And since the developer has already legally "sold" his interest in the cash flow from the amenities, wouldn't he be out of the picture? (2) Does anyone know what the developer is doing with the financing of future commercial areas and amenities south of 466A? Have they created a third VCCDD to issue more tax exempt bonds? Just curious . . . .

[clekr]

IF the agent's ascertain that the bonds are tainted due to the relationship between the developer and the CDD's this just means that the interest paid on the bonds is taxable to the purchasers of the bonds. Nothing more. Also, most bonds of this type are purchased by pension funds and insurance companies. Since pension funds don't pay taxes anyway it is irrelevant to them. Tongue in cheak - most insurance companies don't pay taxes either. To the extent that the interest would then be taxable in the hands of a purchaser who thought it was going to be nontaxable whether or not they would have recourse against the issuer (the central CDD's) only a bond attorney could answer. Or, there may be terms in the bonds themselves that address this.

Having had some experience with the IRS and the its administrative appeals process, I think it highly unlikely the agent's postion will be sustained. Particularly in light of the fact the Service previousiy approved a prior bond issue after a similar examination process.

[ilovetv]

This said it best, for those who are just tuning in.

Well once again we have some new TOTV members trying to understand the facts of this ‘IRS investigation’ and raising a lot of uncertainties. So I thought a little refresher course is in order, so here goes:

What is the likely resolution to all of this? It won’t be to penalize the bond buyers. That would be way, way, way too complicated. You’d be talking about thousands of bond holders and municipal bond mutual funds and reassessing past tax filings over many years. There’s a much simpler resolution. In fact, it’s the one already proposed by the initial IRS agent.

In a letter dated May 18 2009, IRS agent Dominick Servadio told the Village Center CCD it could settle the audit by redeeming $355.35 million of bonds it issued from 1993 to 1995, paying the federal government at least $2.85 million, and agreeing to refrain from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds. The bonds are ‘callable’ so they can be bought back at any time by the issuer without recourse from the bondholders, but the VCCDD rejected the offer.

The whole IRS investigation is likely to end up in Federal Tax Court for a final ruling. But if the IRS were to prevail and a settlement similar to Servadio’s proposal were issued, who would be financially responsible? It certainly won’t be TV homeowners or the numbered CDD’s that the homes are a part of. It would be the two special CDDs that all of the amenities (exec golf courses, sports courts, pools, and Rec centers) are organized under. And who is the majority land owner of the property in those two CDDs? Why none other than Gary Morse the developer and/or his myriad holding companies. And we know he’s the majority landowner in those two CDDs because he and he alone appoints their board members every year. Now consider this:

When you purchase a home in TV, it is placed under one of the ten numbered CDDs. Each of these CDDs have taxing power over the properties within them, but not against any property outside that CDD. And each year you pay a property tax to your CDD to cover the cost of maintenance of the common grounds. It’s called a ‘Development District Assessment’ and can be roughly $1000-$2000 per year. So that pays for all those beautiful flowers at your village entrance that are replaced 4 times a year, among other things.

Similarly, the two special CDDs have taxing power over the owners of property within them but not property outside of them. Their sole relationship with TV homeowners is a contractual agreement to provide ongoing maintenance of the amenities within them in exchange for a guaranteed monthly amenity fee. And by contractual agreement with you, that fee can never be raised by more than the rise in the Consumer Price Index within a given year. So there’s no capability for the two special CDDs to pass on any substantial settlement obligations to TV homeowners. They already customarily raise the amenity fee by the CPI increase anyway.

And they’re not going to try to siphon off amenity funds by drastically cutting back on maintenance of the amenities. Remember that a few years ago they got a little too cavalier about dealing with mold issues in some Rec centers as well as trying to pass off maintenance of the multimodal paths onto the numbered CDDs that had these paths. The Villages Property Owners Association (POA) sued them and got an out of court settlement of 40 million dollars to be pumped back into the special CDD over the next nine years. The first major benefit of this was the funding of widening of the paths that was just completed.

So while I can’t predict exactly what will happen with this, I can say with certainty and facts what cannot happen and that it will have little if any impact on TV homeowners unless of course they allow some of the fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) being tossed about, to get to them.

The financial impact of this rests solely with the developer and/or the companies he controls that own the majority of the property within the two CDDs that are being audited by the IRS. And let’s face it, he can afford it.

[Bogie Shooter]

Most questions can be answered by going back and reading the previous 200 posts on this thread. I believe there are other threads that contain as many or more posts. Every conceivable opinion can be read.

[GTTPF]

Thank you, ilovetv for reposting this information. We will be moving to TV when our home is completed. This has been an issue of concern to me. I have read the posts on this form and gotten more confused the more that I read. This cleared up most of my reservations. We will soon be TVers for life. Thanks!:bigbow:

[Taj44]

From Edwin Mass:.....And they’re not going to try to siphon off amenity funds by drastically cutting back on maintenance of the amenities. Remember that a few years ago they got a little too cavalier about dealing with mold issues in some Rec centers as well as trying to pass off maintenance of the multimodal paths onto the numbered CDDs that had these paths. The Villages Property Owners Association (POA) sued them and got an out of court settlement of 40 million dollars to be pumped back into the special CDD over the next nine years. The first major benefit of this was the funding of widening of the paths that was just completed.....

I see no guarantee that they won't try to siphon off amenity funds again. And we'd have to sue them again, and hopefully we, the residents, would prevail. But it takes years for the lawsuits to go through, and they'd have use of our amenities money in the meantime.

[Doodlegirl]

I missed making dinner last night reading and re-reading the posts on this issue.
As a newbie of a month in a pre-owned cyv I simply wanted to comment on several issues.

I was aware of the IRS situation from reading this forum PRIOR to making my purchase and move some 7 weeks ago. However, during the closing portions and steps my Villages salesperson made no mention of it... and I chose not to ask feeling the developer signs the paychecks.

Likewise, I purchased this home using a Reverse Mortgage which is a loan intended for Seniors at this point. Thus, the Federal Government has a stake in my house if you know what I mean. It seems to me if the Feds are willing to loan in The Villages then the IRS issue could be moot because the IRS and the Federal Housing Commission are not (or are) communicating about potential financial issues for
purchaser seniors here.

O.K., so if we consider The Villages the largest Planned Urban Development of its kind in the U.S., and others are using it as a model, then it would behoove the
Government to either act on the information...or, dally. Dally is my feeling just now.

I think of my amenities fee as a gift back to the Developer. Did I wish 'Bond' had
not entered the picture? Absolutely. It sort of makes us niether fish nor fowl in Tallahassee and in Washington. I would, in my case, have preferred to have had the seller in a 'must' position to have paid the Bond on this house rather than my having had to assume it. Theoretically then, the Federal Government is in bed with me with this villa...as is every mortgage company who has homes and customers in the Villages, including the Villages owned mortgage company in mortgaging new homes here most particularly.

There is no question that building is going on at great lengths, the fabric of the landscape along 466A from Buena Vista to the Publix is changing by the hour just since I moved in. The question is whether the Developer will remain a Big Daddy,
will decide to sell (and to whom), and if those of us who moved here will remain
significantly happy with our quality of life choices and enough money to survive until we croak. Now that I am familiar with the issues enough to explain it to my 'next of kin', I imagine it wll be they who will deal with the end result. However, to not monitor the situation is turning a blind eye to wallet issues, so I agree with all who say stay the course, but be as familiar as possible with the players and the game.
Politics, afterall, is from the Latin meaning 'for-of- the many'. I'm one of those and so is everyone here. Thanks for listening to a newbie.

[EdV]

IF the agent's ascertain that the bonds are tainted due to the relationship between the developer and the CDD's this just means that the interest paid on the bonds is taxable to the purchasers of the bonds. Nothing more........

While technically this is true, historically speaking, the IRS has almost never done this. An exception would be a limited number of investors who had intimate knowledge of the non compliance of the bond or was financially involved with the issuer.

[Advogado]

IF the agent's ascertain that the bonds are tainted due to the relationship between the developer and the CDD's this just means that the interest paid on the bonds is taxable to the purchasers of the bonds. Nothing more. Also, most bonds of this type are purchased by pension funds and insurance companies. Since pension funds don't pay taxes anyway it is irrelevant to them. Tongue in cheak - most insurance companies don't pay taxes either. To the extent that the interest would then be taxable in the hands of a purchaser who thought it was going to be nontaxable whether or not they would have recourse against the issuer (the central CDD's) only a bond attorney could answer. Or, there may be terms in the bonds themselves that address this.

Having had some experience with the IRS and the its administrative appeals process, I think it highly unlikely the agent's postion will be sustained. Particularly in light of the fact the Service previousiy approved a prior bond issue after a similar examination process.
I hope that you are right about it being unlikely that the IRS's not prevailing, but, unfortunately, I don't think that we have any basis for that belief. In fact, the situation seems to be getting worse (no conclusion of the matter, expanded investigation, and the latest IRS finding on the Developer's overpricing of the amenity assets sold to the CCDs). Meantime, we Villagers get no word of assurance from the Developer to the effect that our amenities are not at risk.

In any event, if the bonds are held to be taxable, the bondholders will sue the Center Districts that issued them. The basis for the suits will be that the Center Districts warranted that the bonds were tax exempt. (Refer to the Official Statement for each issue of the bonds.) In other words, the cost of the IRS's sustaining its position will, directly or indirectly, fall on the Center Districts.

If that cost prevents the Center Districts from being financially able to furnish amenities, then Villagers will have to again sue the Developer in order to try to rectify the situation-- which could take time. (By the way, contrary to your post, I think that you will find that pension funds and other tax-exempt entities generally don't buy municipal bonds. This is because the bonds are tax exempt and therefore pay a lower interest rate than taxable bonds. In other words, if the CDD bonds are held to be taxable, the bondholders will very much care.)

Incidentally, for members trying to get a basic understanding of this matter: rather than slogging through the numerous posts on this site, check archived editions of the POA Bulletin. There is an analysis in the September 2009 edition: http://poa4us.org/bulletins_files/bulletin200909.pdf See later editions for subsequent developments, but that edition basically describes what is still at stake.

[ilovetv]

I hope that you are right about it being unlikely that the IRS's not prevailing, but, unfortunately, I don't think that we have any basis for that belief. ........
There is an analysis in the September 2009 edition: http://poa4us.org/bulletins_files/bulletin200909.pdf See later editions for subsequent developments, but that edition basically describes what is still at stake.

From this link above (Sept. 2009 edition of POA bulletin), how does this part affect homeowners?

"These two Center Districts are The Villages Center Community Development District (VCCDD) and The Sumter Landing Community Development District (SLCDD). They encompass, respectively, the Spanish Springs and Lake Sumter Landing town centers. The Center Districts have only commercial properties, and are not the “numbered districts” in which our homes are located."

I understood (maybe wrongly) from prior posts that our amenities fees go for our residential district, not these commercial properties that have commercial, leased property occupants paying for them. Can someone clarify?

[rubicon]

All of this points to at least two questions 1) who will absorb the tax penalty on the bonds issued should the IRS prevail and 2 a) Is the IRS correct in stating that the appraised value of the property purchased by the district and the estimated cash flow from the amenities were exaggerated? (2b) And if so how did it happen (2c)and for how much more? (2d) Are residents justified in demanding a repayments of these overstated values?

[Larry Wilson]

Good info from the POA paper I found on my driveway yesterday.

[The Shadow]

Good info from the POA paper I found on my driveway yesterday.Read it on line at...

http://www.poa4us.org/bulletins_files/bulletin201109.pdf

[Advogado]

The September issue of the VHA paper, the Villages Voice, carried an article by the VHA President, entitled "IRS Outcome No Risk to Villagers". In that article, the VHA, which seems to be a front organization for the Developer, continues its past practice of misleading Villagers about the potential impact of the IRS investigation on the ability of the Center Districts to continue to provide amenities to Villagers. It is interesting that that the Developer, himself, has yet to issue one word of assurance to Villagers in this regard.

Page 6 of the October Property Owners' Association Bulletin delivers a balanced (but, in my view, overly restrained) rebuttal to the baloney contained in the VHA article. If you haven't read the VHA article and POA rebuttal, you should. We all have a lot riding on this matter and should try to stay informed.

[villagegolfer]

The September issue of the VHA paper, the Villages Voice, carried an article by the VHA President, entitled "IRS Outcome No Risk to Villagers". In that article, the VHA, which seems to be a front organization for the Developer, continues its past practice of misleading Villagers about the potential impact of the IRS investigation on the ability of the Center Districts to continue to provide amenities to Villagers. It is interesting that that the Developer, himself, has yet to issue one word of assurance to Villagers in this regard.

Page 6 of the October Property Owners' Association Bulletin delivers a balanced (but, in my view, overly restrained) rebuttal to the baloney contained in the VHA article. If you haven't read the VHA article and POA rebuttal, you should. We all have a lot riding on this matter and should try to stay informed.
I will let you and others do it for me. My time on this earth is short and I will not spend it worrying needlessly. If this country does not straighten out, all this IRS BS will be moot anyways.

[Taj44]

The September issue of the VHA paper, the Villages Voice, carried an article by the VHA President, entitled "IRS Outcome No Risk to Villagers". In that article, the VHA, which seems to be a front organization for the Developer, continues its past practice of misleading Villagers about the potential impact of the IRS investigation on the ability of the Center Districts to continue to provide amenities to Villagers. It is interesting that that the Developer, himself, has yet to issue one word of assurance to Villagers in this regard.

Page 6 of the October Property Owners' Association Bulletin delivers a balanced (but, in my view, overly restrained) rebuttal to the baloney contained in the VHA article. If you haven't read the VHA article and POA rebuttal, you should. We all have a lot riding on this matter and should try to stay informed.

I feel really fortunate that we have the POA to give us a straight line on the IRS investigation. And also I am not "worrying needlessly" -- I just don't like to be taken advantage of or not be given all the information relative to our situation. I have money invested in housing in TV, and if my lifestyle here is threatened (which could be the case if the IRS lawsuit prevails), I want to be up on all the facts, not just a few select items that the VHA or developer decides they want us to know.

[mrsanborn]

I will let you and others do it for me. My time on this earth is short and I will not spend it worrying needlessly. If this country does not straighten out, all this IRS BS will be moot anyways.

I agree

[graciegirl]

I agree


et moi aussi.

[Bill-n-Brillo]

et moi aussi.

No hablo. :1rotfl:

Bill :)

[swimdawg]

no hablo. :1rotfl:

Bill :)

現在你是什麼人談？我覺得那裡是胡扯下去。我明白德爾韋伯國際空間站特價銷售。我只說。

[Larry Wilson]

I feel really fortunate that we have the POA to give us a straight line on the IRS investigation. And also I am not "worrying needlessly" -- I just don't like to be taken advantage of or not be given all the information relative to our situation. I have money invested in housing in TV, and if my lifestyle here is threatened (which could be the case if the IRS lawsuit prevails), I want to be up on all the facts, not just a few select items that the VHA or developer decides they want us to know.

So true. Years of serving on boards and committees has shown me that the people who do nothing are part of the problem. I always told my employees you are either part of the solution or part of the problem.
It takes many hours to make this place work. There are hundreds of volunteers and we are working to make this a better community. Staying informed is not the same as worrying.

[Advogado]

In a nutshell, the IRS is sticking with its initial determination that the VCCDD is not a political subdivision authorized to issue tax-exempt bonds. For more detailed information, you can read the summary on page 3 of the November Property Owners' Association Bulletin.

We still have not received any assurance from the Developer that a negative outcome will not affect the continuation of our amenities. (If you haven't been following the matter, the risk to Villagers, put simply, is that the imposition of a huge tax cost on the VCCDD will make it financially impossible for the VCCDD to continue to furnish our amenities.)

[graciegirl]

In a nutshell, the IRS is sticking with its initial determination that the VCCDD is not a political subdivision authorized to issue tax-exempt bonds. For more detailed information, you can read the summary on page 3 of the November Property Owners' Association Bulletin.

We still have not received any assurance from the Developer that a negative outcome will not affect the continuation of our amenities. (If you haven't been following the matter, the risk to Villagers, put simply, is that the imposition of a huge tax cost on the VCCDD will make it financially impossible for the VCCDD to continue to furnish our amenities.)


Don't say anything Gracie.
Don't say anything Gracie.
Count to 100.

[Posh 08]

Hmmmm, just hmmmm.

[English Ivy]

In a nutshell, the IRS is sticking with its initial determination that the VCCDD is not a political subdivision authorized to issue tax-exempt bonds. For more detailed information, you can read the summary on page 3 of the November Property Owners' Association Bulletin.


The actual IRS document stating their continued position can be read at this link:

http://www.districtgov.org/images/IRSupdates/20111020-IRSUpdate.pdf

Janet Tutt has indicated in her memo which is included in this link that there are "factual errors" in the IRS document and they are "considering" the submittal of a brief response to "clarify the facts".

Only time shall tell what the ultimate outcome will be, but Advogado is only updating us on the latest progress. No need to be upset with the messenger and if you're not interested in being updated, no need to click on this post.

[Posh 08]

The actual IRS document stating their continued position can be read at this link:

http://www.districtgov.org/images/IRSupdates/20111020-IRSUpdate.pdf

Janet Tutt has indicated in her memo which is included in this link that there are "factual errors" in the IRS document and they are "considering" the submittal of a brief response to "clarify the facts".

Only time shall tell what the ultimate outcome will be, but Advogado is only updating us on the latest progress. No need to be upset with the messenger and if you're not interested in being updated, no need to click on this post.

Oh I'm interested and grateful for the update.

[Larry Wilson]

Only time shall tell what the ultimate outcome will be, but Advogado is only updating us on the latest progress. No need to be upset with the messenger and if you're not interested in being updated, no need to click on this post.[/QUOTE]

Good post English Ivy. I so agree.

[The Shadow]

Don't say anything Gracie.
Don't say anything Gracie.
Count to 100.
I’m gona mark this day on my calendar. :wave:

[Taj44]

Advogado, thanks for the update.

[Boudicca]

Ditto to Gracie's response. Does not make for a warm and comfy feel, for sure.

[Taj44]

Ditto to Gracie's response. Does not make for a warm and comfy feel, for sure.

Multi-million dollar IRS investigations tend to be not so warm and comfy.

[graciegirl]

Bump. The IRS issue.

[Mikeod]

What's your purpose in bumping all these contentious threads? If you were adding to the discussion I would understand. But to just bump them to bring them to the fore without any additional comment or information appears to be just stirring the pot for no reason or benefit to the members of this board. Doesn't seem like you.

[The Village Girl]

What's your purpose in bumping all these contentious threads? If you were adding to the discussion I would understand. But to just bump them to bring them to the fore without any additional comment or information appears to be just stirring the pot for no reason or benefit to the members of this board. Doesn't seem like you.

Someone asked a question about a law suit. Gracie was commenting on the "haters" on the developers who gave us this wonderful place to live. You know the people who want to live here but don't appreciate the developers who gave us all of this because the have more money then they do?

So, she is bumping the threads so they can see that some people just want to bite the hand that makes the beauty they get to live in.

[graciegirl]

Someone asked a question about a law suit. Gracie was commenting on the "haters" on the developers who gave us this wonderful place to live. You know the people who want to live here but don't appreciate the developers who gave us all of this because the have more money then they do?

So, she is bumping the threads so they can see that some people just want to bite the hand that makes the beauty they get to live in.

I just so love it here and wish every person who has worked hard all of their lives and now can retire could share it with us.

That is why I bumped these old contentious threads.

I don't like it here. I just love it here.


I am so sure that all of the things that I worried about originally in my...'Omigosh this is way too good to be true stage' and 'how and what is being put over on me stage' are not cause for worry anymore. I know that most of you will sort this out, but I remember thinking...Oh..now that worry is laid to rest and then something else would come up. I just thought I would bump some old threads and pick a pimple I guess.


I love this place so much that sometimes I am accused of working for the Morses. ..who I do not know at all. PERIOD.

I was trying to help, honest.

[2 Oldcrabs]

[QUOTE=The Village Girl;438256]Someone asked a question about a law suit. Gracie was commenting on the "haters" on the developers who gave us this wonderful place to live. You know the people who want to live here but don't appreciate the developers who gave us all of this because the have more money then they do?

I do not think the developer "Gave Us" anything. They built a very nice community that we paid for and will pay for, until we move or die !

[The Village Girl]

Someone asked a question about a law suit. Gracie was commenting on the "haters" on the developers who gave us this wonderful place to live. You know the people who want to live here but don't appreciate the developers who gave us all of this because the have more money then they do? !


I do not think the developer "Gave Us" anything. They built a very nice community that we paid for and will pay for, until we move or die !

You are correct! They didn't GIVE us anything! But they didn't have to do it so nice either. And still could have made a bundle!

Now, if you don't mind, I have some Kool aid to finish! :)

[paulandjean]

Are you two like sisters?

[skyguy79]

Someone asked a question about a law suit. Gracie was commenting on the "haters" on the developers who gave us this wonderful place to live. You know the people who want to live here but don't appreciate the developers who gave us all of this because the have more money then they do?

I do not think the developer "Gave Us" anything. They built a very nice community that we paid for and will pay for, until we move or die !
With all due respect I feel that you are using the term "gave" in a much different way than Gracie did. You're using "gave" like would be used in the case of being given a gift at Christmas, birthdays or other special occasions. Gracie used "gave" as another way of stating provided, meaning offered to us, directly or indirectly, a product or lifestyle for purchase. Are there any of us that didn't take advantage of that product/lifestyle on our own free will?

Perhaps the term "haters" was a little strong as people do have a right to voice their opinions, criticisms or simply what they are feeling. However, it can reach a point sometimes where it goes beyond making constructive criticisms and encroach into the realm of disingenuous. Let's face it, the developer has not only given us the possibility of owning the homes we live in, but has also provided many jobs for the greater community, and that includes some of us frogs. Think positively and remember that none of us would be here enjoying what we do if not for "the developer!"

[The Village Girl]

let's face it, the developer has not only given us the possibility of owning the homes we live in, but has also provided many jobs for the greater community, and that includes some of us frogs. Think positively and remember that none of us would be here enjoying what we do if not for "the developer!"

exactly!!! :)

[buggyone]

...and for anyone who is unhappy here, the housing market is still very strong in The Villages so they are able to sell with no loss and ...

No one is being forced to stay here due to a weak economy such as if this were Detroit and not being able to sell your house.