Latest On IRS Bond Issue

[rubicon]

I know how some of you feel toward Lauren Ritchie. However she just posted Part One of a Two Part Article on the latest findings by the IRS. All I will say is it is not very flattering concerning the Developer's tactics and goals and that it is not very promising. I had read her account at 5:00AM this morning and wished I stayed in bed. Ritchie does reinforce my understanding of this entire situation

[Madelaine Amee]

I know how some of you feel toward Lauren Ritchie. However she just posted Part One of a Two Part Article on the latest findings by the IRS. All I will say is it is not very flattering concerning the Developer's tactics and goals and that it is not very promising. I had read her account at 5:00AM this morning and wished I stayed in bed. Ritchie does reinforce my understanding of this entire situation

Could you post a link to this article please.

[graciegirl]

IRS Villages: IRS preliminary ruling — Villages government not legitimate under tax codes - OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-villages-irs-20121209,0,7591831.column)

[Luv2travel]

So who represents the Residents interest in this issue?

[mickey100]

Well, according to the article the Villages center district has spent $644,672 (of the resident's money) fighting the IRS. They are representing the district's interest, which differs from the resident's interests. The POA keeps us on our toes communication wise, but I don't think they have the financial ability to represent us legally. So it appears no one is representing the resident's interest, legally at least. I presume if the ruling went against the district, and monies would have to be paid out out of district funds (money that came from the residents), that the resident's would have to file another class action lawsuit like they did back in 2008 to regain the money that would be rightfully theirs.

[rubicon]

So who represents the Residents interest in this issue?

In my view no one and I issued an admonishion along those lines approximately five years ago:lipsrsealed:

I opine others can decide.

[graciegirl]

Well, according to the article the Villages center district has spent $644,672 (of the resident's money) fighting the IRS. They are representing the district's interest, which differs from the resident's interests. The POA keeps us on our toes communication wise, but I don't think they have the financial ability to represent us legally. So it appears no one is representing the resident's interest, legally at least. I presume if the ruling went against the district, and monies would have to be paid out out of district funds (money that came from the residents), that the resident's would have to file another class action lawsuit like they did back in 2008 to regain the money that would be rightfully theirs.

Money that would be rightfully theirs? I will link again to that lawsuit that you keep bringing up. Read this again please.

Villages developer to pay $40 million for recreation upgrades to settle a lawsuit - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-03-09/news/lvillages09_1_villages-fees-lawyer)

ANYONE CAN SUE ANYONE. As a result of this LAWSUIT some individuals who live here apparently got a LOT of money.


Elaine Driedame is the president of the POA.

The developers maintain the areas and create beautiful new ones that I see south of 466 without anyone sueing them. I often wonder about that lawsuit.

[graciegirl]

Those who think impending doom is approaching via this IRS ruling should sell now and get out.

There are many of us who have gambled the big hunk of change for our homes here who have evaluated the issue and think that we are safe from any unexpected bills.

If we stay it will be handled by someone other than us, we don't vote here. If we go we can move to another place and find issues there to worry about.

AND I am NOT stupid, uninformed or do I drink alcohol or take drugs. I have had LOTS of awful things happen to me just like anyone else. I am not unrealistic or in anyway being remimbursed for the things that I write on here.

WHY can't I be allowed to be optimistic?

I am a Republican and a Catholic. I have never been in trouble with the law except for two speeding tickets in my life. Nor has my family. I have paid taxes every year for as long as I have worked and that is about fifty years taking time off to raise our girls. We have a good credit rating and we bathe regularly.

SHEESH.







bump

[mulligan]

Center district funds come from the MERCHANTS not the residents.

[mickey100]

Money that would be rightfully theirs? I will link again to that lawsuit that you keep bringing up. Read this again please.

Villages developer to pay $40 million for recreation upgrades to settle a lawsuit - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-03-09/news/lvillages09_1_villages-fees-lawyer)

ANYONE CAN SUE ANYONE. As a result of this LAWSUIT some individuals who live here apparently got a LOT of money.


Elaine Driedame is the president of the POA.

They maintain the areas and create beautiful new ones that I see south of 466 without anyone sueing them. I often wonder about that lawsuit.

I fail to see why you are so threatened by the lawsuit from 2008. You seem to take all of this so personally. But to recap, money was supposed to be set aside to maintain facilities in The Villages, money was not set aside, the residents sued (out of necessity since the developer wouldn't budge), and the courts sided with the residents. The legal team who happened to be Villages residents was the only team the residents could find who would "go up against the system" in a state where the Developer has traded money for political influence in local governments all the way up to statewide and federal levels. How fortunate the Villages residents were to have this legal team willing to fight for them. And how fortunate the courts recognized that the developer was operating illegally. As a result, we residents are now enjoying the fruits of that lawsuit such as the newly paved recreational trails on the north side of 466, and other improvements, improvements that are paid for by our money that we had to sue to get.

[graciegirl]

I fail to see why you are so threatened by the lawsuit from 2008. You seem to take all of this so personally. But to recap, money was supposed to be set aside to maintain facilities in The Villages, money was not set aside, the residents sued (out of necessity since the developer wouldn't budge), and the courts sided with the residents. The legal team who happened to be Villages residents was the only team the residents could find who would "go up against the system" in a state where the Developer has traded money for political influence in local governments all the way up to statewide and federal levels. How fortunate the Villages residents were to have this legal team willing to fight for them. And how fortunate the courts recognized that the developer was operating illegally. As a result, we residents are now enjoying the fruits of that lawsuit such as the newly paved recreational trails on the north side of 466, and other improvements, improvements that are paid for by our money that we had to sue to get.

I am not the one bringing up the lawsuit. YOU are.

I do not see that at all when I read what happened.

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=graciegirl;591680]Those who think impending doom is approaching via this IRS ruling should sell now and get out.

There are many of us who have gambled the big hunk of change for our homes here who have evaluated the issue and think that we are safe from any unexpected bills.

If we stay it will be handled by someone other than us, we don't vote here. If we go we can move to another place and find issues there to worry about.

AND I am NOT stupid, uninformed or do I drink alcohol or take drugs. I have had LOTS of awful things happen to me just like anyone else. I am not unrealistic or in anyway being remimbursed for the things that I write on here.

WHY can't I be allowed to be optimistic?

I am a Republican and a Catholic. I have never been in trouble with the law except for two speeding tickets in my life. Nor has my family. I have paid taxes every year for as long as I have worked and that is about fifty years taking time off to raise our girls. We have a good credit rating and we bathe regularly.

SHEESH.







bump

[EdV]

The residents of TV have absolutely no interest in this dispute in spite of what Ms. Ritchie would like you to believe.

You have a simple and straightforward contract with the special district (VCCDD north of 466 or SLCDD south of 466). You are obligated to pay a monthly amenity fee that can never be increased annually by more than the consumer price index and that special district is obligated to maintain the amenities in a usual and customary manor.

If for any reason either of the special districts were to fail to maintain the amenities properly, then another class action suit would be brought against them just as it was a few years ago which resulted in a settlement in favor of the residents.

But before any of you take too much stock in Ms. Ritchie�s ramblings, here is a post made by her in TOTV regarding her feelings about Community Development Districts:

ed,

i realize you meant this to be a witty stab, but as you may or may not know, arlington ridge's CDD has raided its reserve fund to avoid default on its bonds. just another fine example of why i think CDDs are a ripoff to the buyer. don't worry, my friend. you won't catch me buying a home in a community with a CDD.

lauren

Remember too that until I corrected her in another post, she couldn�t even spell amenities.

[Bogie Shooter]

The residents of TV have absolutely no interest in this dispute in spite of what Ms. Ritchie would like you to believe.

You have a simple and straightforward contract with the special district (VCCDD north of 466 or SLCDD south of 466). You are obligated to pay a monthly amenity fee that can never be increased annually by more than the consumer price index and that special district is obligated to maintain the amenities in a usual and customary manor.

If for any reason either of the special districts were to fail to maintain the amenities properly, then another class action suit would be brought against them just as it was a few years ago which resulted in a settlement in favor of the residents.

But before any of you take too much stock in Ms. Ritchie�s ramblings, here is a post made by her in TOTV regarding her feelings about Community Development Districts:



Remember too that until I corrected her in another post, she couldn�t even spell amenities.

Thanks Ed.

[BobnBev]

GG, ahhhh, the truth finally comes out...........2 speeding tickets.....shame on you.....hang your head in shame.......say 10 Hail Marys and go to bed without your supper..:22yikes::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Just havin fun with you...you're still #1

[Jaggy]

Yikes.. Do I need to quit reading the TOTV?? Seriously.. great information but don't scare me like that first thing on Sunday morning, during the first full month of being a village resident.. I get a kick out of people.Doomsday is coming!!! the sky is falling..
remember.. we only have until Dec 21 and then we are all gone anyway.. Poof..or is it the 22nd?? :p

[mickey100]

The residents of TV have absolutely no interest in this dispute in spite of what Ms. Ritchie would like you to believe.

You have a simple and straightforward contract with the special district (VCCDD north of 466 or SLCDD south of 466). You are obligated to pay a monthly amenity fee that can never be increased annually by more than the consumer price index and that special district is obligated to maintain the amenities in a usual and customary manor.

If for any reason either of the special districts were to fail to maintain the amenities properly, then another class action suit would be brought against them just as it was a few years ago which resulted in a settlement in favor of the residents....

If residents are to be part of a class action lawsuit as a result of this dispute, as a resident it sure concerns me. If the special district is paying out money for legal fees and ultimately bond interest, it certainly begs the question of where the money is coming from to maintain the amenities.

[graciegirl]

It could mean that the whole thing will validate that it is perfectly tickety boo and that the CDD can continue to do business in the way they have...which I hope.

The Morses had more than adequate financial resources to cover this five years ago but apparently they and their legal counsel felt it was worth standing for.

It all depends whether you think that they would gamble their reputation on something shady since they have a number of legitimate ways to make money and they are making tons of it.

We were one of the thousands of people who bought property surrounded by swamp lands in the center of Florida, the lightning capital of the country and where sinkholes are rampant.

Damn I am glad we did.

[bimmertl]

Money that would be rightfully theirs? I will link again to that lawsuit that you keep bringing up. Read this again please.

Villages developer to pay $40 million for recreation upgrades to settle a lawsuit - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-03-09/news/lvillages09_1_villages-fees-lawyer)

ANYONE CAN SUE ANYONE. As a result of this LAWSUIT some individuals who live here apparently got a LOT of money.


Elaine Driedame is the president of the POA.

The developers maintain the areas and create beautiful new ones that I see south of 466 without anyone sueing them. I often wonder about that lawsuit.

You continually overlook a key part of this settlement, the confidentiality agreement. Normally these agreements are made to keep the amount of the overall settlement confidential. In this settlement, the amount was well known. So what is the purpose of the agreement?

As stated in the article. "The settlement includes confidentiality and nondisparagement clauses, which prevent the parties from discussing the case or criticizing Morse of the Villages".

No doubt, during the Discovery phase of this litigation, less than favorable information regarding the developer and his dealings was discovered. So what the agreement did was buy the silence of the parties who sued Morse et al.

Yes, anybody can sue anybody, but you don't routinely get $40 million settlement agreements unless one party feels they have a lot more to lose if the case ever went to trial, which this one didn't. No doubt at some point Morse sat down with his lawyers and discussed the worst case scenario if it went to trial, which was probably greater than the settlement amount, so they agreed on the settlement.

It took a lot of courage to become a named plaintiff against someone as powerful as Morse. It's not a walk in the park being involved in this type of litigation. The 50K each was a reasonable amount for the named plaintiffs to recover and Morse bought their silence with it.

[EdV]

If residents are to be part of a class action lawsuit as a result of this dispute, as a resident it sure concerns me. If the special district is paying out money for legal fees and ultimately bond interest, it certainly begs the question of where the money is coming from to maintain the amenities.

Ah, but when you signed the contract at your closing, you agreed that you have no right or interest in the recreational facilities nor to how the the amenity fees are used:

4.1 (g) Purchasers of Homesites further agree, .......that the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, do not have any right, title or claim or interest in and to the recreational areas, security facilities, dedicated or reserved areas or facilities contained therein or appurtenant thereto, by reason of the purchase of their respective Homesites, it being specifically agreed that, (1) the Developer, its successors and assigns, is the sole and exclusive owner of the areas and facilities, and (2) the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.

I'm not trying to rub anyones face in this but it is what it is so, there's no sense fretting about it now.

[Advogado]

In an earlier post, I mentioned that the Orlando Sentinel seemed to have lost interest in the subject. I guess I was wrong. Kudos to Lauren Ritchie for reporting objectively on a subject that is complex, but of crucial interest to Villagers. Now, if the VHA and the Daily Sun would finally do the same.

One observation about the article: It does not make the point that the potential impact on residents arises from the following. The Center Districts warranted to the bondholders that the interest on the bonds would be tax free. If that turns out not to be the case, the bondholders will sue the Center Districts for breach of that warranty in order to recover the amount of the taxes that they have to pay. (Remember that the bonds are secured by the pledge of the amenity-fee income-- another complication for the amenities system.) If the bondholders prevail, as they presumably would, the Center Districts would then become financially unable to continue to furnish the amenities.

And what happens next? At that point, things really get complicated, but none of the scenarios are pretty. By the way, I hope that none of this comes to pass-- and it may well not.

In anticipation of the "love it or leave it" response to this kind of post, I like it here. I don't intend to sell and leave, but I also, unlike some other posters, I do not intend to ignore the facts in regard to this subject.

[Madelaine Amee]

I'm not trying to rub anyones face in this but it is what it is so, there's no sense fretting about it now.

............ they will. This constant bickering goes on and on and on for absolutely no reason. No one on this chat line has any idea what the outcome will be so this is all a waste of time, unless you have nothing better to do .............. so I had better take my own advice and get off here.

[mickey100]

Ah, but when you signed the contract at your closing, you agreed that you have no right or interest in the recreational facilities nor to how the the amenity fees are used:

4.1 (g) Purchasers of Homesites further agree, .......that the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, do not have any right, title or claim or interest in and to the recreational areas, security facilities, dedicated or reserved areas or facilities contained therein or appurtenant thereto, by reason of the purchase of their respective Homesites, it being specifically agreed that, (1) the Developer, its successors and assigns, is the sole and exclusive owner of the areas and facilities, and (2) the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.

I'm not trying to rub anyones face in this but it is what it is so, there's no sense fretting about it now.

Back in 2004, when we bought, no one suspected that the Morses would set up the CDD's and have them operate in a manner that wasn't condoned by law. It wasn't until 2008 when the first lawsuit was settled that many residents even had an inkling of the shenanigans that were going on.

[eweissenbach]

As a future Villager, I do pay attention to the IRS issue, as well as anything else having to do with the development. I like to read the articles that Lauren Ritchie writes, as well as the POA statements, and the takes by various TOTVers who keep up on the subject. The great thing about living in a country which does not supress free speech, is the ability to read and hear about all the various sides, opinions, and takes on an issue, and then making one's own mind up about how it affects them. Ritchie is no lover of the developers, but that point of view is informative, even if it may be somewhat skewed. This issue gives me NO pause when considering TV as a future (part-time) home. I have said before, and will say again, the Morse organization has built the greatest utopia for retirees known to man. That does not make them infallable, perfect, or incapable of unlawful behavior, or operating on the fringe of ethics. The only thing that I can personally judge them on is the quality of life that they have provided for me while I am in TV, and on that level they are almost flawless.

[2BNTV]

As a future Villager, I do pay attention to the IRS issue, as well as anything else having to do with the development. I like to read the articles that Lauren Ritchie writes, as well as the POA statements, and the takes by various TOTVers who keep up on the subject. The great thing about living in a country which does not supress free speech, is the ability to read and hear about all the various sides, opinions, and takes on an issue, and then making one's own mind up about how it affects them. Ritchie is no lover of the developers, but that point of view is informative, even if it may be somewhat skewed. This issue gives me NO pause when considering TV as a future (part-time) home. I have said before, and will say again, the Morse organization has built the greatest utopia for retirees known to man. That does not make them infallable, perfect, or incapable of unlawful behavior, or operating on the fringe of ethics. The only thing that I can personally judge them on is the quality of life that they have provided for me while I am in TV, and on that level they are almost flawless.

:agree:

Well said.

[lovesports]

Can't keep up with all these posts. But I sure wish this developer would be more open.
I also think it is good for people looking to know what is going on. Unlike us who have found all this out since we bought.
I can honestly say we have so many friends here that we would never leave. However, had I known all this, I probably would of bought in a different development with a different structure of government.
Just because I pay attention to the IRS issue doesn't mean I'm worrying. I'm not.
Off the computer for the day.

[Bogie Shooter]

Back in 2004, when we bought, no one suspected that the Morses would set up the CDD's and have them operate in a manner that wasn't condoned by law. It wasn't until 2008 when the first lawsuit was settled that many residents even had an inkling of the shenanigans that were going on.

Weren't the CDD's in place long before 2004?

[mulligan]

If you think this form of government is a little dicey, try a development with a mandatory HOA, or a large condo association. As a previously licensed association manager in Florida, the decision to buy here was easy.

[lovesports]

If you think this form of government is a little dicey, try a development with a mandatory HOA, or a large condo association. As a previously licensed association manager in Florida, the decision to buy here was easy.

I'm sure you are right. That's like comparing one hit in the head to two hits in the head. There are some very open and very well-off developments that my friends live in, that's what I am talking about.

[mickey100]

Weren't the CDD's in place long before 2004?

The issue is not how long they have been in place, but how they are operating in a manner not consistent with the intent of the laws regarding CDD's. No one knew that until the issues regarding the 2008 lawsuit came out and also the IRS investigation.

[graciegirl]

The issue is not how long they have been in place, but how they are operating in a manner not consistent with the intent of the laws regarding CDD's. No one knew that until the issues regarding the 2008 lawsuit came out and also the IRS investigation.

I can't see how you can come to that conclusion and present it as fact.

That is what bothers me. The LEAPING to conclusions.

What will happen if this all turns out to be a tempest in a teapot?

THEN..there will be something else that people will cause a ruckus about because they are just jealous of the fact that the Morses are mega rich.

You would think that some people had their leg amputated when the buffalo disappeared. The buffalo were there for two reasons. They were an attention getter and something to talk about on the tape...ala PT Barnum... and the presence of animals on land causes it to be taxed lower. That doesn't seem smarmy to me. But such a hue and cry.

You would think they murdered Bambi. They are in the business of selling an idea and land and building houses on it. And they do it so well!

[manaboutown]

The issue is not how long they have been in place, but how they are operating in a manner not consistent with the intent of the laws regarding CDD's. No one knew that until the issues regarding the 2008 lawsuit came out and also the IRS investigation.

I am following the posts on TOTV closely while I mull over whether or not to relocate to The Villages. If I do come, I want to arrive as a frog, not as an ostrich. I do want to be an informed purchaser and resident.

By the way, if the attorneys representing the developer/CDD(s) before the IRS are as successful as Gracie is in advocating for the decisions, actions and interests of the developer they should surely succeed.

[mickey100]

I can't see how you can come to that conclusion and present it as fact.

That is what bothers me. The LEAPING to conclusions.



The last time I looked, losing a 28 million dollar lawsuit after being sued is a fact.

[EdV]

The last time I looked, losing a 28 million dollar lawsuit after being sued is a fact.

The fact is that it was over 46 million dollars!

[rubicon]

Ah, but when you signed the contract at your closing, you agreed that you have no right or interest in the recreational facilities nor to how the the amenity fees are used:

4.1 (g) Purchasers of Homesites further agree, .......that the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, do not have any right, title or claim or interest in and to the recreational areas, security facilities, dedicated or reserved areas or facilities contained therein or appurtenant thereto, by reason of the purchase of their respective Homesites, it being specifically agreed that, (1) the Developer, its successors and assigns, is the sole and exclusive owner of the areas and facilities, and (2) the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.

I'm not trying to rub anyones face in this but it is what it is so, there's no sense fretting about it now.

You speak to assets but not to liabilities. I am not a legal expert so I would be interested in what the contract says about liabilities as respect amenities?

The direct parties to the Bond Issue were the Developer and the Officers of the two Governing Districts (VCCDD SLCCD) As such any acts of ommission or commission should rest solely with them.
Since the POA handled the 2008 Amneties lawsuit it would behoove residents to ask the POA to submit in writing a notification to the Developer and Two Commercial district that residents are looking to them to settle this matter should the IRS render an adverse verdict. Further the POA should let both parties know that we do want ensurances that our amentity fees are not being used to defend nor settle this matter. Finally, a copy of this notification should be sent to the IRS and the Florida Attorneys General. to stay silent is to leave the impression that we are in agreement with what the Developer and commercial did and are now doing. (ie silence equates to acceptance)

Again I am only offering my personal opinion as to how we may have someone defend our financial interest, if any.

[EdV]

No, the POA was not involved in that lawsuit. It was initiated on behave of several TV residents who happened to be members/officers of the POA.

As for liabilities, TV residents have none with respect to the two special CDDs. Your amenity fee as stated is a fee for services. You pay your doctor a fee for their services but you’re not responsible for their liabilities.

[EdV]

Although the Internal Revenue Code makes bondholders ultimately responsible for uncollected taxes if a tax-free bond is deemed taxable, the IRS rarely does so.

As stated in Section E of an Introduction to IRS Audits of Tax-Exempt Bonds (http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/742.pdf), it is the stated policy of the (IRS) TEB program to attempt to resolve violations of the Code without taxing bondholders.

This is done for a couple of reasons:


Trying to track down each bondholder including those that only own a minute fraction that is part of a muni fund would be an enormous task.

The bond issuers (the two special CDDs) would have to recall or reissue the bonds anyway to cover the taxable status in the coming years until the bonds maturity.

The negative press as exemplified by Ms. Ritchie�s articles would be detrimental in an already recessed real estate economy.

If the IRS were to prevail through all of the likely appeals processes, a settlement similar to the example outlined in Section E of the above referenced document is most likely.

[applesoffh]

Question...I read the article in today's paper..even read it out loud to my husband to see if I understood everything correctly. Obviously, I did not. My understanding was that there were 2 CDDs specific to the IRS ruling, and was specific to bonds purchased by residents (and marketed as IRS deductible) by the Developer within a certain timeframe (prior to 2008). Is my interpretation flawed?

[bike42]

Question...I read the article in today's paper..even read it out loud to my husband to see if I understood everything correctly. Obviously, I did not. My understanding was that there were 2 CDDs specific to the IRS ruling, and was specific to bonds purchased by residents (and marketed as IRS deductible) by the Developer within a certain timeframe (prior to 2008). Is my interpretation flawed?

Totally flawed. The bonds were not purchased by residents. They are sold to investors, usually institutional investors. The bonds in question have nothing to do with the bond on your house.

(from Ritchie's article) " . . . the Village Center district won't owe the IRS a nickel � the tax burden falls wholly on the holders and the buyers of the bonds. They would have to pay taxes on the interest they collected as the loans were being repaid."

[janmcn]

Although the Internal Revenue Code makes bondholders ultimately responsible for uncollected taxes if a tax-free bond is deemed taxable, the IRS rarely does so.

As stated in Section E of an Introduction to IRS Audits of Tax-Exempt Bonds (http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/742.pdf), it is the stated policy of the (IRS) TEB program to attempt to resolve violations of the Code without taxing bondholders.

This is done for a couple of reasons:


Trying to track down each bondholder including those that only own a minute fraction that is part of a muni fund would be an enormous task.

The bond issuers (the two special CDDs) would have to recall or reissue the bonds anyway to cover the taxable status in the coming years until the bonds maturity.

The negative press as exemplified by Ms. Ritchie�s articles would be detrimental in an already recessed real estate economy.

If the IRS were to prevail through all of the likely appeals processes, a settlement similar to the example outlined in Section E of the above referenced document is most likely.

Totally flawed. The bonds were not purchased by residents. They are sold to investors, usually institutional investors. The bonds in question have nothing to do with the bond on your house.

(from Ritchie's article) " . . . the Village Center district won't owe the IRS a nickel � the tax burden falls wholly on the holders and the buyers of the bonds. They would have to pay taxes on the interest they collected as the loans were being repaid."

According to EdV's post the IRS rarely goes after bondholders for back taxes as it would too laborious a task.

According to Rictchie's article "...the Village Center district won't owe the IRS a nickel -- the tax burden falls wholly on the holders and the buyers of the bonds".

My question is -- the bondholders don't pay, the VC district doesn't pay, the developer doesn't pay...so does the $355 million dollars in loans just magically disappear? What am I missing here?

[jflynn1]

Money that would be rightfully theirs? I will link again to that lawsuit that you keep bringing up. Read this again please. Villages developer to pay $40 million for recreation upgrades to settle a lawsuit - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-03-09/news/lvillages09_1_villages-fees-lawyer)

ANYONE CAN SUE ANYONE. As a result of this LAWSUIT some individuals who live here apparently got a LOT of money.


Elaine Driedame is the president of the POA.

The developers maintain the areas and create beautiful new ones that I see south of 466 without anyone sueing them. I often wonder about that lawsuit.

Were you informed of this issue when you were purchasing your home and gambled the big hunk of change for your home?

That is called disclosure and failure to disclose this type of situation is frowned upon by The Florida Real Estate Association. The Sales people did not disclose and continue to not disclose this issue to buyers. Not a fair way to do business. Like purchasing a home and finding out that there might be a lawsuit pending regarding faulty construction and although known to the seller, the developer, and sales people, this issue was never disclosed to the buyer.

[Mack184]

The IRS has a proven track record of shooting first and asking questions later. It is the only division of the government where the person or business is considered guilty as charged and the burden of proof is on the accused to PROVE that the IRS isn't correct.

Anyone who has ever been on the wrong side of the IRS knows it's a gut-wrenching experience, and it's very expensive to prove yourself correct. Lawyers who specialize in IRS law are some of the most expensive per-hour lawyers in practice.

So just because the IRS goes on a fishing expedition against the Morse family does not mean that they are guilty of any wrong-doing.

I also tend to doubt that anyone who bought a home in TV was dealing with persons who resembled either Vito Corleone or Luca Brasi who had a gun to their ear making them "an offer they couldn't refuse".

[villagerjack]

i agree entirely. I bought here five years ago and I still marvel at the quality of the amenities, unequalled anywhere else I have been.

[applesoffh]

Totally flawed. The bonds were not purchased by residents. They are sold to investors, usually institutional investors. The bonds in question have nothing to do with the bond on your house.

(from Ritchie's article) " . . . the Village Center district won't owe the IRS a nickel � the tax burden falls wholly on the holders and the buyers of the bonds. They would have to pay taxes on the interest they collected as the loans were being repaid."

Thank you for the clarification!

[Pturner]

As a future Villager, I do pay attention to the IRS issue, as well as anything else having to do with the development. I like to read the articles that Lauren Ritchie writes, as well as the POA statements, and the takes by various TOTVers who keep up on the subject. The great thing about living in a country which does not supress free speech, is the ability to read and hear about all the various sides, opinions, and takes on an issue, and then making one's own mind up about how it affects them. Ritchie is no lover of the developers, but that point of view is informative, even if it may be somewhat skewed. This issue gives me NO pause when considering TV as a future (part-time) home. I have said before, and will say again, the Morse organization has built the greatest utopia for retirees known to man. That does not make them infallable, perfect, or incapable of unlawful behavior, or operating on the fringe of ethics. The only thing that I can personally judge them on is the quality of life that they have provided for me while I am in TV, and on that level they are almost flawless.

Ed, I keep thinking that one of these days, you are going to post something I disagree with. But you never do. Sometimes I even think you read my mind.

[graciegirl]

Were you informed of this issue when you were purchasing your home and gambled the big hunk of change for your home?

That is called disclosure and failure to disclose this type of situation is frowned upon by The Florida Real Estate Association. The Sales people did not disclose and continue to not disclose this issue to buyers. Not a fair way to do business. Like purchasing a home and finding out that there might be a lawsuit pending regarding faulty construction and although known to the seller, the developer, and sales people, this issue was never disclosed to the buyer.

I knew about it last year when we sold one house and built a bigger one.
We owned another home here before this one for four years.

[villagerjack]

THAT sums it up for me..

[villagerjack]

Ed, I keep thinking that one of these days, you are going to post something I disagree with. But you never do. Sometimes I even think you read my mind.

EWEISSENBACHS post sums it up for me.

[mickey100]

According to EdV's post the IRS rarely goes after bondholders for back taxes as it would too laborious a task.

According to Rictchie's article "...the Village Center district won't owe the IRS a nickel -- the tax burden falls wholly on the holders and the buyers of the bonds".

My question is -- the bondholders don't pay, the VC district doesn't pay, the developer doesn't pay...so does the $355 million dollars in loans just magically disappear? What am I missing here?

Good questions. There are those who would like us to believe that there will be no impact to Villages residents should the IRS prevail. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

[KeepingItReal]

.....

[Challenger]

I would like to hear the discussion that makes the point that residents would be left holding the "bag" if the bonds are deemed taxable. I believe the bonds were sold by investment bankers after getting opinions from one or more law firms regarding their nontaxable status. The bond buyers would have recourse against the selling investment banking entity or entities and possibly the opining law firms if the are judged taxable by the IRS . I am not sure where the homeowner liability arises. Can someone who knows (rather than -thinks he/she knows ) respond?

[Bogie Shooter]

I would like to hear the discussion that makes the point that residents would be left holding the "bag" if the bonds are deemed taxable. I believe the bonds were sold by investment bankers after getting opinions from one or more law firms regarding their nontaxable status. The bond buyers would have recourse against the selling investment banking entity or entities and possibly the opining law firms if the are judged taxable by the IRS . I am not sure where the homeowner liability arises. Can someone who knows (rather than -thinks he/she knows ) respond?

:a20::a040::1rotfl:

[rubicon]

The problem I am having with this entire issue is there is not a legal expert with no conflicting interests verifying for residents that they will not have any legal obligation or contractual obligation should the IRS render an adverse verdict. Someone mentioned that the amenity contract made it clear that it was a fee for a specific service, etc. However contracts were made to be broken.

Secondly if th IRS renders an adverse verdict how does that affect the future financing of the transfer of The Villages to the two commercial districts?

Another problem here is that according to Lauren Ritchie the IRS alleges that the Developer was paid twice. What exactly does that mean and what financial affect, if any, did it have on residents?

My post is not the "sky is falling" but rather informational o resident can make some informed decisions. What we have now is "he says""she says"and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Finally frankly I am sick of this issue hanging over us. I still wish the POA would assert itself for the sake of residents

[66vetter]

Aha, finally a fault with Graie! After all these years of reading her posts to gett balance and reason, I find she is a "speeder" two tickets in a lifetime. Luckily, she is not running or public office, the would would know.

[Challenger]

The problem I am having with this entire issue is there is not a legal expert with no conflicting interests verifying for residents that they will not have any legal obligation or contractual obligation should the IRS render an adverse verdict. Someone mentioned that the amenity contract made it clear that it was a fee for a specific service, etc. However contracts were made to be broken.

Secondly if th IRS renders an adverse verdict how does that affect the future financing of the transfer of The Villages to the two commercial districts?

Another problem here is that according to Lauren Ritchie the IRS alleges that the Developer was paid twice. What exactly does that mean and what financial affect, if any, did it have on residents?

My post is not the "sky is falling" but rather informational o resident can make some informed decisions. What we have now is "he says""she says"and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Finally frankly I am sick of this issue hanging over us. I still wish the POA would assert itself for the sake of residents

Agreed. There is too much speculation and loose talk without real knowledge or expertise in the issues. Ms Ritchie makes assertations which she does not support with citations or facts . It appears to me that her writings are unnecessarily biased against the developer. I have yet to understand the double payment issue to which she alludes. Is there an issue of interest to the owners - yes. The main concern is how will the issue impact my assets and lifestyle. Answers to these questions, after proper research would be a real service to readers . Amen!

[EdV]

.....Someone mentioned that the amenity contract made it clear that it was a fee for a specific service, etc. However contracts were made to be broken.

All 40,000 of them? Come on.

..... Secondly if the IRS renders an adverse verdict how does that affect the future financing of the transfer of The Villages to the two commercial districts?

What transfer. Those two special districts belong to the developer and his family's real estate holdings, now and for the foreseeable future.

.....Another problem here is that according to Lauren Ritchie the IRS alleges that the Developer was paid twice. What exactly does that mean and what financial affect, if any, did it have on residents

It means she continues to be confused about the bond on each residence and the ones issued to build the amenities that are part of two special districts. I�m telling you, the woman is clueless and quite frankly dangerous to the peace of mind of TV residents.

.....Finally frankly I am sick of this issue hanging over us. I still wish the POA would assert itself for the sake of residents

Well if you�re that bothered by this hanging over your head, why not make an appointment with your attorney and go over it with him/her as your legal expert. Better still, why not organize an interest group of twenty or so residents to kick in 100 bucks each and get a written opinion. Problem with that is that most people tend to have short arms and deep pockets and would rather whine about the problem and wait for someone else to take the lead.

Just saying.

[Golfingnut]

Ed, I keep thinking that one of these days, you are going to post something I disagree with. But you never do. Sometimes I even think you read my mind.

I agree, Ed seems to think about what he is going to type in a post before he does it. :024:

[Bogie Shooter]

The problem I am having with this entire issue is there is not a legal expert with no conflicting interests verifying for residents that they will not have any legal obligation or contractual obligation should the IRS render an adverse verdict. Someone mentioned that the amenity contract made it clear that it was a fee for a specific service, etc. However contracts were made to be broken.

Secondly if th IRS renders an adverse verdict how does that affect the future financing of the transfer of The Villages to the two commercial districts?

Another problem here is that according to Lauren Ritchie the IRS alleges that the Developer was paid twice. What exactly does that mean and what financial affect, if any, did it have on residents?
My post is not the "sky is falling" but rather informational o resident can make some informed decisions. What we have now is "he says""she says"and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Finally frankly I am sick of this issue hanging over us. I still wish the POA would assert itself for the sake of residents

Why don't you ask her? Lritchie@tribune.com

[EdV]

I agree, Ed seems to think about what he is going to type in a post before he does it. :024:

Actually she was referring to another Ed AKA "Old Coach". But I too try to put as much thought into my posts and I usually try to include a link to a reputable cross reference instead of letting thoughts drop from my brain to my mouth like candy from a gumball machine.

[eweissenbach]

actually she was referring to another ed aka "old coach". But i too try to put as much thought into my posts and i usually try to include a link to a reputable cross reference instead of letting thoughts drop from my brain to my mouth like candy from a gumball machine.

7549

[downeaster]

The problem I am having with this entire issue is there is not a legal expert with no conflicting interests verifying for residents that they will not have any legal obligation or contractual obligation should the IRS render an adverse verdict. Someone mentioned that the amenity contract made it clear that it was a fee for a specific service, etc. However contracts were made to be broken.

Secondly if th IRS renders an adverse verdict how does that affect the future financing of the transfer of The Villages to the two commercial districts?

Another problem here is that according to Lauren Ritchie the IRS alleges that the Developer was paid twice. What exactly does that mean and what financial affect, if any, did it have on residents?

My post is not the "sky is falling" but rather informational o resident can make some informed decisions. What we have now is "he says""she says"and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Finally frankly I am sick of this issue hanging over us. I still wish the POA would assert itself for the sake of residents

I believe the POA has done a good job of keeping us informed. I don't see where they can assert themselves at this point as nothing definite has happened yet. I don't think it would be wise of them to make any predictions as to where this is going (we will leave that to Lauren Ritchie). If the IRS makes a ruling that impacts negatively on the residents I think we will see the POA assert themselves on our behalf. In fact, I expect they have already done some homework and are ready to act if it becomes necessary.

[kittygilchrist]

I have bought a lot but no house built yet. I refuse to approach my life in TV from a position of fear. If the reality becomes one of legal opposition, I am confident that we approaching one hundred thousand residents would be able to hire competent legal representation for the price of two martinis each.

[Advogado]

I just came across this: Villages IRS bonds: Villages government plays waiting game in IRS dispute over bonds - OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-irs-villages-20121212,0,2877834.column)

It is worth reading, although not terribly explanatory about what happens next, but at least somebody is reporting on the matter. The most interesting aspect, I thought, were the pessimistic comments by the attorney for the Center Districts. Still, we get no assurances from the Developer that residents will not be impacted.

[Mikeod]

I just came across this: Villages IRS bonds: Villages government plays waiting game in IRS dispute over bonds - OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-irs-villages-20121212,0,2877834.column)

It is worth reading, although not terribly explanatory about what happens next, but at least somebody is reporting on the matter. The most interesting aspect, I thought, were the pessimistic comments by the attorney for the Center Districts. Still, we get no assurances from the Developer that residents will not be impacted.

Just remember the author is Ritchie and the piece is clearly labeled "commentary". I would not consider this reporting.

[Advogado]

Just remember the author is Ritchie and the piece is clearly labeled "commentary". I would not consider this reporting.

At least it is better than the noncoverage that we get in The Daily Sun and the nonsense we get from the VHA.

[justjim]

I really try not to "worry" about "things" beyond my control and this "bond issue" is way above my pay grade and way way beyond our control. Should we try to stay informed as possible-----sure. TV is not the only entity set up as a Community Development District (s). There are others---even Walt Disney World----so I understand. "The idea of not catching the ball simply because it's thrown to you is a powerful tool to explore.".....says Carlson in his little book "don't sweat the small stuff.". Happy Holidays to all!

[janmcn]

I really try not to "worry" about "things" beyond my control and this "bond issue" is way above my pay grade and way way beyond our control. Should we try to stay informed as possible-----sure. TV is not the only entity set up as a Community Development District (s). There are others---even Walt Disney World----so I understand. "The idea of not catching the ball simply because it's thrown to you is a powerful tool to explore.".....says Carlson in his little book "don't sweat the small stuff.". Happy Holidays to all!

The "bond issue" is way beyond your control since you already live here, but it is very much in the control of perspective buyers to research this and exercise their control on whether to buy or not to buy.

[graciegirl]

The "bond issue" is way beyond your control since you already live here, but it is very much in the control of perspective buyers to research this and exercise their control on whether to buy or not to buy.

Would you tell them to buy here or not to buy here?

[justjim]

The "bond issue" is way beyond your control since you already live here, but it is very much in the control of perspective buyers to research this and exercise their control on whether to buy or not to buy.

We have recommended TV to many of friends, relatives, acquaintances, and even strangers without any "reservations" whatsoever. Some have purchased. We plan to continue to do so.

[janmcn]

Would you tell them to buy here or not to buy here?

I would tell them to research this issue from top to bottom, turn over every stone. It is a very complicated issue that might involve getting a professional's opinion. I consider myself literate and somewhat intelligent, and I have a very hard time understanding all the intricasies of this issue.

[graciegirl]

I would tell them to research this issue from top to bottom, turn over every stone. It is a very complicated issue that might involve getting a professional's opinion. I consider myself literate and somewhat intelligent, and I have a very hard time understanding all the intricasies of this issue.

Me too.

[mickey100]

I would tell them to research this issue from top to bottom, turn over every stone. It is a very complicated issue that might involve getting a professional's opinion. I consider myself literate and somewhat intelligent, and I have a very hard time understanding all the intricasies of this issue.

I agree. Good friends are going to be up front and give out all the information, even that which may not be particularly savory. No one knows how things will go at this point, and I'd hate to see someone buy, then things go wrong later, and have them feel bad for not being informed before they bought.

I'm not sure a class action lawsuit is going to be a "guaranteed" win either, should things go wrong with the IRS. You just never know with these things. So we're just in limbo and have to wait and see. I don't call it living in "fear", but I do call it living with my eyes and ears and brain open.

[graciegirl]

I agree. Good friends are going to be up front and give out all the information, even that which may not be particularly savory. No one knows how things will go at this point, and I'd hate to see someone buy, then things go wrong later, and have them feel bad for not being informed before they bought.

I'm not sure a class action lawsuit is going to be a "guaranteed" win either, should things go wrong with the IRS. You just never know with these things. So we're just in limbo and have to wait and see. I don't call it living in "fear", but I do call it living with my eyes and ears and brain open.

But our difference is that I don't see the Morse family as a.......scammer or a negative force or crooked.

Unless or until someone can prove differently to me I don't see that the Morse's are doing anything but running a business for profit and I get really upset when I see that some people think they are out to "get us". If I thought that I certainly wouldn't have bought here or support anyone to buy here and lay down probably the biggest outlay of cash in their lives..

I don't think anyone knows how the Morses really are but all I see is lots of reasons to believe that they are ethical people who are hugely successful...

And because of that there are tons of people who post on here who will never agree with me.

I could be wrong. I don't know them, but neither does ANYONE else.

Who know how this will pan out. NOT a soul. We will just have to wait and see. There isn't anything anybody can do. If they are truly not sure that it will go against them financially they can sell and leave and I don't see a lot of that happening...and I could be wrong on that too.

I know we have had five fun years here while this investigation has been going on.

[2BNTV]

But our difference is that I don't see the Morse family as a.......scammer or a negative force or crooked.

Unless or until someone can prove differently to me I don't see that the Morse's are doing anything but running a business for profit and I get really upset when I see that some people think they are out to "get us". If I thought that I certainly wouldn't have bought here or support anyone to buy here and lay down probably the biggest outlay of cash in their lives..

I don't think anyone knows how the Morses really are but all I see is lots of reasons to believe that they are ethical people who are hugely successful...

And because of that there are tons of people who post on here who will never agree with me.

I could be wrong. I don't know them, but neither does ANYONE else.

Who know how this will pan out. NOT a soul. We will just have to wait and see. There isn't anything anybody can do. If they are truly not sure that it will go against them financially they can sell and leave and I don't see a lot of that happening...and I could be wrong on that too.

I know we have had five fun years here while this investigation has been going on.

:agree:

As a wannabe, I have reading these posts for awhile and I can honestly say that "no one" knows for sure how this is going to play out and what the effect will be on TV'ers and wannabes.

It may all turn out be a non-factor for many people as they enjoy TV lifestyle and are willing to take that risk if there is a risk.

[rubicon]

All 40,000 of them? Come on.



What transfer. Those two special districts belong to the developer and his family's real estate holdings, now and for the foreseeable future.



It means she continues to be confused about the bond on each residence and the ones issued to build the amenities that are part of two special districts. I�m telling you, the woman is clueless and quite frankly dangerous to the peace of mind of TV residents.



Well if you�re that bothered by this hanging over your head, why not make an appointment with your attorney and go over it with him/her as your legal expert. Better still, why not organize an interest group of twenty or so residents to kick in 100 bucks each and get a written opinion. Problem with that is that most people tend to have short arms and deep pockets and would rather whine about the problem and wait for someone else to take the lead.

Just saying.

1. It isn't 40,000 contracts, its one contract witten 40, 000 times.

2. Its not the two special district I address but the trnasfer of the invidual districts once they are finished being developed (ie. the basis for the bond dispute now underway,)

3. I can't address Lauren Ritchie's knowledge as respects this issue. I assume she is having discussions with the IRS?

[rubicon]

All 40,000 of them? Come on.



What transfer. Those two special districts belong to the developer and his family's real estate holdings, now and for the foreseeable future.



It means she continues to be confused about the bond on each residence and the ones issued to build the amenities that are part of two special districts. I’m telling you, the woman is clueless and quite frankly dangerous to the peace of mind of TV residents.



Well if you’re that bothered by this hanging over your head, why not make an appointment with your attorney and go over it with him/her as your legal expert. Better still, why not organize an interest group of twenty or so residents to kick in 100 bucks each and get a written opinion. Problem with that is that most people tend to have short arms and deep pockets and would rather whine about the problem and wait for someone else to take the lead.

Just saying.

1. It isn't 40,000 contracts, its one contract written 40, 000 times.

2. Its not the two special district I address but the transfer of the individual districts once they are finished being developed (ie. the basis for the bond dispute now underway,)

3. I can't address Lauren Ritchie's knowledge as respects this issue. I assume she is having discussions with the IRS?

4. Your suggestion that I hire a personal attorney was well a cheap shot since neither I or residents in general had no control or knowledge over this. You were well aware when you wrote this that my point was we (residents of The Villages) have no one to represent us in, otherwords Taxiation without Representation, if we did then The Villages government would have appointed an attorney to represent residents'interest.

I'm just saying!

[EdV]

1. It isn't 40,000 contracts, its one contract written 40, 000 times.


Which the developer would have to break 40,000 times.


2. Its not the two special district I address but the transfer of the individual districts once they are finished being developed (ie. the basis for the bond dispute now underway,)


The transfer of control of the boards of the individual numbered districts has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the IRS/bond dispute. Whatever gave you that idea?


3. I can't address Lauren Ritchie's knowledge as respects this issue. I assume she is having discussions with the IRS?


Ms. Ritchie does not and never will be privy to IRS inside information. When the IRS needs to disclose information about a case they issue a public statement.


4. Your suggestion that I hire a personal attorney was well a cheap shot since neither I or residents in general had no control or knowledge over this. You were well aware when you wrote this that my point was we (residents of The Villages) have no one to represent us in, otherwords Taxiation without Representation, if we did then The Villages government would have appointed an attorney to represent residents'interest.


In post #53 above, your opening paragraph complained that you and the other residents of TV had no legal expert to advise you of your potential financial exposure regarding this whole thing. Since when does suggesting that a person(s) seek legal advice on an issue become a cheap shot?

[janmcn]

It's amazing that people will spend half a million dollars on a house, but don't want to spend a few thousand to have an expert investigate the IRS investigation. IMO, the documents on the CDD website are so confusing that only a trained professional can interpret them.

[Bogie Shooter]

It's amazing that people will spend half a million dollars on a house, but don't want to spend a few thousand to have an expert investigate the IRS investigation. IMO, the documents on the CDD website are so confusing that only a trained professional can interpret them.

Investigate what and then do what?

[graciegirl]

///

[Bogie Shooter]

You've made that abundantly clear. You have 12,518 posts on TOTV and the bulk of them are telling everyone how wonderful the Developer is along with "selling" The Villages.

So, what is wrong with that?

[janmcn]

Investigate what and then do what?

Investigate, interpret, advise.

[EdV]

You've made that abundantly clear. You have 12,518 posts on TOTV and the bulk of them are telling everyone how wonderful the Developer is along with "selling" The Villages.

Whoa, hold on there. Yes, Gracie may be an ardent supporter of TV but she certainly is not na�ve enough to think that it is perfect for everyone. And she has made that clear numerous times in the past.

[Bogie Shooter]

Investigate, interpret, advise.

EdV has already done that.

[Skybo]

Investigate, interpret, advise.

That�s all well and good Jan, but only the IRS can truly investigate, only lawyers can truly interpret, and as far as advise goes...have you seen any logical advise here, except �wait and see�? Certainly, no advise is helpful until the investigation and interpretation is completed.

I�m all for �being informed� but I�ve read every article that I�ve found in newspapers and in POA bulletins and I think I�ve read just about every post on TOTV about the investigation. And I still don�t have much more than a very basic understanding about it. I learned about it before I ever moved here, and it concerned me a bit. Thankfully, it didn�t concern me enough to not buy here. Otherwise I would have missed out on the past two years and hopefully many future years of unbelievable happiness in TV.

[EdV]

Is EdV licensed to practice law in the state of Florida, and what does EdV say will be the resident's liability in this issue?

Strange question. Why would I advise Rubicon to get a lawyer if I was one? I and many other veteran TOTV members have been debating this for a couple of years now. Just use the search feature on this forum and you can see everything I have posted on this "IRS" subject.

[Bogie Shooter]

Is EdV licensed to practice law in the state of Florida, and what does EdV say will be the resident's liability in this issue?

Nah, my point was to investigate and investigation would be a waste of money even if you could get a lawyer that would even try. And at this point the most skilled lawyer would shy away of saying what the residents liability might be.
BTW Edv has posted some very good posts on this topic.............they would be worth your reading.

[mulligan]

I stand behind and beside Gracie, and re-iterate that the developer has captured a piece of heaven. Neither of us works for or is associated with the developer. That being said, IMHO, the ones likely to suffer any consequences from an adverse opinion from the IRS, would be the ones who directly benefited from the tax-exempt status. I do believe, however, that the issue will never be resolved.

[EdV]

It's interesting that the forum's expert on the IRS VS The Villages case elects to live elsewhere. That's disconcerting at best.

Disconcerting. Really?

The only thing that separates Stonecrest from TV is a 3 foot high chain link fence. If the gloom and doom that some people fear would result from the IRS issue were to actually happen, it could affect me.

I enjoy all the wonderful public restaurants, retail stores , and medical facilities that this area provides. Anything that could have a negative effect on this would affect me.

And FWIW I'm no expert on the subject but I have followed it closely and tried to help members understand the issues.

[bike42]

FWIW I'm no expert on the subject but I have followed it closely and tried to help members understand the issues.

Thank you EdV for being a voice of reason on the subject. Anyone who is losing sleep over the IRS debate should re-read all of your posts.

[janmcn]

Disconcerting. Really?

The only thing that separates Stonecrest from TV is a 3 foot high chain link fence. If the gloom and doom that some people fear would result from the IRS issue were to actually happen, it could affect me.

I enjoy all the wonderful public restaurants, retail stores , and medical facilities that this area provides. Anything that could have a negative effect on this would affect me.

And FWIW I'm no expert on the subject but I have followed it closely and tried to help members understand the issues.

If the property owners of The Villages are handed an assessment to pay the penalty and fine from the IRS, that would not effect people living in Stonecrest. If The Villages recreation facilities are cut back, that would not effect people living in Stonecrest.

[EdV]

And for the last two years or so I have painstakingly explained to everyone why that will not happen. Yet a few of you (emphasis on the word few) insist on dismissing me without even taking the time to discuss the facts simply because I�m not a TV resident. But you�ll accept the fear mongering of an Orlando columnist who lives 50 miles from here. Go figure.

If you disagree with my stated opinions and postings on the IRS issue, why not address them specifically instead of shooting from the hip and dissing me just because I live next door.

But I do wish to thank those of you that have expressed appreciation for my posts on this subject even though you may not always agree or may continue to have some doubts.

[Moderator]

Please address the topic of the IRS bond issue and stop going after each other or the thread will be closed.

[rubicon]

And for the last two years or so I have painstakingly explained to everyone why that will not happen. Yet a few of you (emphasis on the word few) insist on dismissing me without even taking the time to discuss the facts simply because I�m not a TV resident. But you�ll accept the fear mongering of an Orlando columnist who lives 50 miles from here. Go figure.

If you disagree with my stated opinions and postings on the IRS issue, why not address them specifically instead of shooting from the hip and dissing me just because I live next door.

But I do wish to thank those of you that have expressed appreciation for my posts on this subject even though you may not always agree or may continue to have some doubts.

EdV: In the interest of balanced reporting here I advance:

First, we are to ignore the comments of an investigative reporter, whom you believe has never had contact with the IRS but hang onto your every word.

Secondly, it should be clear by now that while there maybe a few of skeptics who address this thread there are more out there who just review and stay silent but wonder.

Given one and two then, it would behoove you to explain (and I am not being argumentative but seek information) why you are "the"authority here. Also dispite the fact that this is one of the most talked about topics in The Villages why people are still concerned but left with no definiitive answers. Because if there wasn't anything to concern us this topic would never appear here on TOTV or the POA Newsletter. It does because it is material to many residents

Your suggestion to me was then hire an attorney"" is instructive in that it makes clear we are all on our own here. So what happen to those taxes, fees etc residents have been paying to the Villages government?

The benfits of so called defensive optimisim is reality. I do not claim to be right but I claim the need for right things to advanced in support of residents

I suspect you are a very decent human being and I appreciate your input as it is akin to the type of open discussion usd in my business meetings but the nature of this dispute can't be reconciled with a "trust me"attitude some of us need more substanative fact.

Personal Best Regards:

[villages07]

I have read everything I can on Villages government, the IRS bond issue and attended the 6 week Resident Academy class. I am no expert but do try to stay informed.

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation in this thread and on this site about Villages governance. The issues are complex and the terms are often misused... Numbered CDDs vs central CDDs, infrastructure bonds vs recreation bonds, what are amenities and what are not.

The IRS bond issue is very complex and no one has a definitive answer on how it will play out. One positive outcome I hope to see is a more open and fair process in putting a value on the amenities and amenity contracts that are sold by the Developer to the central district.

FWIW, I find Ed V's posts to be very accurate and logical and thank him for his efforts to clarify and inform.

[2BNTV]

FWIW, I find Ed V's posts to be very accurate and logical and thank him for his efforts to clarify and inform.[/QUOTE]

:agree:

[graciegirl]

I have read everything I can on Villages government, the IRS bond issue and attended the 6 week Resident Academy class. I am no expert but do try to stay informed.

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation in this thread and on this site about Villages governance. The issues are complex and the terms are often misused... Numbered CDDs vs central CDDs, infrastructure bonds vs recreation bonds, what are amenities and what are not.

The IRS bond issue is very complex and no one has a definitive answer on how it will play out. One positive outcome I hope to see is a more open and fair process in putting a value on the amenities and amenity contracts that are sold by the Developer to the central district.

FWIW, I find Ed V's posts to be very accurate and logical and thank him for his efforts to clarify and inform.


Fine post.

[mickey100]

EdV: In the interest of balanced reporting here I advance:

First, we are to ignore the comments of an investigative reporter, whom you believe has never had contact with the IRS but hang onto your every word.

Secondly, it should be clear by now that while there maybe a few of skeptics who address this thread there are more out there who just review and stay silent but wonder.

Given one and two then, it would behoove you to explain (and I am not being argumentative but seek information) why you are "the"authority here. Also dispite the fact that this is one of the most talked about topics in The Villages why people are still concerned but left with no definiitive answers. Because if there wasn't anything to concern us this topic would never appear here on TOTV or the POA Newsletter. It does because it is material to many residents

Your suggestion to me was then hire an attorney"" is instructive in that it makes clear we are all on our own here. So what happen to those taxes, fees etc residents have been paying to the Villages government?

The benfits of so called defensive optimisim is reality. I do not claim to be right but I claim the need for right things to advanced in support of residents

I suspect you are a very decent human being and I appreciate your input as it is akin to the type of open discussion usd in my business meetings but the nature of this dispute can't be reconciled with a "trust me"attitude. Some of us need more substantive fact.

Personal Best Regards:

An intelligent and well thought out post. Thank you.

[Bogie Shooter]

EdV: In the interest of balanced reporting here I advance:

First, we are to ignore the comments of an investigative reporter, whom you believe has never had contact with the IRS but hang onto your every word.

Secondly, it should be clear by now that while there maybe a few of skeptics who address this thread there are more out there who just review and stay silent but wonder.

Given one and two then, it would behoove you to explain (and I am not being argumentative but seek information) why you are "the"authority here. Also dispite the fact that this is one of the most talked about topics in The Villages why people are still concerned but left with no definiitive answers. Because if there wasn't anything to concern us this topic would never appear here on TOTV or the POA Newsletter. It does because it is material to many residents

Your suggestion to me was then hire an attorney"" is instructive in that it makes clear we are all on our own here. So what happen to those taxes, fees etc residents have been paying to the Villages government?

The benfits of so called defensive optimisim is reality. I do not claim to be right but I claim the need for right things to advanced in support of residents

I suspect you are a very decent human being and I appreciate your input as it is akin to the type of open discussion usd in my business meetings but the nature of this dispute can't be reconciled with a "trust me"attitude some of us need more substanative fact.

Personal Best Regards:

He has never stated he was "the authority" on the subject. He has, however, pointed out the facts and given his opinion. You must agree he is entitled to his opinion, as you give yours.

[Peachie]

I have read everything I can on Villages government, the IRS bond issue and attended the 6 week Resident Academy class. I am no expert but do try to stay informed.

There is a lot of confusion and misinformation in this thread and on this site about Villages governance. The issues are complex and the terms are often misused... Numbered CDDs vs central CDDs, infrastructure bonds vs recreation bonds, what are amenities and what are not.

The IRS bond issue is very complex and no one has a definitive answer on how it will play out. One positive outcome I hope to see is a more open and fair process in putting a value on the amenities and amenity contracts that are sold by the Developer to the central district.

FWIW, I find Ed V's posts to be very accurate and logical and thank him for his efforts to clarify and inform.




O7, thank you for your input on this subject and I remember from your previous posts that you have put much time and effort into understanding the IRS issue. I agree with you that EdV has also provided some very judicious thoughts regarding the IRS investigation. At this point, we will continue to enjoy our lives here with an eye on the IRS as it continues to investigate the The Villages bond issue. It's my understanding this isn't the only community in Florida which could be impacted by the final determination.

[spk7951]

It is being reported today in the Leesburg Daily Commercial that Gary Morse has hired a Washington lobbyist. A quote from the story: "Morse will pay Cardenas to represent him on tax issues, according to lobbying registration forms sent to both the House and the Senate with an effective date of Nov. 27. Specifically, The Villages said its lobbying issues will be "Community Development Districts and IRS interpretations".

Daily Commercial - <p>Morse hires lobbyist</p> (http://www.dailycommercial.com/News/LakeCounty/19dec2012villages)

[buggyone]

This issue can be drawn out for many years no matter which side prevails this time. If The Villages (Morse) prevails, the IRS could appeal. If the IRS prevails, Morse will appeal.

It is a battle of lawyers. Remember that Gary Morse (The Villages) can afford the best tax attorneys. The government has government attorneys who most likely would be working private practice if they were excellent lawyers.

Remember how the government attorneys were in high profile cases like the OJ Simpson trial and the Casey Anthony trial. Even though it sure looked like slam dunks for the government (prosecution) side, the defense (high priced private practice) attorneys won acquittals for their clients. Also, remember how the Morse family got into trouble about elk hunting on their own land in Wyoming and so many posters on this forum were sure they were going to do prison time. Hey, attorneys to the rescue and the Morse family prevailed (and in my opinion, justice was served).

[EdV]

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

There should be little doubt that this is where this case will end up. So fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

[Advogado]

This issue can be drawn out for many years no matter which side prevails this time. If The Villages (Morse) prevails, the IRS could appeal. If the IRS prevails, Morse will appeal.

It is a battle of lawyers. Remember that Gary Morse (The Villages) can afford the best tax attorneys. The government has government attorneys who most likely would be working private practice if they were excellent lawyers.

Remember how the government attorneys were in high profile cases like the OJ Simpson trial and the Casey Anthony trial. Even though it sure looked like slam dunks for the government (prosecution) side, the defense (high priced private practice) attorneys won acquittals for their clients. Also, remember how the Morse family got into trouble about elk hunting on their own land in Wyoming and so many posters on this forum were sure they were going to do prison time. Hey, attorneys to the rescue and the Morse family prevailed (and in my opinion, justice was served).

At the risk of being repititious, it is not Gary Morse who is paying the attorneys in this case. It is, in essence, us. Our amenity fees are being used to defend transactions that resulted in huge profits to the Developer. If the IRS is correct, those profits were illegimately earned at the expense of the US taxpayers, who subsidized the bonds sold to pay the Developer those profits.

[buggyone]

At the risk of being repititious, it is not Gary Morse who is paying the attorneys in this case. It is, in essence, us. Our amenity fees are being used to defend transactions that resulted in huge profits to the Developer. If the IRS is correct, those profits were illegimately earned at the expense of the US taxpayers, who subsidized the bonds sold to pay the Developer those profits.

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

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

[EdV]

.. Our amenity fees are being used to defend transactions that resulted in huge profits to the Developer....

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

So that�s the way it was when you signed the contract, and nothing has changed..

[Advogado]

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

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

Three points:

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

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

Third, and again I repeat, IF the IRS's allegations are correct, the Developer's profits were illegitimate and were made by scamming the taxpayers of this country through the improper issuance of tax exempt bonds. That characterization of the IRS position is a fact, not my opinion.

[ijusluvit]

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

So that�s the way it was when you signed the contract, and nothing has changed..

Excuse me, I haven't waded into this matter to date and may be repeating some stuff ad nausium, but I still have a few of questions:

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

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

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

4) Yes our contract says the amenities will be maintained "properly" regardless of cost. But "properly" may be a term subject to broad interpretation. If the Developer decided his legal expenses were too high, could he decide to reduce amenity services to some degree and still be able to argue that he was meeting the contract terms?

[birdawg]

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

So that�s the way it was when you signed the contract, and nothing has changed..

What happens if the I.r.s changes the way they calculate the CPI theirs talk they may do this to lower SS payments. to seniors

[Advogado]

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

So that�s the way it was when you signed the contract, and nothing has changed..

True, and I never said they had changed. You are merely restating the obvious that I think that everybody, who has even the most basic understanding of the Villages amenities system, understands.

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

Yes, I know (and everybody else who has paid the least attention to this matter also knows), we have another class-action lawsuit against the Developer and the Center Districts. But, in the real world, how will that class-action lawsuit be resolved (especially if, by that time, the Developer, which is a corporation, has been drained of its assets), and what happens to the amenities during the years that it may take to resolve the lawsuit? If you have the definitive answer, or even nondefinitive answer, I would like to hear it, because I do not.

[Cantwaittoarrive]

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

There should be little doubt that this is where this case will end up. So fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

And if I remeber my CPA exam from 30+ years ago an appeal can go up to the Supreme Court once the other options have been exhausted

[Cantwaittoarrive]

What happens if the I.r.s changes the way they calculate the CPI theirs talk they may do this to lower SS payments. to seniors

The I.R.S. doesn't have anything to do with CPI. Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm)

[rubicon]

He has never stated he was "the authority" on the subject. He has, however, pointed out the facts and given his opinion. You must agree he is entitled to his opinion, as you give yours.

AAAH! Is there an echo on Talk of The Villages? I thought my post was directed to EdV?:D I just joshing you:D

[villages07]

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

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

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

If I've misinterpreted, my apologies.

[rubicon]

At the risk of being repititious, it is not Gary Morse who is paying the attorneys in this case. It is, in essence, us. Our amenity fees are being used to defend transactions that resulted in huge profits to the Developer. If the IRS is correct, those profits were illegimately earned at the expense of the US taxpayers, who subsidized the bonds sold to pay the Developer those profits.

Advogado: I don't quite understand how �menity fees"can be used to finance a legal action. I thought amenity fees were used to pay for well----our amenities. In the Notice to Proposed Issues filed by the IRS made some serious allegations as to purchase of the buildings the central district as paid to the developer and the cash flow of the amenity streams. I do not know if the IRS withdrew those allegations or if they are true. I let the courts decide the facts of those allegations. However it would appear that this transaction falls on the acts of commission or ommission by those direct parties to the agreement and for that reason I wonder why it didn't trigger coverage under an insurance policy to defend this matter. Perhaps by its nature or allegations an insurer has already rejected the matter. It really concerns me that amenities contract can be twisted to cover litigation matters especially when residents had no knowledge or control.

[Advogado]

What happens if the I.r.s changes the way they calculate the CPI theirs talk they may do this to lower SS payments. to seniors

The least of my worries. IF it were to happen, the situation could probably be resolved on a reasonable basis.

[Advogado]

Well, it is happening. Frankly, I don't think we can gripe unless and until our amenities are reduced. However, the use of the fees for the purpose of defending the Developer's transactions increases the risk that corners will be cut in regard to our amenities. But, as far as I know, that has not occurred at this time.

[Advogado]

Advogado: I don't quite understand how �menity fees"can be used to finance a legal action. I thought amenity fees were used to pay for well----our amenities. In the Notice to Proposed Issues filed by the IRS made some serious allegations as to purchase of the buildings the central district as paid to the developer and the cash flow of the amenity streams. I do not know if the IRS withdrew those allegations or if they are true. I let the courts decide the facts of those allegations. However it would appear that this transaction falls on the acts of commission or ommission by those direct parties to the agreement and for that reason I wonder why it didn't trigger coverage under an insurance policy to defend this matter. Perhaps by its nature or allegations an insurer has already rejected the matter. It really concerns me that amenities contract can be twisted to cover litigation matters especially when residents had no knowledge or control.

See my reply above.

[Advogado]

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

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

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

If I've misinterpreted, my apologies.

You are right about the fees in the bond issue.

I hope you are right about the fees referred to in the latest news. We will see.

[EdV]

...I thought amenity fees were used to pay for well----our amenities. ...

No, as your contract with them is written, your amenity fees give you the right to use the amenities but not to control how the fees are used. It�s really that simple.

[birdawg]

The I.R.S. doesn't have anything to do with CPI. Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm)

Your right Thanks.

[mickey100]

Well, it is happening. Frankly, I don't think we can gripe unless and until our amenities are reduced. However, the use of the fees for the purpose of defending the Developer's transactions increases the risk that corners will be cut in regard to (providing) our amenities. But, as far as I know, that has not occurred at this time.

Exactly. Hasn't happened yet, but certainly could. If that did happen, our property values would really sink.

[Advogado]

Exactly. Hasn't happened yet, but certainly could. If that did happen, our property values would really sink.

However, it did happen in the past.

[EdV]

.. but I still have a few of questions:

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

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

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

4) Yes our contract says the amenities will be maintained "properly" regardless of cost. But "properly" may be a term subject to broad interpretation. If the Developer decided his legal expenses were too high, could he decide to reduce amenity services to some degree and still be able to argue that he was meeting the contract terms?

1. All of the annual budgets for the numbered CDDs and the two special CDDs are posted on the TV District website (http://www.districtgov.org/yourdistrict/index.aspx).

2. The IRS case is against the two special CDDs so it would be logical that they would pay for the legal fees to challenge the IRS.

3. There is no connection whatsoever between the numbered CDD that your home is in and the two special CDDs. The annual maintenance fee that you pay to your numbered CDD covers the cost of maintaining common grounds within your numbered CDD.

4. Yes indeed. That is one possibility. But remember that when something like that happened a few years ago, some residents sued the VCCDD (north of 466) and an out of court settlement was reached to refund some 60 million from the developer back to that CDD of which some 13 million was used already to widen the cart paths north of 466. In other words, precedent has been established in favor of the residents should that occur again.

[ijusluvit]

1. All of the annual budgets for the numbered CDDs and the two special CDDs are posted on the TV District website (http://www.districtgov.org/yourdistrict/index.aspx).

2. The IRS case is against the two special CDDs so it would be logical that they would pay for the legal fees to challenge the IRS.

3. There is no connection whatsoever between the numbered CDD that your home is in and the two special CDDs. The annual maintenance fee that you pay to your numbered CDD covers the cost of maintaining common grounds within your numbered CDD.

4. Yes indeed. That is one possibility. But remember that when something like that happened a few years ago, some residents sued the VCCDD (north of 466) and an out of court settlement was reached to refund some 60 million from the developer back to that CDD of which some 13 million was used already to widen the cart paths north of 466. In other words, precedent has been established in favor of the residents should that occur again.

Thank you for your answers! My 'non-expert' understanding is that your comments regarding my questions 1, 3 & 4 are correct.

My second question was whether it is a fact that the Developer has used amenity funds from Center, Sumpter or any other district to pay any legal fees related to the IRS matter.

Does anyone see any District budget line devoted to legal fees?

I don't understand how it might be "logical", as you put it, that the two districts would pay those fees. My "logic" says the Developer would pay the fees out of pocket because either because amenity fees cannot generally be used that way, and/or because he initiated the bond procedure leading to the challenge.

[EdV]

I don't understand how it might be "logical", as you put it, that the two districts would pay those fees. My "logic" says the Developer would pay the fees out of pocket because either because amenity fees cannot generally be used that way, and/or because he initiated the bond procedure leading to the challenge.

Actually I provided an answer to this in my post #120 above.

But for the record, the typical budget for legal services in each of the numbered districts is around 7,500. This year�s budgeted amount for legal services for the two special districts is 300,000.

So I would say it�s reasonable to assume that most of that 300k is being used to defend the IRS case. Of course that can only happen at the discretion of the majority of property owners of those two special districts. And who might that be you ask? Why none other than mister H. Gary Morse and his myriad holding companies.

[TVMayor]

Morse hires lobbyist
Published: Wednesday, December 19, 2012
THE VILLAGES
Staff Report
Three weeks to the day after Republicans took a beating in the Nov. 6 General Election, Villages developer and GOP supporter H. Gary Morse for the first time hired a Washington lobbyist, registration forms show.
Cardenas Partners is headed by lobbyist Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Florida Republican Party and current chairman of the American Conservative Union.
Morse will pay Cardenas to represent him on tax issues, according to lobbying registration forms sent to both the House and the Senate with an effective date of Nov. 27. Specifically, The Villages said its lobbying issues will be "Community Development Districts and IRS interpretations."
The Villages is controlled by about a dozen CDDs, most of which provide and maintain the roads and transportation paths, storm water systems and structures, underground utilities, curbs and gutters, and street lights. The costs of building and maintaining this infrastructure are paid for by annual special assessments included in property owners' tax bills.
CDDs are usually overseen by a Board of Supervisors consisting of five individuals elected by the landowners/residents of the district to act on their behalf.
The Villages and the IRS have butted heads in the past over CDDs, with the government questioning the relationship between The Villages Center CDD and The Villages developers since the VCCDD has no residents and its Board of Supervisors consists solely of individuals who work for or have an affiliation with The Villages developers.
Essentially, the IRS position is that the VCCDD is an "alter ego" for the developers.
In a letter sent on its behalf to the IRS last month, The Villages contends a single landowner district can be a political subdivision.
Morse -- along with his family members and a handful of companies he manages or operates in The Villages -- gave about $1.7 million this year to a super-political action committee supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, whose campaign was advised by Cardenas.
Disclosure papers said Cardenas will be assisted on Villages issues by Emily Zammit, a former staff assistant to U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.).


Daily Commercial - <p>Morse hires lobbyist</p> (http://www.dailycommercial.com/19dec2012villages)

[graciegirl]

Welcome to TOTV. Mayor! BUT I don't remember voting for you. The last time I voted for Mayor it was for KathieI. Did we have an election that I missed??

Kathie belongs to the Dancin' Party.

Do you belong to the Stirrin' Party?


Kidding you a bit.

Sit down and tell us all about you. I read from your other posts you are single. Where do you live or hope to live? Want some coffee? Take off your hat and put up your feet and tell us about you.

[TVMayor]

Welcome to TOTV. Mayor! BUT I don't remember voting for you. The last time I voted for Mayor it was for KathieI. Did we have an election that I missed??

Kathie belongs to the Dancin' Party.

Do you belong to the Stirrin' Party?


Kidding you a bit.

Sit down and tell us all about you. I read from your other posts you are single. Where do you live or hope to live? Want some coffee? Take off your hat and put up your feet and tell us about you.
Thanks for asking about me but talking all about me on this thread would kind of be off subject. I think it is called hi jack or low jack.

[graciegirl]

Thanks for asking about me but talking all about me on this thread would kind of be off subject. I think it is called hi jack or low jack.

hmmmm.