Orlando Sentinel what-ifs for The Villages IRS fight
 

If I was in the research phase of a move to Florida and googled The Villages, and this popped up I seriously doubt that I'd move here. This has an ominous reverberation to it. Mark Morse avoided any discussion of this in his recent pep talk to the VHA.

And what is it he could have said?

you mean the fact that he sold the chatem rec center, and executive golf courses that cost 8 millons dollars to construct to the district for 50 million... I don't think i would mention that either if i were he.

I have to say I am a little "worried" about it, despite the don't worry, be happy attitude of some. I am moving to TV because of the amenities and would hate to see them cut. I certainly don't understand it all, but wish it would be resolved before I take ownership of our home, but it doesn't sound like that is going to happen.

You have misspelled Orlando Sentinel. It is correctly spelled Orlando Slantinel.

I agree with Bogie shooter as I usually do. There is nothing to be said at this point. It is all under investigation.

I am worried, a little, because the developer is a Republican....and I truly hate to say that. He was a favorite of the last administration, but now I wonder how the new folks in power feel about the family.Plus I imagine that taxes have to be collected from somewhere to pay for all this bailing out.

edited after reading rsandstroms post following.
(Personally I think the world of the Morse family and for the record. I am a Republican.)

For those who haven't been following this refer to Janet Ruut's article here https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...ad.php?t=22353

There are other threads about this, in fact it has been beaten to death.

As to the 8 mil/ 50 mil subject. The figures may or may not be accurate. However, property is sold and purchased based on potential income stream, not the cost of producing it. As a licensed broker who years ago struggled through the state real estate brokers exam, I am painfully aware of this. There is a formula for arriving at a sales price. I committed it to memory, passed the exam and forgot it.

I am not defending those actions but this is the way business is conducted. If the price paid was unjustly inflated I am surprised that some legal action hasn't been taken. Maybe something is in the works.

It would be nice if this was a simple subject. However is very complex.

Reply to Downeaster's observation regarding legal action
 

Downeaster:
Legal action was, in fact, taken. For more information, go to http://www.poa4us.org/ Click on "Lawsuit Settlement".

We didn't cheat, scam or fraud .....
 

I feel a lot of worry is over nothing. If you look closely you will not see any person from the Villages name on the IRS cheat sheet. The only name involved in this scam is Morse. If he has to pay so be it. He did the deen, no one else. Now he got caught so only he should have to pay the piper.

Disclosure
 

Are realtors who are selling homes in TV, whether realtors from Properties of the Villages or private realtors, required to disclose this percolating issue to potential homebuyers?

IRS agent response
 

There is so much complexity to this issue, it's hard to discuss in the meanderings of a discussion board or newspaper article.

The agent who reviewed the tax status of the bonds was greatly concerned with the legal status used by The Villages VCCDD to justify their use in that manner.

As an example, he states, "What is the District in terms of tax exempt bonds? It's really nothing more than a five member governing board populated with Developer employees or related parties that have a history of approving an unlimited amount of tax-exempt bonds to purchase assets from the Developer that in the real world would never pass scrutiny as arms length transactions. "

I can not see how that is not an accurate reflection of much of what took place.

We talk about purchasing cash flow of our amenites ( and they are our amenities fees, not the developers) , yet the excessive prices paid to purchase actual physical entities which do not generate real, ,substantial cash flow are somehow tied to the purchase of the rights to our amenity fees.

I love it here as much as anyone, and would not live anywhere else, but these tactics have been used to enrich the developer, not for the our benefit.

The AAC, which deals with the use of the amenity money in disricts 1-4 was created as the result of the settlement of a lawsuit, not out of an altruistic desire by the Developer for us to have more control in the use of our funds.

All developers as well as any other responsible corporation
 

do that which will enrich the developer or the corporation. If and when there is benefit for both the customer as well as the developer/corporation it makes life more acceptable.

As for the issue of Morse being a Republican thus bringing problems upon him and TV is a real stretch of political implication.

The actions legal or otherwise have nothing to do with ones political affiliation. As history and the current cross section of office holders portray, the wrong is done by ANY WARM BODIED INCUMBENT.

The rumor mill is this subjects worst proponent.

BTK

As a former internal auditor for a major steel company (who is now unfortunately bankrupt and out of business), I have read many documents such as those written by both parties in this dispute. There were many times that I uncovered significant issues that I believed should be corrected BUT when the issue was brought to someone further up the food chain, the finding was deleted from the final audit report, sometimes without any discussion among the auditors. Good old politics was alive and well in corporate America also, which is probably why Bethlehem Steel is now bankrupt. So, what is my point?

The same type of thing can happen here. My take on the original finding is that the agent was presented a good case, though the subsequent response to the district's explanations was not necessarily written in a professional manner. In any event, the final determination will probably be made by someone else higher up in the IRS's bureaucracy and some politician. When the original review was done in 2003, there was a different party in charge than there is now. Should this make a difference, legally no, but in actual practice - don't kid yourself.

What will eventually happen? Here is what I think:

If the developer believes that the District Government, which is legally separated from him but is so intertwined that any reasonable person will conclude that he calls the shots, has a poor case, he will step up and reimburse the District Government to make them whole. If not, he has a terrible public relations matter on his hands while he tries to develop the remaining land in the Villages. He is probably looking at lawsuits down the road that would cost him significantly more than the penalties being proposed. The IRS settlement does not appear to impact the tremendous profit that he has made on the facilities that were sold or on any potential future sales on facilities south of 466.

How would the District government handle an adverse ruling without the developer's help? They legally can't raise the amenity fees but they can and will have to decrease the expenses related to the amenities, such as maintenance, hours of operation, staffing, etc.

Only time will tell what the final outcome will be.

I guess my problem with all of this is, what has changed since 2003 when the bonds in question were issued? What took so long for all of this to become an issue that wasn't known when the bond issue was reviewed by IRS then, the marketing and sale of the bonds, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008? When things take that long to be brought forward, it generates an aroma of its own.

The valuation of revenue-generating items is radically different than that of sedentary items. I have no idea if the valuation of what was sold by the developer is reasonable or not, and have yet to see a valuation by an estimator experienced in determining the worth of businesses. That's not to say there may still be a valuation discrepancy, but at least it would be closer to the mark than what's been insinuated so far.

I'm pleased that the developer has done well in TV and continues to do so. That usually means the continuation of good work, and this place is still better than any other "seasoned citizen" community I've found. I don't see the developer as a philanthropist whose role in life is to take care of strangers at his expense, anymore than any of us tend to work for free. The developer took the risks, and whatever profits the developer has made is no different than any other business.

Those persons who want to hold off or cancel any decision to move to TV because of the publicity on this bond matter, it is your choice. Due diligence in any purchase decision, especially one as important as moving a residence, is a prudent practice. That being said, "due diligence" usually isn't sole reliance on a couple of newspaper articles admitted to be written in a manner where objectivity is replaced by opinion and "slant."

The POA has been quite vigilant, and has done an excellent job in insuring that the contractual duties of all are fulfilled. Obviously, the POA shall continue its efforts in a responsible manner, especially in maintaining a positive relationship with the CCDs and the developer, as more is usually done in a positive relationship than a ltiigious one.

So, as this matter progresses, hopefully facts will take center-stage rather than rumors and innuendo.

We are thinking of moving - ? Orlando article
 

Good Morning, We have been in the process of looking at The Villages for a year. The only reason we have not moved yet is my problem in not being able to get health insurance. There is a Federal law preventing transfer of health insurance across state lines. I am trying to contact and research that issue as much as possible.
But, now what is with this Orlando article? Is this something we need to worry about? How would that affect us?
Thank you. BJ

iaudit and SteveZ, you both have made very good points in the above two posts. Thanks for your input.

Good question. It may be a gray area but a licensed agent or broker probably should as they are required to disclose anything that could effect the value of the property with few exceptions.

I can't speak for developer's employees who sell only developer"s property. I believe they are not required to be licensed.

As a Florida licensed real estate broker I would interpret the law as requiring me to disclose this problem. If I didn't I would be afraid it could come back and bite me.

I continue to monitor this situation with great interest, as I'm a serious TV wannabe. I don't recall anyone mentioning their elected congressman as a possible avenue of information, or possibly, resolution. It seems to me that the elected representative of over 70,000 residents would have a major vested interest in resolving this issue in favor of his/her constituents. I can't contact that office, as I'm not a resident. But it seems to me that some of you current residents could. I promise you that you would not be ignored . . . .

The role of the POA if things go badly
 

SteveZ:

You are on the mark regarding the POA. The central points that I have been trying to make in my posts on this issue are:

1. As SteveZ and other posters have said, we don't know yet how this matter is going to be concluded. However, if the present IRS position prevails, the result will apparently cost the VCCDD, which owns most of our physical amenities and provides our amenity services, a huge amount of money. At this stage, the amount cannot be precisely quantified, but it will almost certainly be huge.

2. Since the VCCDD cannot: (a) unless it files for bankruptcy and voids its contracts, increase our amenity fees beyond the CPI, or (b) tax any property outside its boundaries and the properties inside its boundaries are owned by the Developer (whose nominees run the District),
where does the money come from to continue our amenities? Janet Tutt did not address that basic question in her latest Daily Sun article.

3. The best shot that the residents have for making sure that the answer to that basic question is one we want to hear is to be organized so that we can speak and act together. Since the The Villages Homeowners' Association has consistently refused to represent the residents' interests when they conflict with the Developer's, the only organization that we have to do that is the Property Owners' Association.

4. For that reason (in addition to its other activities), the POA, which currently needs both members and money, needs to be supported with our time, actions, and contributions. By the way, as a part-year resident, I am not an officer or director of the POA and I am not speaking on behalf of that organization. My support for the POA comes from a belief that, if things go south in this matter, the POA is clearly the best instrument that the we residents have for protecting our interests.

This IRS effort was started during the Bush administration...so I don't think it's political at all.

Reply to Saratogaman
 

You are right. As I have said in a previous post, this audit is part of a nationwide IRS program to crackdown on perceived abuses in the issuance of municipal bonds. That program has been going on for a few years now. The speculations, in some posts to this site, that the present situation with the VCCDD is the result of politics or an IRS agent gone wild (although the tone of his latest letter did strike me as somewhat unprofessional) are off the mark.

Bond, etc.
 

I notice that homes in the Lake County section are advertised (by other Realtors, not The Villages' own) as "No Bond." So, what are the implications for a Lake County TV resident in this IRS matter?

Anyone have any idea?

Thanks.

Ain't no use a worryin' if the endin' will be bad.........
 

I really don't have any ideas. But this is what I suspect. The Morses can afford some very good lawyers and it has been stated on here in another thread who they are and how good in this field. The litigation could outlast most of us.:shrug:

Lawyers-- who pays?
 

Graciegirl, sorry, but the bad news is: It ain't the Morses paying for the lawyers to fight the IRS. It is the VCCDD. Perhaps you could suggest to the Morses that they foot the bill?

geezer,

The 'no bond' in Lake county homes pertains to the infrastructure bond associated with the construction of the home. These did not come into being until the last 10 years (or so).

The IRS investigation only pertains to the amenity/recreation bonds which apply to all residents of the Villages and are paid off via our amenity fees which all residents pay.

I still read the lawyers names and backgrounds and they were purportedly excellent in their field.

Isn't going to help anything or anybody by worrying. Life is too short. We can't do anything about it. Knowing what I know now, I would buy here again in a heartbeat!

Morse family reassurance
 

Graciegirl, I too wish people wouldn't worry about this matter.

It sure would make a lot of us feel better if the Morse family would issue a public statement to the effect that:

No matter what the outcome of the IRS controversy, the Morse family members, personally will protect their family legacy and guarantee the continuation of the amenities.

I definitely don't think there is a positive relationship between the POA and the developer, only with the VHA and the developer. It all goes back to the developer trying to renege on free cable for the early residents of the villages.

That would be foolish inlight of the negotiations that are just beginning.

I really tried to ignore this frustrating thread topic but, like Al Pacino once said, "every time I try to get out....they pull me back in."

It occurs to me that much of the information we are barraged with is actually disinformation in the form of half truths, rumors, agenda driven purported facts, facts out of context, columnist efforts to fan discontent among mostly content people, and a dizzying assortment of "what ifs".

For balance I have decided to initiate another disinformation campaign for optimists

what if the developer's lawyers and or bond counsels secured a letter from the IRS acknowledging the propriety and legality of the bonds in question years ago at the initial issue

what if you have a clause in your home purchase contract that holds you harmless and the the developer responsible for any damage by future challenges to the bonding mechanism.

what if the IRS has an extremely weak case and to avoid embarrassment they are anxious for an early settlement

what if someone realizes that The Villages is de facto, a municipality with legal sub-divisions called by a different name as a result of court and legislatively authorized government experimentation in-progress and accordingly, qualifies for the bond status in issue

what if someone applies common sense and realizes that TV and other Florida communities as well as similar new out of state developments are sanctioned experiments that need to go through a metamorphosis to reach their potential in serving the needs of people looking for something progressive and different in the way we are governed.

what if somebody realizes we are not a cult compound but a legally authorized form of government.

Such fertile ground for more input. Feel free to put your own feel good "what ifs" in place. Glass half empty mindsets and Villages antagonists, of course can start or continue your own negative disinformation. Cabo leads optimists in rousing chorus of , "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow".

When you find me the business - anywhere, any industry, any owner, any stockholder - willing to do this, let me know. Otherwise:

"The only sure thing in life is death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin

Reassurance from the Morse Family
 

Bogie Shooter:
I understand your point. However, I am not too sure that reassurance from the Morse family at this point would be foolish, as opposed to a vote of confidence in the VCCDD's position. Personal reassurance is certainly something that, one would think, the Morse family will have to consider if the existing controversy negatively impacts the sale of houses. It doesn't seem to me that the latest Tutt statement should comfort anyone.

I guess if one did not read all the doom and gloom on the subject on TOTV they would not need comforting.

Far be it for me to give the Morse family any marketing advice. They seem to be doing rather well, and this IRS matter seems to have had little (if any) impact, based on the all of the construction new starts south of 466.

I'm not sure what constitutes "comfort," or who needs it? "Stuff" happens all the time in business, especially when regulatory or other agencies get involved, and business people deal with it. It's part of the cost and fact of doing any kind of business.

One thing is for sure: negotiating anything in a fishbowl environment rarely (if ever) works well, to include negotiation by presentation of one side's position in the press. The POA should realize this, especially after it's previous experience.

Exactly what would you disclose? What facts do you know that should be conveyed to potential buyers?



`

Reassurance
 

:

Steve Z:

Let's remember that the TOTV, if you look at numbers (most views are repeats) has a relatively small audience. Furthermore, I really have seen more realism, as opposed to doom and gloom, by the people concerned about the potential severity of this situation.

I, of course, am aware that "stuff" happens all the time in business. However, "stuff" of this potential magnitude does not happen all the time.

Yes, you are right, this matter has probably NOT YET significantly impacted the sale of houses. The impact will probably come when real estate agents start to really focus on the situation and feel compelled to disclose the facts to potential buyers, in order to avoid potential liability if this controversy turns out badly.

Article in Orlando
 

Thank you for all the info. We still want to move.
Just need to work on the health insurance issue. Have even e-mailed senators.
My husband is a big time golfer. We were there last May and liked everything we saw. Like I said in my profie, we have family in Clermont.
I am sure i will have more questions as time goes on.
Thank you for being so kind. BJ

As I am inactive at the moment (currently licensed)I have not really addressed this problem and it is not that simple. The home owner is also required to reveal pertinent facts so I would probably put together information including the IRS input together with a copy of Janet Tutt's article. This could also be part of the seller's disclosure as well. One way or another I would make sure the buyer was aware by finding out from me and the seller up front and not from his neighbor the day he moves in. (Or from reading about it on this forum).
I would guess this subject has been a big part of sales meetings in real estate brokers offices. I know we covered a lot of similar subjects including a murder in the home, potential land fill around the corner, AIDS patient (and that is a subject of it's own) etc.
If you remember Talk Host started what turned into a long thread based on the fact his agent did not reveal the existence of a very active and noisy railroad track nearby. Had I been his agent I would have revealed that.

I'm not sure I agree with the "not yet" potential impact, and seriously doubt there will ever be any impact, no more than there was in the "Dreidame" suit and settlement.

The "stuff" in business is real, and the number of zeros in any business situation is relative to the number of zeros in the entire transaction. Suffice to say, what may seem astronomical to a single homeowner is not necessarily the same when dealing at the scale of this development. And how often it happens is indeed relative to the experience of people in transactions this size.

As far as a real estate agent's disclosure requirement, again, to disclose what? The fact that the local government entity is involved in a regulatory dispute with the federal government? If that were true, then each real estate agent would have to get a list from the state, county, city (as in Lady Lake), and CDD of every ongoing dispute and lawsuit (e.g., slip and fall, auto accident, police brutality claim, false arrest, employee harassment, etc.) and receive from counsel from each side the potential liability faced by each party, as taxes, insurance rates, etc. for them may fluctuate due to the litigation. I don't know of a single agent or broker who has ever solicited or received such a list from any civil entity of all of its potential or pending litigation, and disclosed to any client that the results may have some downstream fiscal (or other) impact on the client.

So, what we still seem to have here is a sort of "cry wolf" scenario, with no one able to quantify in any manner what, if any, impact may occur on any buyer, seller or current property owner. There's a lot of "what if" going on, but most of it isn't even "best guess."

If the intent of the "what if" guesses is to scare the developer into reacting in some panicked fashion for fear of lost sales, somehow I doubt that will happen. They seem too professional to fall into that trap. If the intent is to scare elderly people with claims that there may be unexpected major hits on fixed-income personal finances, or that they may not be able to sell a house, then shame on those who act that way.

If once the matter is cleared by the parties directly involved, that any property owner or group of property owners believe they have suffered any sort of reimbursable loss, the method to seek such compensation is known to all. Until then, the line between "seeking/sharing knowledge" and "rumor spreading" should be recognized and respected.

I would tell the buyer that the IRS has issued a preliminary opinion that might affect the villages tax free bonds. I challenge anyone to say if their brother or sister or best friend were looking to buy a house here right now that they would NOT tell them. I would and I believe all or you would also. Whether a Realtor is required to, I don't know, but they should.