[Cantwaittoarrive]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

The way I read this CDD's would no longer be able to issue tax free bonds, end of story. No penalties for previous bonds, homeowners, bond buyers or sellers or the recipient of large sums of money as a result of the bond sales.

Then what? After build out the developer would charge $50 for golf?

I agree and my guess is like you stated we would face "taxes" in the form of fees for things that are "free" now

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

The way I read this CDD's would no longer be able to issue tax free bonds, end of story. No penalties for previous bonds, homeowners, bond buyers or sellers or the recipient of large sums of money as a result of the bond sales.

Then what? After build out the developer would charge $50 for golf?

You could reach the conclusions set forth in your first paragraph on the basis of the Daily Sun article, and you would be wrong. See the link to the POA Bulletin in my earlier post. The linked POA article was published in 2009, but the analysis set forth in it is still valid. The subsequent developments consist of one setback after another for the Center Districts (which own most of our amenities and which issued the relevant bonds to pay the Developer for them). Those developments are described in POA Bulletins, which can be found on the POA website.

[Bogie Shooter]

I think the significant news is that people in Florida and around the US are now beginning to ask questions and get involved in the discussion. The financial impact to the future of issuing or not issuing tax exempt bonds will be very large.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

I think the significant news is that people in Florida and around the US are now beginning to ask questions and get involved in the discussion. The financial impact to the future of issuing or not issuing tax exempt bonds will be very large.

True. Hopefully, this factor convinces the IRS to address the issue of Community Development District bonds prospectively-- by issuing regulations to prevent FUTURE abuse, rather than to attack the bonds already issued. However, thus far, I have seen no indication that the IRS is going to take that approach.

[aljetmet]

Originally Posted by quirky3

Can someone help explain what losses the residents may incur?

Very subjective. divide the penalty by the number of homes? Should new home owners pay for deeds done years ago?

[golf2140]

Let see. At one point years ago the IRS approved these transactions. Now the IRS dosen't approve thees transactions. Gee, is our government broke?

PS: It's not just affecting The Villages, but 1000's of other CDD !!

[spk7951]

Originally Posted by Advogado

True. Hopefully, this factor convinces the IRS to address the issue of Community Development District bonds prospectively-- by issuing regulations to prevent FUTURE abuse, rather than to attack the bonds already issued. However, thus far, I have seen no indication that the IRS is going to take that approach.

IRS is more interested in collecting their penalties. But as was quoted in that article some believe that this, potentially nationwide issue, will eventually be resolved by congress.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by golf2140

Let see. At one point years ago the IRS approved these transactions. Now the IRS dosen't approve thees transactions. Gee, is our government broke?

PS: It's not just affecting The Villages, but 1000's of other CDD !!

The IRS probably never intended that these CDD's be packed with friends, relatives, and employees of the developer as they were here in TV.

[2BNTV]

What does this ruling mean to future residents?

Does it affect future residents if they buy pre-owned and the bond is paid?

Does future residents have a liability going forward?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by janmcn

The IRS probably never intended that these CDD's be packed with friends, relatives, and employees of the developer as they were here in TV.

How do you know that other CDD's are not run the same way as you suggest??

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by 2BNTV

What does this ruling mean to future residents?

Does it affect future residents if they buy pre-owned and the bond is paid?

Does future residents have a liability going forward?

It isn't the bond paid on individual homes that is discussed here. That is not affected.

NO one can really say for sure what could would should happen to all of us homeowners if the IRS ruled in this or that way, but lots of folks try and it appears to me to be mostly speculation.

No one can concisely explain what the issue is and the IRS has been investigating it for five years now. Back then the Morses could have paid some fee but their lawyers, from what I have been told, felt to do so threatened the structure of the CDD operation. Now I could be wrong and I am frequently, but seems to me that if the Morses wanted to settle it with money they could and would.

This issue comes up for discussion about every four or five months here on TOTV and the same people take the same sides.

Lauren Ritchie a reporter/columnist/writer for the Orlando Sentinel has weighed in on this issue as well. It seems to me that THAT paper rarely says anything positive about the Morses. Wonder why?

[batman911]

Could all this be solved by incorporating TV as a city and make all the CDD assets municipal property?

[mulligan]

don't even think of ruining a good thing for the 90,000 that are actually here

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

It isn't the bond paid on individual homes that is discussed here. That is not affected.

NO one can really say for sure what could would should happen to all of us homeowners if the IRS ruled in this or that way, but lots of folks try and it appears to me to be mostly speculation.

No one can concisely explain what the issue is and the IRS has been investigating it for five years now. Back then the Morses could have paid some fee but their lawyers, from what I have been told, felt to do so threatened the structure of the CDD operation. Now I could be wrong and I am frequently, but seems to me that if the Morses wanted to settle it with money they could and would.

This issue comes up for discussion about every four or five months here on TOTV and the same people take the same sides.

Lauren Ritchie a reporter/columnist/writer for the Orlando Sentinel has weighed in on this issue as well. It seems to me that THAT paper rarely says anything positive about the Morses. Wonder why?

If they could make the problem go away with money, its obviously to their advantage to have it happen later than earlier. They get use of their money and the interest on it even that much longer. The Orlando paper is just doing what papers do - they find a story and report on it . The bottom line is the Morses knew the IRS frowned on the issue of the bonds, and they continued to issue more. I just hope that the residents aren't the ones that pay the price down the line.

[ijusluvit]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Good point KB - yes, we the homeowners have ended up paying the legal fees. I assume at some point if the decision goes against the Morses, there may be another class action lawsuit against them to recoup any losses that residents have or will incur. For those that are not familiar with the IRS lawsuit, it contends that the districts that issued the bonds don't meet the test of a genuine "political subdivision." Its governing board isn't chosen by residents, it has no authority to exercise police power and its power to take private property for public projects is very limited.

The IRS contends that the districts' governing boards are controlled by The Villages developer, Gary Morse, and their bond sales have benefited him, not residents.

I'd like to know how you have concluded that the residents of TV have paid the legal bills to contest the IRS challenge to issuing tax free bonds.

My take on this is that these funds would have to come from the Morse's directly, from profits in the sale of homes, lease and rent payments, etc. But this is money they have earned. For it to by "our money" they would have to use funds from amenity fee accounts. With the use restrictions and public disclosure requirements of those funds, I don't see how the Morses could tap into these accounts to pay legal expenses.