Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 712784)

I believe the VCCDD is a board comprised of representatives of the owner of the town squares, I.e., the developer, not the residents. That appears to be the central problem the IRS has with the tax-free bonds. Essentially, there is no path for resident input or control within the VCCDD, thus the ruling that the VCCDD is not a political entity with the ability to issue tax-free bonds.

Essentially the bonds were issued to purchase amenities from the developer by a developer controlled board with the profits going to the developer. To me it appears to be a mechanism for the developer to change ownership while still exercising control and profit at the same time.

Understand, I live here and like it here. Should the IRS dispute have never happened, I would not have given the transfer a second thought because the successful result of the lawsuit set a precedent for transfer of amenities that seems to ensure their continuation.

From the district website:
Governance of the Village Center Community Development District is accomplished by a five member Board of Supervisors, elected biannually, as described in Chapter 190.006, Florida Statutes. Inasmuch as there are no residential properties contained within the boundaries of the Village Center Community Development District, members of the Board of Supervisors will continue to be elected by the landowners of property within the boundaries of the District.

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer (Post 736643)

I have followed the VCCDD thing for years. At the outset the relationship where a governing board (the VCCDD) is elected by a developer (the only landowner in the VCCDD area) which board issues bonds and purchases amenities from the developer. Simply put the Developer appoints the board, the board issues bonds, the board buys property from the developer, the developer gets the profits. If that doesn't sound like a sweetheart deal nothing does !!!! No resident ever will play a role in these transactions.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 736703)

Ah yes my friend, but every resident here benefits from them, including you and me....

I don't see anything broke around here.

I do see a lot of people not happy with successful big business.

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 736757)

I think that you are missing the point.

I don't think anybody (at least not me) is saying that the present lifestyle in The Villages is broken. There is concern that it may break if the VCCDD is unsuccessful in defending the actions of itself and the Developer in utilizing tax-exempt bonds to develop the Villages.

In the meantime, it is ironic when one thinks of the millions of dollars that the Developer gives to conservative causes and candidates while taking tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in corporate welfare via the utilization of taxpayer-subsidized tax-exempt bonds.

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 736757)

I think that you are missing the point.

I don't think anybody (at least not me) is saying that the present lifestyle in The Villages is broken. There is concern that it may break if the VCCDD is unsuccessful in defending the actions of itself and the Developer in utilizing tax-exempt bonds to develop the Villages.

In the meantime, it is ironic when one thinks of the millions of dollars that the Developer gives to conservative causes and candidates while taking tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in corporate welfare via the utilization of taxpayer-subsidized tax-exempt bonds.

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 736757)

I think that you are missing the point.

I don't think anybody (at least not me) is saying that the present lifestyle in The Villages is broken. There is concern that it may break if the VCCDD is unsuccessful in defending the actions of itself and the Developer in utilizing tax-exempt bonds to develop the Villages.

In the meantime, it is ironic when one thinks of the millions of dollars that the Developer gives to conservative causes and candidates while taking tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in corporate welfare via the utilization of taxpayer-subsidized tax-exempt bonds.

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 712784)

I believe the VCCDD is a board comprised of representatives of the owner of the town squares, I.e., the developer, not the residents. That appears to be the central problem the IRS has with the tax-free bonds. Essentially, there is no path for resident input or control within the VCCDD, thus the ruling that the VCCDD is not a political entity with the ability to issue tax-free bonds.

Essentially the bonds were issued to purchase amenities from the developer by a developer controlled board with the profits going to the developer. To me it appears to be a mechanism for the developer to change ownership while still exercising control and profit at the same time.

Understand, I live here and like it here. Should the IRS dispute have never happened, I would not have given the transfer a second thought because the successful result of the lawsuit set a precedent for transfer of amenities that seems to ensure their continuation.

From the district website:
Governance of the Village Center Community Development District is accomplished by a five member Board of Supervisors, elected biannually, as described in Chapter 190.006, Florida Statutes. Inasmuch as there are no residential properties contained within the boundaries of the Village Center Community Development District, members of the Board of Supervisors will continue to be elected by the landowners of property within the boundaries of the District.

Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 736872)

mikeod: You are spot on and it goes deeper than what you address here.

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 736920)

Are you referring to the belief that the developer's family also bought up most of the bonds in question so that they profit from the interest paid on them tax free as well?

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 736964)

That rumor is apparently not true. Refer to: http://districtgov.org/images/IRSupd...%20Counsel.pdf

Refer to the penultimate paragraph.

Originally Posted by marlinguy (Post 737073)

As someone who at the moment is bent on moving to the inside of the Dome in the near future I have followed the IRS issue with some interest. I am curious as to how all of this came about. Didn't the Bond Issuer have a rating agency, Moody's for example, rate them for tax exempt status? Wasn't the IRS asked for an opinion BEFORE issuing? Then, when I get so dizzy contemplating a million bits of info I try to look at what's the basic issue. Tell me if I'm wrong (in a nice way please) but as I understand it, the IRS is saying that because the CCD's did not meet the requirements of IRS 103 that they weren't in fact not a qualified political subdivision and therefore not authorized to issue bonds exempt from federal tax. Is that it? Personally, based on what I have seen and read, I would have to agree but then that really doesn't make a bit of difference, does it? For me, the much bigger question is,,"What if the IRS prevails???" Does anyone know? I have read a number of IRS published case studies concerning similar outcomes and none of them sound very good. I have read a couple of "well, the Developer will just write a check", maybe, I kinda doubt it though. Replies?

Originally Posted by marlinguy (Post 737073)

As someone who at the moment is bent on moving to the inside of the Dome in the near future I have followed the IRS issue with some interest. I am curious as to how all of this came about. Didn't the Bond Issuer have a rating agency, Moody's for example, rate them for tax exempt status? Wasn't the IRS asked for an opinion BEFORE issuing? Then, when I get so dizzy contemplating a million bits of info I try to look at what's the basic issue. Tell me if I'm wrong (in a nice way please) but as I understand it, the IRS is saying that because the CCD's did not meet the requirements of IRS 103 that they weren't in fact not a qualified political subdivision and therefore not authorized to issue bonds exempt from federal tax. Is that it? Personally, based on what I have seen and read, I would have to agree but then that really doesn't make a bit of difference, does it? For me, the much bigger question is,,"What if the IRS prevails???" Does anyone know? I have read a number of IRS published case studies concerning similar outcomes and none of them sound very good. I have read a couple of "well, the Developer will just write a check", maybe, I kinda doubt it though. Replies?

Originally Posted by marlinguy (Post 737073)

As someone who at the moment is bent on moving to the inside of the Dome in the near future I have followed the IRS issue with some interest. I am curious as to how all of this came about. Didn't the Bond Issuer have a rating agency, Moody's for example, rate them for tax exempt status? Wasn't the IRS asked for an opinion BEFORE issuing? Then, when I get so dizzy contemplating a million bits of info I try to look at what's the basic issue. Tell me if I'm wrong (in a nice way please) but as I understand it, the IRS is saying that because the CCD's did not meet the requirements of IRS 103 that they weren't in fact not a qualified political subdivision and therefore not authorized to issue bonds exempt from federal tax. Is that it? Personally, based on what I have seen and read, I would have to agree but then that really doesn't make a bit of difference, does it? For me, the much bigger question is,,"What if the IRS prevails???" Does anyone know? I have read a number of IRS published case studies concerning similar outcomes and none of them sound very good. I have read a couple of "well, the Developer will just write a check", maybe, I kinda doubt it though. Replies?

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 737381)

I would expect that IF there was a negative effect to the Villagers, for example, if the VCCDD had to pay penalties which affected its ability to provide our amenities, there would be a class action lawsuit against the developer. And of course, we don't know what the outcome of that would be.

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 737278)

Gracie is right when she indicates that nobody can tell you, with any certainty, what the outcome will be. You are also right-- some of the potential outcomes would not be "very good".

It is possible (although it seems unlikely) that the IRS will (a) change its position and say that developer-controlled CDDs can issue tax exempt bonds, or (b) only apply the proscription against such issuance prospectively (a real possibility). In either case, there would appear to be no impact on Villagers.

However, if the IRS successfully maintains its current position, there would presumably be huge costs incurred by the VCCDD, which owns a big chunk of the amenity facilities. If that happens, the concern to Villagers is how the amenity system would have the financial resources to continue to operate. But you should understand that, even if the VCCDD loses, the IRS cannot come after the Villagers for any taxes, penalties, etc.

Exactly how all this plays out, time will tell. For a more complete analysis, go to the POA website. You should also discount just about everything that the VHA and Daily Sun have said about the matter.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 737401)

[/B][/COLOR]
I strongly disagree.

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 737381)

I would expect that IF there was a negative effect to the Villagers, for example, if the VCCDD had to pay penalties which affected its ability to provide our amenities, there would be a class action lawsuit against the developer. And of course, we don't know what the outcome of that would be.

Originally Posted by dillywho (Post 737459)

...
Let's worry about the issues facing each of us everyday and not so much about something over which we have no control. It still beats the heck out of any place else we've lived since retirement or considered. Comparison shopping is always an option.

Originally Posted by dillywho (Post 737459)

Has it occurred to anyone here that IF the IRS prevails that it may just all fall on the developer alone? Then what will the nay-sayers have to say about the developer?
.

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 737478)

At present it beats the heck out of any other retirement option we considered. However, if something happens to negatively affect the amenity fund flow, we'll all be singing a different tune. As Advogado said, hopefully the residents would prevail in a class action lawsuit, but that could take years, and in the meantime our property values would most likely take a hit. I'm certainly hoping things go our way, but realistically, I don't see any guarantees.

Originally Posted by dillywho (Post 737459)

Has it occurred to anyone here that IF the IRS prevails that it may just all fall on the developer alone? Then what will the nay-sayers have to say about the developer?

Who took the risk to develop this place? Certainly none of us. How could the developers possibly have known for sure that if they built all this that it would be a sure-shot? As I see it, we really don't have anything to lose.

I remember when they had their troubles in Montana how people here were so worried about what ramifications we would all suffer if they lost in court. They lost and that was the end of that; no impact here other than criticisms of how they got into trouble in the first place and what scoundrels they are.

I don't know them, but I do appreciate their ability to do business. They have done many things here that they didn't have to do. The land for the VA Clinic comes to mind, for one. I'm sure it generates business for them in various ways but not having to constantly travel to Leesburg or Gainesville is a big plus for lots of folks here.

Let's worry about the issues facing each of us everyday and not so much about something over which we have no control. It still beats the heck out of any place else we've lived since retirement or considered. Comparison shopping is always an option.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 737550)

Well said. And although it wasn't the size it is now, the money put to risk was most everything they had.

Thank you Morse family for all of us who appreciate it and for those who don't.

Originally Posted by JP (Post 737689)

I agree and it just goes to show you what can be done when there is money available that isn't taxed like crazy.

There could be more places like TV all across America if the government would just get out of our pockets and more people would accept individual responsibility.

Originally Posted by marlinguy (Post 737799)

Thanks for the direction to the POA website. Never even knew there was one. Now I understand why "no one knows"?? Geez, thinking about a hefty bond on a golf course home, enjoying life and all "the stuff" and potentially have a major "glitch",,,and never having been able to enjoy "the stuff". Boy, something to think about

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 737488)

The dispute is between the central districts and the IRS. The developer is involved only because he is the principal landowner in the central districts and thus controls the makeup of the boards. But our amenity fees go to the central districts and the quality of our amenities may be at risk if the IRS prevails.

Now, there are those who believe the developer will not let our amenities suffer and will step in to cover penalties and interest if they are imposed. But he has no legal obligation to do that. With the profits earned from the sale of the amenities, which was maximized because of the tax-free bonds, there may be a moral obligation to keep us whole since we did not benefit in any significant way from the bond issue.

But, as stated many times before, nobody knows what the outcome will be.

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 737891)

I agree - in my opinion there is a moral obligation on the part of the developer to keep us whole, but unfortunately no legal obligation.

Originally Posted by marlinguy (Post 737894)

If you don't mind, when you have a chance and not too time consuming, I would love to know the details, which is for what.

Thanks

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 737930)

There are those who like the developer and are on the side of big business and there are those who don't like the developer and don't like big business. There are those who don't know the developer, that would be every single person who lives here I would guess. It boils down sadly to be too often a political opinion whether you think Gary Morse is a good guy or a spawn of the devil.

And that is just my opinion.

Originally Posted by dillywho (Post 737459)

Has it occurred to anyone here that IF the IRS prevails that it may just all fall on the developer alone? Then what will the nay-sayers have to say about the developer?

Who took the risk to develop this place? Certainly none of us. How could the developers possibly have known for sure that if they built all this that it would be a sure-shot? As I see it, we really don't have anything to lose.

I remember when they had their troubles in Montana how people here were so worried about what ramifications we would all suffer if they lost in court. They lost and that was the end of that; no impact here other than criticisms of how they got into trouble in the first place and what scoundrels they are.

I don't know them, but I do appreciate their ability to do business. They have done many things here that they didn't have to do. The land for the VA Clinic comes to mind, for one. I'm sure it generates business for them in various ways but not having to constantly travel to Leesburg or Gainesville is a big plus for lots of folks here.

Let's worry about the issues facing each of us everyday and not so much about something over which we have no control. It still beats the heck out of any place else we've lived since retirement or considered. Comparison shopping is always an option.

Originally Posted by redwitch (Post 737959)

And then are those who appreciate what has been accomplished here and the work entailed in creating TV but think the Morses have feet of clay. They can be greedy. They can be high-handed. They have shown themselves to participate in some questionable practices at times. They also have freely contributed their own money to various things and charities in TV. They aren't devils. They aren't saints.

Personally, I don't want to meet Mark or Gary Morse. I doubt they are the type of people with whom I really want to associate. Like most TVers, I think Harold Schwartz walked on water.

Originally Posted by marlinguy (Post 737894)

If you don't mind, when you have a chance and not too time consuming, I would love to know the details, which is for what.

Thanks