"it's not over until it's over". Yogi said that! I'm not an attorney (neither was Yogi) but there are so many unanswered questions....... Examples: What about all the other CDD'S in Florida? I don't think you can treat them any different. What about the bonds issued since 2003? Etc. etc. Nope, this is far from over IMHO.

Unfriendly or friendly is not involved here. It is how monies are handled and collected and dispersed in a CDD form of government.. ...now the IRS seems to be deciding that the municipal bonds issued by CDD are not tax exempt. And that the Morses gained from this. Hello....

What was printed some time ago in the Sun was that the developer sold entities to the CDD that were underpriced. That was considered a good move and one that favored CDD's. We aren't the only CDD in Florida.

What the IRS ruled is that CDDs can't really continue as the Florida law that set them up allowed for many years.

We are now going to have to wait and see.

My guess as to what will happen is that there will be further negotiation and that the amount assessed will be lowered after a lot of lawyers will see that these conversations go on and on.

The Orlando Sentinel and Lauren Ritchie in my opinion has frequently offered stories on The Villages that have been very unfavorable and sensational. I don't know why, but it could be the editorial slant partially and the journalistic style which seems to me to be much more sensational than I consider responsible reporting.

Following will be posts by the same old people who bash the developer gloating and the same old people who think positively of the developer defending.

And eventually it will all come out in the wash.

It will put the kebash on the sales and growth and worth of our homes until it is resolved in my opinion.


NO ONE knows what the lawyers for the IRS and the lawyers for the villages will end up doing. The IRS is really on the hot seat these days about targeting certain groups. I am not suggesting that is what happened here but it won't help their reputation that Morse gives huge sums to that same party. I can't say the word or this post will be deleted.

Visit This site.

BREAKING: IRS Rules Against The Villages

This whole debacle didn't occur because of one political party being picked on, it happened because Morse and his people "stretched" and worked around the rules, and they got caught. Simple as that. I'm guessing most of the CDD's in other parts of the state do not work like the one here in The Villages, so this will act as a warning to other CDD's - abide by the intent of the law. The Villages clearly did not do this even after previous warnings.

I have heard this opinion before and I respectfully do not agree. I have not heard of any law bring broken.

This sums it up nicely without getting into the details.

IMHO it might be better to rent than buy to stay off the hook until this is finally settled which may be 10 years from now.

I wonder, could an Agency as Patriotic and honest as the IRS make a mistake in judgment i.e. the ruling they came to about this bond issue?

yeah - just a guess.

and i could guess that if bonds had not been sold, home buyers would have had their share of infrastructure costs added straight into their purchase price...and that if this suit is ultimately lost by the developer that they just might be assessed that amount straight away!

but that's just a guess.

Guessing?

:boxing2: A very thoughtful approach. This issue is so complicated that most of us don't have enough correct information or knowledge to intelligently discuss it. I do know this much about the IRS. If you call three people at the IRS and ask the same question to each----you will very likely get three different answers. Say no more!!

Lauren Ritchie’s latest article is dated June 4, today is the sixth, the title is “Fruitland Park commissioners should remove police Chief Terry Isaacs as interim city manager”. People like to blame Lauren Ritchie for generating bad info on the IRS problem but LR had nothing to do with the multiple news releases today.

Everybody - and every group - wants to be tax exempt. Irregardless of who, or what they are or do.

It's always the other guy who should pay - but not me.

I have seen nothing on this thread that indicates anyone posting here has an understanding of this process. The opinions being expressed appear mostly to be by people who have never been involved in issuing bonds of any kind nor in legislation or litigation relating to bond issues

Most often legal advise is worth about what you pay for it.

My guess is that the process has many years to run before it is settled. My previous experience is that the Bond Underwriters and the Attorneys on whose opinion the Underwriters and buyers relied have more immediate issues to deal with ( ditto their malpractice insurers)

I think you may not be clear on the fact that the bonds under IRS examination are not the infrastructure bonds attached to our houses. The bonds under examination were all issued by the Center Districts. The Center Districts used the proceeds of most of the bonds to pay the Developer (at what the IRS alleges were artificially inflated prices) for the amenity facilities.

Therefore, contrary to your post, Villagers cannot be directly assessed for the costs involved here. This is because the Center Districts can only tax within their boundaries, which do not include residents and cannot raise the amenity fees in excess of the CPI. Instead, the risk to Villagers is that IF the IRS investigation results in the Center Districts incurring huge costs, the Center Districts may not be financially able to continue to furnish the amenities to us. For a more detailed explanation, go to the POA website: http://poa4us.org/bulletins_files/bulletin200908.pdf

For accurate information, forget most of what you read in the Daily Sun and VHA Bulletin and look to either the POA Bulletin or to publications outside The Villages.

A final point regarding the concern expressed by some posters that the IRS actions here are politically motivated-- because of the Developer's large donations to the Republican party: The IRS investigation was begun under the Bush administration-- which, while it indicates nonpartisanship, is an indication of how long the investigation has dragged on.

While my above explanation is a simplified one, I hope it clarifies a little bit this complicated situation.

I don't think so. The IRS ruled on an IRS regulation. Isn't the next step to go to the courts?