[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Dreamer I love your optimism but there is a but. Your statement is not quite correct, "If" the IRS rules against the bonds being tax free there is no doubt we might have to pay up. As I said in an earlier posting the Developer has total control over the VCCDD and the election of the committee members. It is my understanding that the VCCDD sold the bonds in question to purchase properties. Now here is where things get sticky. It is important to realize the VCCDD represents the Villages Residents eventhough it is controlled by the Developer. YThe VCCDD sells the bonds on our behalf to buy properties from the Developer. The Developer pockets a nice profit, and we (the Villagers) must pay back the borrowed money (the bonds). So, who's responsibility is it to pay if the IRS says no to the ineligible tax free bonds.

I do not believe the residents are responsible for the bond total no matter what the result of the dispute. The financial transaction is between the VCCDD and the bond purchasers. We are not in the loop. Worst case, IMO, is that the VCCDD has insufficient funds to maintain the amenities due to the costs of IRS tax/penalties, and recalling and reissuing the bonds as taxable. However, we have redress if that occurs.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Dreamer I love your optimism but there is a but. Your statement is not quite correct, "If" the IRS rules against the bonds being tax free there is no doubt we might have to pay up. As I said in an earlier posting the Developer has total control over the VCCDD and the election of the committee members. It is my understanding that the VCCDD sold the bonds in question to purchase properties. Now here is where things get sticky. It is important to realize the VCCDD represents the Villages Residents eventhough it is controlled by the Developer. YThe VCCDD sells the bonds on our behalf to buy properties from the Developer. The Developer pockets a nice profit, and we (the Villagers) must pay back the borrowed money (the bonds). So, who's responsibility is it to pay if the IRS says no to the ineligible tax free bonds.

I do not believe the residents are responsible for the bond total no matter what the result of the dispute. The financial transaction is between the VCCDD and the bond purchasers. We are not in the loop. Worst case, IMO, is that the VCCDD has insufficient funds to maintain the amenities due to the costs of IRS tax/penalties, and recalling and reissuing the bonds as taxable. However, we still have funds controlled by the AAC that perhaps could be brought to that problem..

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by mikeod

I do not believe the residents are responsible for the bond total no matter what the result of the dispute. The financial transaction is between the VCCDD and the bond purchasers. We are not in the loop. Worst case, IMO, is that the VCCDD has insufficient funds to maintain the amenities due to the costs of IRS tax/penalties, and recalling and reissuing the bonds as taxable. However, we still have funds controlled by the AAC that perhaps could be brought to that problem..

If what you say is true and residents are "not in the loop", why are the residents paying the legal fees to protect the developer's bottom line? This figure has been estimated to be already approaching one million dollars. If this is true and this amount has been paid from the amenity fees, what was that money originally earmarked for?

[Villageshooter]

Originally Posted by Dreamer61

Wow!!! You go dudes! After much painstaking thinking. And reading about this matter, I've decided to have some faith. The developer is obviously a pretty wise individual and has a truck load of attorneys working for him. This is really his issue. The residents are not involved in the matter. The people the developer has set in place to run TV and keep it running smoothly have done an outstanding job. My opinion: Relax and enjoy your beautiful community, my father always said.. Don't worry about something until you have something to worry about! Just saying...

the IRS NEVER EVER LOSES!

[jimbo2012]

Sure they do

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by janmcn

If what you say is true and residents are "not in the loop", why are the residents paying the legal fees to protect the developer's bottom line? This figure has been estimated to be already approaching one million dollars. If this is true and this amount has been paid from the amenity fees, what was that money originally earmarked for?

The legal fees are being paid out of VCCDD funds, part of which is our amenities fees. The VCCDD has other income sources beyond our amenities fees. Don't forget the VCCDD only gets amenities fees from north of 466.

[Dreamer61]

Just curious. Are you saying residents south of 466 don't pay amenity fees?

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Dreamer61

Just curious. Are you saying residents south of 466 don't pay amenity fees?

No. There are two central districts that collect amenity fees. VCCDD for those north of 466, and SLCDD for those south.

[Dreamer61]

Oh, thanks!

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by mikeod

No. There are two central districts that collect amenity fees. VCCDD for those north of 466, and SLCDD for those south.

Apparently, in order to avoid potentially digging himself into a deeper mess with the IRS, the Developer has stopped selling amenity facilities to the SLCDD until the current IRS investigation is concluded. Thus, the amenity fees for the unsold facilities south of 466 still go to the Developer, who is still incurring the costs of providing those amenities.

It would be nice if the Daily Sun (or maybe the VHA or POA) would provide residents with an unbiased, basic explanation of the details of the amenity system and its current status since that system is the reason that we all bought here and its prior breakdown engendered the successful class-action suit against the Developer.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Apparently, in order to avoid potentially digging himself into a deeper mess with the IRS, the Developer has stopped selling amenity facilities to the SLCDD until the current IRS investigation is concluded. Thus, the amenity fees for the unsold facilities south of 466 still go to the Developer, who is still incurring the costs of providing those amenities.

It would be nice if the Daily Sun (or maybe the VHA or POA) would provide residents with an unbiased, basic explanation of the details of the amenity system and its current status since that system is the reason that we all bought here and its prior breakdown engendered the successful class-action suit against the Developer.

Thanks, you're right. I should have known that below 466 our fees still go to the developer since he still owns the amenities.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by mikeod

I do not believe the residents are responsible for the bond total no matter what the result of the dispute. The financial transaction is between the VCCDD and the bond purchasers. We are not in the loop. Worst case, IMO, is that the VCCDD has insufficient funds to maintain the amenities due to the costs of IRS tax/penalties, and recalling and reissuing the bonds as taxable. However, we have redress if that occurs.

Just who do you think the VCCDD are???? Who do you think provides the funding for the VCCDD ???? ALAS !, it is we the residents !!!!

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Just who do you think the VCCDD are???? Who do you think provides the funding for the VCCDD ???? ALAS !, it is we the residents !!!!

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.

[Advogado]

On August 15, the VCDD posted the latest IRS communication (an August 13 Notice of Proposed Issue) on the VCDD's website: http://www.districtgov.org/images/IR...-IRSupdate.pdf

The upshot of this is that the IRS does not agree with the VCCDD's attorney's arguments and is sticking with its position, explained earlier in this thread, that the VCCDD could not legitimately issue tax exempt bonds.

[JeffAVEWS]

Originally Posted by mikeod

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.

That's some Catch, that Catch 22!