Please let this issue go. No one know what the IRS thinks. :cold:

Amen!!!

Unfortunately, the IRS has told us exactly what it thinks.

Maybe this agreement linked below has been discussed here before, but I wonder if it sheds any light on some of the questions here.

"Attachment A" at the end of this agreement signed by the developer, VCCDD, etc. has all the bond series information, and bond counsel, bond underwriter, underwriter counsel, and district counsel are listed for each bond series the IRS is examining. I think somebody here was asking who these people/entities were.

See: http://dev.districtgov.org/PDFView/P...20101208aa1012

But there are many, many who think they know what everyone is thinking. Can't you tell from all the repetative posts saying the same thing. I look forward to seeing a post with some new information.

You didn’t offend me and I wasn’t trying to be unkind to you. It’s just that the Andersons would be the best people to be talking to about class action suits against the developer.

I do agree with Advogado that the POA is the best place to go for information on the latest developments. Unlike the VHA, the POA has no ties to the developer and whether you agree with some of their positions, they at least try to present both sides of an argument.

Latest News about bonds is found on this link: http://www.news-journalonline.com/ne...ents-more.html

From reading that article, the CDD in Daytona is a FAILING CDD. This is not even close to the case in The Villages.

No relevance to TV...

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me....

question
 

Correct me if I am wrong, but seems that I read on this site, that the turnpike interchange was being funded by the villages.

I am speaking of the morse blvd extended down 468 to the turnpike.

That would certainly be a future relevance.

How would that be relevant to the IRS bond issue?

Helios ... The Villages Developer is contributing to the proposed turnpike exchange. He and his corporations are separate and apart from the residential community development districts and the two central CDDS. Nothing he has agreed to obligates residents or the CDDs.

And, I agree with memason that the linked article, while interesting reading, is not directly relevant to Villages CDDs. As long as the house building/selling machine is cranking along, the financial stability of the Villages Developer and the unsold land appears strong. Once buildout is done, each homeowner has an obligation to pay their bond, CDD fees, and amenity fees. Failure to pay could lead to foreclosure. I would imagine the delinquency rate here is very low.

All IMHO, of course.

I think the poster means to say that the costs will be past back to us????

It would be relevant to the article, as its in there.

Also, if the developer continues to do these bonds, then its relevant to the payers.

07,
If the developer isnt committing villagers to future bonds, then its kosher.

Its just hard to know, when we glean bits and pieces from meeting minutes.

I say this, might bear watching.

This has been very informative - the interplay between EdVinMass, Avogado and others has been enlightening for me, and I appreciate the information. I have a couple of questions that maybe someone can address. (1) Let's assume the IRS prevailed in tax court, what would happen if the VCCDDs decided not to appeal, but declared bankruptcy instead or simply refuses to pay up? Since the VCCDDs now own the amenities, wouldn't the IRS have the right to foreclose on them, despite any contracts the VCCDDs might have with residents? And since the developer has already legally "sold" his interest in the cash flow from the amenities, wouldn't he be out of the picture? (2) Does anyone know what the developer is doing with the financing of future commercial areas and amenities south of 466A? Have they created a third VCCDD to issue more tax exempt bonds? Just curious . . . .