[clekr]

IF the agent's ascertain that the bonds are tainted due to the relationship between the developer and the CDD's this just means that the interest paid on the bonds is taxable to the purchasers of the bonds. Nothing more. Also, most bonds of this type are purchased by pension funds and insurance companies. Since pension funds don't pay taxes anyway it is irrelevant to them. Tongue in cheak - most insurance companies don't pay taxes either. To the extent that the interest would then be taxable in the hands of a purchaser who thought it was going to be nontaxable whether or not they would have recourse against the issuer (the central CDD's) only a bond attorney could answer. Or, there may be terms in the bonds themselves that address this.

Having had some experience with the IRS and the its administrative appeals process, I think it highly unlikely the agent's postion will be sustained. Particularly in light of the fact the Service previousiy approved a prior bond issue after a similar examination process.

[ilovetv]

This said it best, for those who are just tuning in.

Originally Posted by EdVinMass

Well once again we have some new TOTV members trying to understand the facts of this ‘IRS investigation’ and raising a lot of uncertainties. So I thought a little refresher course is in order, so here goes:

What is the likely resolution to all of this? It won’t be to penalize the bond buyers. That would be way, way, way too complicated. You’d be talking about thousands of bond holders and municipal bond mutual funds and reassessing past tax filings over many years. There’s a much simpler resolution. In fact, it’s the one already proposed by the initial IRS agent.

In a letter dated May 18 2009, IRS agent Dominick Servadio told the Village Center CCD it could settle the audit by redeeming $355.35 million of bonds it issued from 1993 to 1995, paying the federal government at least $2.85 million, and agreeing to refrain from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds. The bonds are ‘callable’ so they can be bought back at any time by the issuer without recourse from the bondholders, but the VCCDD rejected the offer.

The whole IRS investigation is likely to end up in Federal Tax Court for a final ruling. But if the IRS were to prevail and a settlement similar to Servadio’s proposal were issued, who would be financially responsible? It certainly won’t be TV homeowners or the numbered CDD’s that the homes are a part of. It would be the two special CDDs that all of the amenities (exec golf courses, sports courts, pools, and Rec centers) are organized under. And who is the majority land owner of the property in those two CDDs? Why none other than Gary Morse the developer and/or his myriad holding companies. And we know he’s the majority landowner in those two CDDs because he and he alone appoints their board members every year. Now consider this:

When you purchase a home in TV, it is placed under one of the ten numbered CDDs. Each of these CDDs have taxing power over the properties within them, but not against any property outside that CDD. And each year you pay a property tax to your CDD to cover the cost of maintenance of the common grounds. It’s called a ‘Development District Assessment’ and can be roughly $1000-$2000 per year. So that pays for all those beautiful flowers at your village entrance that are replaced 4 times a year, among other things.

Similarly, the two special CDDs have taxing power over the owners of property within them but not property outside of them. Their sole relationship with TV homeowners is a contractual agreement to provide ongoing maintenance of the amenities within them in exchange for a guaranteed monthly amenity fee. And by contractual agreement with you, that fee can never be raised by more than the rise in the Consumer Price Index within a given year. So there’s no capability for the two special CDDs to pass on any substantial settlement obligations to TV homeowners. They already customarily raise the amenity fee by the CPI increase anyway.

And they’re not going to try to siphon off amenity funds by drastically cutting back on maintenance of the amenities. Remember that a few years ago they got a little too cavalier about dealing with mold issues in some Rec centers as well as trying to pass off maintenance of the multimodal paths onto the numbered CDDs that had these paths. The Villages Property Owners Association (POA) sued them and got an out of court settlement of 40 million dollars to be pumped back into the special CDD over the next nine years. The first major benefit of this was the funding of widening of the paths that was just completed.

So while I can’t predict exactly what will happen with this, I can say with certainty and facts what cannot happen and that it will have little if any impact on TV homeowners unless of course they allow some of the fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) being tossed about, to get to them.

The financial impact of this rests solely with the developer and/or the companies he controls that own the majority of the property within the two CDDs that are being audited by the IRS. And let’s face it, he can afford it.

[Bogie Shooter]

Most questions can be answered by going back and reading the previous 200 posts on this thread. I believe there are other threads that contain as many or more posts. Every conceivable opinion can be read.

[GTTPF]

Thank you, ilovetv for reposting this information. We will be moving to TV when our home is completed. This has been an issue of concern to me. I have read the posts on this form and gotten more confused the more that I read. This cleared up most of my reservations. We will soon be TVers for life. Thanks!

[Taj44]

From Edwin Mass:.....And they’re not going to try to siphon off amenity funds by drastically cutting back on maintenance of the amenities. Remember that a few years ago they got a little too cavalier about dealing with mold issues in some Rec centers as well as trying to pass off maintenance of the multimodal paths onto the numbered CDDs that had these paths. The Villages Property Owners Association (POA) sued them and got an out of court settlement of 40 million dollars to be pumped back into the special CDD over the next nine years. The first major benefit of this was the funding of widening of the paths that was just completed.....

I see no guarantee that they won't try to siphon off amenity funds again. And we'd have to sue them again, and hopefully we, the residents, would prevail. But it takes years for the lawsuits to go through, and they'd have use of our amenities money in the meantime.

[Doodlegirl]

I missed making dinner last night reading and re-reading the posts on this issue.
As a newbie of a month in a pre-owned cyv I simply wanted to comment on several issues.

I was aware of the IRS situation from reading this forum PRIOR to making my purchase and move some 7 weeks ago. However, during the closing portions and steps my Villages salesperson made no mention of it... and I chose not to ask feeling the developer signs the paychecks.

Likewise, I purchased this home using a Reverse Mortgage which is a loan intended for Seniors at this point. Thus, the Federal Government has a stake in my house if you know what I mean. It seems to me if the Feds are willing to loan in The Villages then the IRS issue could be moot because the IRS and the Federal Housing Commission are not (or are) communicating about potential financial issues for
purchaser seniors here.

O.K., so if we consider The Villages the largest Planned Urban Development of its kind in the U.S., and others are using it as a model, then it would behoove the
Government to either act on the information...or, dally. Dally is my feeling just now.

I think of my amenities fee as a gift back to the Developer. Did I wish 'Bond' had
not entered the picture? Absolutely. It sort of makes us niether fish nor fowl in Tallahassee and in Washington. I would, in my case, have preferred to have had the seller in a 'must' position to have paid the Bond on this house rather than my having had to assume it. Theoretically then, the Federal Government is in bed with me with this villa...as is every mortgage company who has homes and customers in the Villages, including the Villages owned mortgage company in mortgaging new homes here most particularly.

There is no question that building is going on at great lengths, the fabric of the landscape along 466A from Buena Vista to the Publix is changing by the hour just since I moved in. The question is whether the Developer will remain a Big Daddy,
will decide to sell (and to whom), and if those of us who moved here will remain
significantly happy with our quality of life choices and enough money to survive until we croak. Now that I am familiar with the issues enough to explain it to my 'next of kin', I imagine it wll be they who will deal with the end result. However, to not monitor the situation is turning a blind eye to wallet issues, so I agree with all who say stay the course, but be as familiar as possible with the players and the game.
Politics, afterall, is from the Latin meaning 'for-of- the many'. I'm one of those and so is everyone here. Thanks for listening to a newbie.

[EdV]

Originally Posted by clekr

IF the agent's ascertain that the bonds are tainted due to the relationship between the developer and the CDD's this just means that the interest paid on the bonds is taxable to the purchasers of the bonds. Nothing more........

While technically this is true, historically speaking, the IRS has almost never done this. An exception would be a limited number of investors who had intimate knowledge of the non compliance of the bond or was financially involved with the issuer.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by clekr

IF the agent's ascertain that the bonds are tainted due to the relationship between the developer and the CDD's this just means that the interest paid on the bonds is taxable to the purchasers of the bonds. Nothing more. Also, most bonds of this type are purchased by pension funds and insurance companies. Since pension funds don't pay taxes anyway it is irrelevant to them. Tongue in cheak - most insurance companies don't pay taxes either. To the extent that the interest would then be taxable in the hands of a purchaser who thought it was going to be nontaxable whether or not they would have recourse against the issuer (the central CDD's) only a bond attorney could answer. Or, there may be terms in the bonds themselves that address this.

Having had some experience with the IRS and the its administrative appeals process, I think it highly unlikely the agent's postion will be sustained. Particularly in light of the fact the Service previousiy approved a prior bond issue after a similar examination process.

I hope that you are right about it being unlikely that the IRS's not prevailing, but, unfortunately, I don't think that we have any basis for that belief. In fact, the situation seems to be getting worse (no conclusion of the matter, expanded investigation, and the latest IRS finding on the Developer's overpricing of the amenity assets sold to the CCDs). Meantime, we Villagers get no word of assurance from the Developer to the effect that our amenities are not at risk.

In any event, if the bonds are held to be taxable, the bondholders will sue the Center Districts that issued them. The basis for the suits will be that the Center Districts warranted that the bonds were tax exempt. (Refer to the Official Statement for each issue of the bonds.) In other words, the cost of the IRS's sustaining its position will, directly or indirectly, fall on the Center Districts.

If that cost prevents the Center Districts from being financially able to furnish amenities, then Villagers will have to again sue the Developer in order to try to rectify the situation-- which could take time. (By the way, contrary to your post, I think that you will find that pension funds and other tax-exempt entities generally don't buy municipal bonds. This is because the bonds are tax exempt and therefore pay a lower interest rate than taxable bonds. In other words, if the CDD bonds are held to be taxable, the bondholders will very much care.)

Incidentally, for members trying to get a basic understanding of this matter: rather than slogging through the numerous posts on this site, check archived editions of the POA Bulletin. There is an analysis in the September 2009 edition: http://poa4us.org/bulletins_files/bulletin200909.pdf See later editions for subsequent developments, but that edition basically describes what is still at stake.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I hope that you are right about it being unlikely that the IRS's not prevailing, but, unfortunately, I don't think that we have any basis for that belief. ........
There is an analysis in the September 2009 edition: http://poa4us.org/bulletins_files/bulletin200909.pdf See later editions for subsequent developments, but that edition basically describes what is still at stake.

From this link above (Sept. 2009 edition of POA bulletin), how does this part affect homeowners?

"These two Center Districts are The Villages Center Community Development District (VCCDD) and The Sumter Landing Community Development District (SLCDD). They encompass, respectively, the Spanish Springs and Lake Sumter Landing town centers. The Center Districts have only commercial properties, and are not the “numbered districts” in which our homes are located."

I understood (maybe wrongly) from prior posts that our amenities fees go for our residential district, not these commercial properties that have commercial, leased property occupants paying for them. Can someone clarify?

[rubicon]

All of this points to at least two questions 1) who will absorb the tax penalty on the bonds issued should the IRS prevail and 2 a) Is the IRS correct in stating that the appraised value of the property purchased by the district and the estimated cash flow from the amenities were exaggerated? (2b) And if so how did it happen (2c)and for how much more? (2d) Are residents justified in demanding a repayments of these overstated values?

[Larry Wilson]

Good info from the POA paper I found on my driveway yesterday.

[The Shadow]

Originally Posted by Larry Wilson

Good info from the POA paper I found on my driveway yesterday.

Read it on line at...

http://www.poa4us.org/bulletins_file...etin201109.pdf

[Advogado]

The September issue of the VHA paper, the Villages Voice, carried an article by the VHA President, entitled "IRS Outcome No Risk to Villagers". In that article, the VHA, which seems to be a front organization for the Developer, continues its past practice of misleading Villagers about the potential impact of the IRS investigation on the ability of the Center Districts to continue to provide amenities to Villagers. It is interesting that that the Developer, himself, has yet to issue one word of assurance to Villagers in this regard.

Page 6 of the October Property Owners' Association Bulletin delivers a balanced (but, in my view, overly restrained) rebuttal to the baloney contained in the VHA article. If you haven't read the VHA article and POA rebuttal, you should. We all have a lot riding on this matter and should try to stay informed.

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The September issue of the VHA paper, the Villages Voice, carried an article by the VHA President, entitled "IRS Outcome No Risk to Villagers". In that article, the VHA, which seems to be a front organization for the Developer, continues its past practice of misleading Villagers about the potential impact of the IRS investigation on the ability of the Center Districts to continue to provide amenities to Villagers. It is interesting that that the Developer, himself, has yet to issue one word of assurance to Villagers in this regard.

Page 6 of the October Property Owners' Association Bulletin delivers a balanced (but, in my view, overly restrained) rebuttal to the baloney contained in the VHA article. If you haven't read the VHA article and POA rebuttal, you should. We all have a lot riding on this matter and should try to stay informed.

I will let you and others do it for me. My time on this earth is short and I will not spend it worrying needlessly. If this country does not straighten out, all this IRS BS will be moot anyways.

[Taj44]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The September issue of the VHA paper, the Villages Voice, carried an article by the VHA President, entitled "IRS Outcome No Risk to Villagers". In that article, the VHA, which seems to be a front organization for the Developer, continues its past practice of misleading Villagers about the potential impact of the IRS investigation on the ability of the Center Districts to continue to provide amenities to Villagers. It is interesting that that the Developer, himself, has yet to issue one word of assurance to Villagers in this regard.

Page 6 of the October Property Owners' Association Bulletin delivers a balanced (but, in my view, overly restrained) rebuttal to the baloney contained in the VHA article. If you haven't read the VHA article and POA rebuttal, you should. We all have a lot riding on this matter and should try to stay informed.

I feel really fortunate that we have the POA to give us a straight line on the IRS investigation. And also I am not "worrying needlessly" -- I just don't like to be taken advantage of or not be given all the information relative to our situation. I have money invested in housing in TV, and if my lifestyle here is threatened (which could be the case if the IRS lawsuit prevails), I want to be up on all the facts, not just a few select items that the VHA or developer decides they want us to know.