[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by Taj44

I'm sorry, but this thread seems to be getting out of hand. To refer to someone who's posts delve into the "what ifs" if the IRS prevails, and calls the poster "sinister" and unbalanced seems pretty insulting to me. I think its human nature to discuss such issues, especially if a negative outcome is going to cost the residents upwards of thousands of dollars per household. We all hope the outcome doesn't cost us, bottom line, but until it is settled all will voice their opinions on each side of the fence. Is it possible we can discuss without the petty name calling?

I see a thread that is fairly civil. When the doomsayers get out numbered
they call "foul"?

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by cabo35

It is sad to see that the usual suspects, by thoughtless accident or sinister design, continue to tacitly discourage those considering buying or building in the Villages as evidenced in this thread. You have to wonder how many future Villagers have turned away as a direct result of their unsettling, acid speculative rants. Oh....for sure they have an absolute right to their unbalanced suppositions and "right to know" warnings. However, at what point does their myopic conjecture do actual harm to the collective interest of the community as a whole. Open forums are a brilliant exercise in democracy. Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, real consequences and responsibility are sometimes absent from the equation.

I recall that Advogado has offered a clearly defined and articulate overview of the IRS issue. I believe I complemented him on that in this forum. However, I take vigorous exception to his abundant guess work and "what ifs" about an outcome that cannot be predicted because the entire subject is without significant precedent. Accordingly the bombardment of worst case scenario inferences based on incomplete information seems to be the predicate for gloomy cynicism. Others eagerly join the bash and aggressively perpetuate the most negative illusions about the matter in the worst possible terms to vicariously satisfy their "glass half empty" pessimism and/or their desire for an " I told you so outcome". What if The Villages win? With tongue-in-cheek.........do I get to say I told you so? Unfortunately those who based their decision on negative speculative outcomes by amateurs will have lost a great opportunity......while the critics continue to enjoy their own full access to the benefits of being Villagers. That presumes, of course, all the critics actually live in The Villages.

To advocate without doing harm would be a refreshing and welcome alternative.

As I have said before, "To those of you on the fence, be of good cheer and make the move. If we had waited six years ago for the perfect scenario.....we would have missed out on six years of enjoying new friends, great new neighbors, a fabulous lifestyle and what have become the best years of our lives."

Kentucky Blue......boy......did you nail it.....and with a magnificent economy of words....well done.

Yes, I wonder how many people they have driven away, also.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Yes, I wonder how many people they have driven away, also.

This is a whole lot of rumor, gossip and conjecture. Watching soap operas would be just as productive.

I'm going out to do some errands and apply for a volunteer position. Been watchin' this soap for too long.

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

This is exactly what I've thought all along. These "non-taxable" bonds had to be legally approved for selling them as such, and if the lawyers/bond consul made a mistake in saying they were "non-taxable" under IRS rules, it would be malpractice on their part.

Why would we home buyers be liable for a seller's misrepresentation to us?

Bond attorneys are not insurers.. and I would think the employment contract states that they are not responsible should the IRS find the bonds are taxable.
I have never gotten an answer to my question, which is.. couldn't the district have gotten a private letter ruling from the IRS BEFORE the bonds were sold whether they would be non taxable?? I think they are done frequently. Just google IRS private letter rulings to learn more but basically you submit your situation before you act on the tax consequences and the IRS will submit a ruling which applies to you before you act. I sure wish someone with tax law experience could answer the question, if one was obtained on these bonds, and if not, why not??

My opinion on this entire issue is simply the villagers and potential buyers have a right to know the facts. What can possibly be wrong with that?

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

Bond attorneys are not insurers.. and I would think the employment contract states that they are not responsible should the IRS find the bonds are taxable.
I have never gotten an answer to my question, which is.. couldn't the district have gotten a private letter ruling from the IRS BEFORE the bonds were sold whether they would be non taxable?? I think they are done frequently. Just google IRS private letter rulings to learn more but basically you submit your situation before you act on the tax consequences and the IRS will submit a ruling which applies to you before you act. I sure wish someone with tax law experience could answer the question, if one was obtained on these bonds, and if not, why not??

My opinion on this entire issue is simply the villagers and potential buyers have a right to know the facts. What can possibly be wrong with that?

To answer the first of your questions, if a letter ruling had been requested, that fact would have certainly been set forth in the Official Statement (i.e., prospectus) prepared in connection with the bond issue. Since that fact is not set forth, apparently a letter ruling was not requested. As to why it wasn't, I don't know. You would have to ask the Developer or guess. Or maybe some of the posters ("Morseiphiles"), who have been assuring everybody not to worry ("Close your eyes, count to ten, and the boogie man will go away"), can actually supply some worthwhile factual information relevant to the discussion.

As to your to your final question as to what could be wrong with the concept of the "right to know"? Again, I don't know. You will have to ask the Morseiphiles. They will certainly have the answer. They know everything about everything, most of them seem to live at their computers and post thousands of times on every conceivable subject, and they seem to think that the way to discuss an issue is by making personal attacks on those with whom they disagree. (Oops, I just realized that I have been provoked into doing the same thing. I think that I will leave the subject of the IRS investigation alone for awhile-- at least until I calm down or there is another development.)

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by Advogado

To answer the first of your questions, if a letter ruling had been requested, that fact would have certainly been set forth in the Official Statement (i.e., prospectus) prepared in connection with the bond issue. Since that fact is not set forth, apparently a letter ruling was not requested. As to why it wasn't, I don't know. You would have to ask the Developer or guess. Or maybe some of the posters ("Morseiphiles"), who have been assuring everybody not to worry ("Close your eyes, count to ten, and the boogie man will go away"), can actually supply some worthwhile factual information relevant to the discussion.

As to your to your final question as to what could be wrong with the concept of the "right to know"? Again, I don't know. You will have to ask the Morseiphiles. They will certainly have the answer. They know everything about everything, most of them seem to live at their computers and post thousands of times on every conceivable subject, and they seem to think that the way to discuss an issue is by making personal attacks on those with whom they disagree. (Oops, I just realized that I have been provoked into doing the same thing. I think that I will leave the subject of the IRS investigation alone for awhile-- at least until I calm down or there is another development.)

So, congratulations on coining a new word, "Morseiphiles." So, inadvertently you have confirmed my suspicions. I assume that new word means "friends of the Morses" or maybe pro-Morse?

So I assume you are the opposite which means "enemies of Morses or maybe anti-Morse?
Well, at least you admit where you stand.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

So, congratulations on coining a new word, "Morseiphiles." So, inadvertently you have confirmed my suspicions. I assume that new word means "friends of the Morses" or maybe pro-Morse?

So I assume you are the opposite which means "enemies of Morses or maybe anti-Morse?
Well, at least you admit where you stand.

I stand for the truth.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by cabo35

It is sad to see that the usual suspects, by thoughtless accident or sinister design, continue to tacitly discourage those considering buying or building in the Villages as evidenced in this thread. You have to wonder how many future Villagers have turned away as a direct result of their unsettling, acid speculative rants. Oh....for sure they have an absolute right to their unbalanced suppositions and "right to know" warnings. However, at what point does their myopic conjecture do actual harm to the collective interest of the community as a whole. Open forums are a brilliant exercise in democracy. Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, real consequences and responsibility are sometimes absent from the equation.

I recall that Advogado has offered a clearly defined and articulate overview of the IRS issue. I believe I complemented him on that in this forum. However, I take vigorous exception to his abundant guess work and "what ifs" about an outcome that cannot be predicted because the entire subject is without significant precedent. Accordingly the bombardment of worst case scenario inferences based on incomplete information seems to be the predicate for gloomy cynicism. Others eagerly join the bash and aggressively perpetuate the most negative illusions about the matter in the worst possible terms to vicariously satisfy their "glass half empty" pessimism and/or their desire for an " I told you so outcome". What if The Villages win? With tongue-in-cheek.........do I get to say I told you so? Unfortunately those who based their decision on negative speculative outcomes by amateurs will have lost a great opportunity......while the critics continue to enjoy their own full access to the benefits of being Villagers. That presumes, of course, all the critics actually live in The Villages.

To advocate without doing harm would be a refreshing and welcome alternative.

As I have said before, "To those of you on the fence, be of good cheer and make the move. If we had waited six years ago for the perfect scenario.....we would have missed out on six years of enjoying new friends, great new neighbors, a fabulous lifestyle and what have become the best years of our lives."

Kentucky Blue......boy......did you nail it.....and with a magnificent economy of words....well done.

You are venting your frustration and anger at the wrong people. It should be directed (1) at those responsible for this issue (2) those in authority that have a responsibility to keep residents fully informed of the issues and potential consequences, etc. Instead they continue to obfuscate the entire matter only inviting dialogue as we are witnessing here in this thread.

If they did their job we would not be speaking in "what ifs" and "suppose thats". We would not be admonishing one another instead we would be focusing on plan to protect our interests

As to the special lawyers/bond consul I imagine they issed bonds based on written documents assumed to be completed accurately and in fill. If those making application lied or misled the bond consul then who has the laboring oar? And as much as some won't like this this is another "what if" .

Again, I am not losing sleep over this because one way or another there are various remedies, whatever the initial outcome.

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I stand for the truth.

Justice and the American way. (thank-you Superman)


Only kidding, but seriously, it is good that there are the people out there that are looking for possible downsides. I just think most people do not want to be reminded of them. But I remember one of my favorite TV shows from the 50's, Wagon Train. The Wagonmaster (Ward Bond) employed a scout to go ahead and report any activity which might be dangerous or advantageous for the wagons and it's inhabitants.
I hearbye nominate Advogado as our official scout.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by rubicon

You are venting your frustration and anger at the wrong people. It should be directed (1) at those responsible for this issue (2) those in authority that have a responsibility to keep residents fully informed of the issues and potential consequences, etc. Instead they continue to obfuscate the entire matter only inviting dialogue as we are witnessing here in this thread.

If they did their job we would not be speaking in "what ifs" and "suppose thats". We would not be admonishing one another instead we would be focusing on plan to protect our interests

As to the special lawyers/bond consul I imagine they issed bonds based on written documents assumed to be completed accurately and in fill. If those making application lied or misled the bond consul then who has the laboring oar? And as much as some won't like this this is another "what if" .

Again, I am not losing sleep over this because one way or another there are various remedies, whatever the initial outcome.

I agree, and I too am not losing any sleep over the matter-- primarily because there is not a whole lot that I can think of to do at this point. The question that we residents would face, IF the IRS sustains its position, is How do we enforce the various remedies that you refer to?

Do you have any thoughts as to what we could do, at this point, to, as you put it, "plan to protect our interests"--other than to try to inform people? (As indicated by some of the responses to my posts, informing people ain't that easy to do.)

In thinking about the matter, I continue to conclude that the POA is probably out best bet. The POA is following the matter closely and, as I recall, has written the IRS asking that the IRS be sensitive to the impact of an adverse decision on the residents. The problem that we face as residents is that the POA is not a traditional property-owner's association in that membership is not mandatory, and it has no dues-assessing power.

In other words, the POA, as an organization, may not be very effective in representing the interests of residents in the legal tumult that could ensue if the IRS sustains its position. Remember that the POA had no standing to bring the class-action against the Developer and it had to be brought by individual members of the POA. (The VHA, of course, would be of no help.)

[cabo35]

Originally Posted by Taj44

I'm sorry, but this thread seems to be getting out of hand. To refer to someone who's posts delve into the "what ifs" if the IRS prevails, and calls the poster "sinister" and unbalanced seems pretty insulting to me. I think its human nature to discuss such issues, especially if a negative outcome is going to cost the residents upwards of thousands of dollars per household. We all hope the outcome doesn't cost us, bottom line, but until it is settled all will voice their opinions on each side of the fence. Is it possible we can discuss without the petty name calling?

OK.....I'll play.

You said, "To refer to someone who's posts delve into the "what ifs" if the IRS prevails, and calls the poster "sinister" and unbalanced seems pretty insulting to me."

We must have gone to two different schools together as our respective command and understanding of the King's English differs greatly. It is quite evident that my use of "sinister" was a modifier for the word "design." Further compounding your misrepresentation, is your apparent selective disregard of context. The reference itself was part of an either/or theoretical choice left to the imagination of the reader.

Your interpretation of "unbalanced" is equally misrepresented or misinterpreted by 'accident or design', as my use of the word clearly modified the word "suppositions" and referred specifically to the "balance" of emphasis on the negative as opposed to the positive. It is an impossible stretch to link the phrase to any person being unbalanced.

You said, "Is it possible we can discuss without the petty name calling?" What name calling are you referring to?

I welcome cerebral challenges but distortions of factual representations compromise and degrade whatever valid arguments you may have. It may surprise you to know I have even agreed with you on some points. I view those with opposing views as loyal opposition with the best interests of The Villages at the core of their beliefs. We just have vastly different perspectives on how to achieve those interests.

By the way.... I would love to hear your characterization of "morseiphiles" and its author given your disdain for name calling.

Hey, Rube...........be assured I am neither frustrated or angry. It's not in my nature. I will not deny I enjoy a good debate. While I often have a divergence of opinion with your views, you have made some good points and I enjoy most of our exchanges.

BTW....My repeated reference to you as Hey, Rube is related to the meaning of the phrase. As you probably know circus workers used it as a call for help in a fight or threat from outsiders. Given are history of interaction and the most recent sensitivity to "name calling", I didn't want to distress you.

[Taj44]

1

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by rubicon

You are venting your frustration and anger at the wrong people. It should be directed (1) at those responsible for this issue (2) those in authority that have a responsibility to keep residents fully informed of the issues and potential consequences, etc. Instead they continue to obfuscate the entire matter only inviting dialogue as we are witnessing here in this thread.

If they did their job we would not be speaking in "what ifs" and "suppose thats". We would not be admonishing one another instead we would be focusing on plan to protect our interests

As to the special lawyers/bond consul I imagine they issed bonds based on written documents assumed to be completed accurately and in fill. If those making application lied or misled the bond consul then who has the laboring oar? And as much as some won't like this this is another "what if" .

Again, I am not losing sleep over this because one way or another there are various remedies, whatever the initial outcome.

My apology. I got ahead of myself on a portion of this post inreference to the special lawyers, bond consul and the application for bonds. In all application for contracts the issuer releis on information prsented in the application. Information cannot be misleading, concealed or omitted. The application requires a signature that the information contained is true and accurate. If it is not then the contract is invalidated. Usually there i a protracted investigation. There are several expalantions as to why information was omitted, concealed or misleading. It does not mean any there was some sort of sinster plot. It could all be an honest mistake.

[Taj44]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I agree, and I too am not losing any sleep over the matter-- primarily because there is not a whole lot that I can think of to do at this point. The question that we residents would face, IF the IRS sustains its position, is How do we enforce the various remedies that you refer to?

Do you have any thoughts as to what we could do, at this point, to, as you put it, "plan to protect our interests"--other than to try to inform people? (As indicated by some of the responses to my posts, informing people ain't that easy to do.)

In thinking about the matter, I continue to conclude that the POA is probably out best bet. The POA is following the matter closely and, as I recall, has written the IRS asking that the IRS be sensitive to the impact of an adverse decision on the residents. The problem that we face as residents is that the POA is not a traditional property-owner's association in that membership is not mandatory, and it has no dues-assessing power.

In other words, the POA, as an organization, may not be very effective in representing the interests of residents in the legal tumult that could ensue if the IRS sustains its position. Remember that the POA had no standing to bring the class-action against the Developer and it had to be brought by individual members of the POA. (The VHA, of course, would be of no help.)

I agree - the POA is probably a good start. The VHA is generally useless.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Justice and the American way. (thank-you Superman)


Only kidding, but seriously, it is good that there are the people out there that are looking for possible downsides. I just think most people do not want to be reminded of them. But I remember one of my favorite TV shows from the 50's, Wagon Train. The Wagonmaster (Ward Bond) employed a scout to go ahead and report any activity which might be dangerous or advantageous for the wagons and it's inhabitants.
I hearbye nominate Advogado as our official scout.

Thanks, but I decline the nomination. As I recall Wagon Train, the scout usually ended up on the receiving end of a whole bunch of arrows, and that has been happening to me here.