[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by jflynn1

Were you informed of this issue when you were purchasing your home and gambled the big hunk of change for your home?

That is called disclosure and failure to disclose this type of situation is frowned upon by The Florida Real Estate Association. The Sales people did not disclose and continue to not disclose this issue to buyers. Not a fair way to do business. Like purchasing a home and finding out that there might be a lawsuit pending regarding faulty construction and although known to the seller, the developer, and sales people, this issue was never disclosed to the buyer.

I knew about it last year when we sold one house and built a bigger one.
We owned another home here before this one for four years.

[villagerjack]

THAT sums it up for me..

[villagerjack]

Originally Posted by Pturner

Ed, I keep thinking that one of these days, you are going to post something I disagree with. But you never do. Sometimes I even think you read my mind.

EWEISSENBACHS post sums it up for me.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by janmcn

According to EdV's post the IRS rarely goes after bondholders for back taxes as it would too laborious a task.

According to Rictchie's article "...the Village Center district won't owe the IRS a nickel -- the tax burden falls wholly on the holders and the buyers of the bonds".

My question is -- the bondholders don't pay, the VC district doesn't pay, the developer doesn't pay...so does the $355 million dollars in loans just magically disappear? What am I missing here?

Good questions. There are those who would like us to believe that there will be no impact to Villages residents should the IRS prevail. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

[KeepingItReal]

.....

[Challenger]

I would like to hear the discussion that makes the point that residents would be left holding the "bag" if the bonds are deemed taxable. I believe the bonds were sold by investment bankers after getting opinions from one or more law firms regarding their nontaxable status. The bond buyers would have recourse against the selling investment banking entity or entities and possibly the opining law firms if the are judged taxable by the IRS . I am not sure where the homeowner liability arises. Can someone who knows (rather than -thinks he/she knows ) respond?

[Bogie Shooter]

[QUOTE=Challenger;592095]I would like to hear the discussion that makes the point that residents would be left holding the "bag" if the bonds are deemed taxable. I believe the bonds were sold by investment bankers after getting opinions from one or more law firms regarding their nontaxable status. The bond buyers would have recourse against the selling investment banking entity or entities and possibly the opining law firms if the are judged taxable by the IRS . I am not sure where the homeowner liability arises. Can someone who knows (rather than -thinks he/she knows ) respond?[/QUOTE]

[rubicon]

The problem I am having with this entire issue is there is not a legal expert with no conflicting interests verifying for residents that they will not have any legal obligation or contractual obligation should the IRS render an adverse verdict. Someone mentioned that the amenity contract made it clear that it was a fee for a specific service, etc. However contracts were made to be broken.

Secondly if th IRS renders an adverse verdict how does that affect the future financing of the transfer of The Villages to the two commercial districts?

Another problem here is that according to Lauren Ritchie the IRS alleges that the Developer was paid twice. What exactly does that mean and what financial affect, if any, did it have on residents?

My post is not the "sky is falling" but rather informational o resident can make some informed decisions. What we have now is "he says""she says"and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Finally frankly I am sick of this issue hanging over us. I still wish the POA would assert itself for the sake of residents

[66vetter]

Aha, finally a fault with Graie! After all these years of reading her posts to gett balance and reason, I find she is a "speeder" two tickets in a lifetime. Luckily, she is not running or public office, the would would know.

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by rubicon

The problem I am having with this entire issue is there is not a legal expert with no conflicting interests verifying for residents that they will not have any legal obligation or contractual obligation should the IRS render an adverse verdict. Someone mentioned that the amenity contract made it clear that it was a fee for a specific service, etc. However contracts were made to be broken.

Secondly if th IRS renders an adverse verdict how does that affect the future financing of the transfer of The Villages to the two commercial districts?

Another problem here is that according to Lauren Ritchie the IRS alleges that the Developer was paid twice. What exactly does that mean and what financial affect, if any, did it have on residents?

My post is not the "sky is falling" but rather informational o resident can make some informed decisions. What we have now is "he says""she says"and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Finally frankly I am sick of this issue hanging over us. I still wish the POA would assert itself for the sake of residents

Agreed. There is too much speculation and loose talk without real knowledge or expertise in the issues. Ms Ritchie makes assertations which she does not support with citations or facts . It appears to me that her writings are unnecessarily biased against the developer. I have yet to understand the double payment issue to which she alludes. Is there an issue of interest to the owners - yes. The main concern is how will the issue impact my assets and lifestyle. Answers to these questions, after proper research would be a real service to readers . Amen!

[EdV]

Originally Posted by rubicon

.....Someone mentioned that the amenity contract made it clear that it was a fee for a specific service, etc. However contracts were made to be broken.

All 40,000 of them? Come on.

Originally Posted by rubicon

..... Secondly if the IRS renders an adverse verdict how does that affect the future financing of the transfer of The Villages to the two commercial districts?

What transfer. Those two special districts belong to the developer and his family's real estate holdings, now and for the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by rubicon

.....Another problem here is that according to Lauren Ritchie the IRS alleges that the Developer was paid twice. What exactly does that mean and what financial affect, if any, did it have on residents

It means she continues to be confused about the bond on each residence and the ones issued to build the amenities that are part of two special districts. I’m telling you, the woman is clueless and quite frankly dangerous to the peace of mind of TV residents.

Originally Posted by rubicon

.....Finally frankly I am sick of this issue hanging over us. I still wish the POA would assert itself for the sake of residents

Well if you’re that bothered by this hanging over your head, why not make an appointment with your attorney and go over it with him/her as your legal expert. Better still, why not organize an interest group of twenty or so residents to kick in 100 bucks each and get a written opinion. Problem with that is that most people tend to have short arms and deep pockets and would rather whine about the problem and wait for someone else to take the lead.

Just saying.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by Pturner

Ed, I keep thinking that one of these days, you are going to post something I disagree with. But you never do. Sometimes I even think you read my mind.

I agree, Ed seems to think about what he is going to type in a post before he does it.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by rubicon

The problem I am having with this entire issue is there is not a legal expert with no conflicting interests verifying for residents that they will not have any legal obligation or contractual obligation should the IRS render an adverse verdict. Someone mentioned that the amenity contract made it clear that it was a fee for a specific service, etc. However contracts were made to be broken.

Secondly if th IRS renders an adverse verdict how does that affect the future financing of the transfer of The Villages to the two commercial districts?

Another problem here is that according to Lauren Ritchie the IRS alleges that the Developer was paid twice. What exactly does that mean and what financial affect, if any, did it have on residents?
My post is not the "sky is falling" but rather informational o resident can make some informed decisions. What we have now is "he says""she says"and that makes me very uncomfortable.

Finally frankly I am sick of this issue hanging over us. I still wish the POA would assert itself for the sake of residents

Why don't you ask her? Lritchie@tribune.com

[EdV]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I agree, Ed seems to think about what he is going to type in a post before he does it.

Actually she was referring to another Ed AKA "Old Coach". But I too try to put as much thought into my posts and I usually try to include a link to a reputable cross reference instead of letting thoughts drop from my brain to my mouth like candy from a gumball machine.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by edv

actually she was referring to another ed aka "old coach". But i too try to put as much thought into my posts and i usually try to include a link to a reputable cross reference instead of letting thoughts drop from my brain to my mouth like candy from a gumball machine.