![]() |
Quote:
:ohdear::ohdear: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Let's get back on topic or the thread will be closed.
|
OK. Back on point.
Quote:
The facts and figures are not in dispute. That was settled through the TAM process. The issue is the application of law, regulation, and case history (precedent). The VCCDD may eventually win, but it is clearly at a disadvantage considering the IRS/Treasury assisted in writing the laws, wrote/implemented the regulations, and participated in the case history. Read the background and you can form your own opinion as I have. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It would be interesting to see if the IRS targeting scandal will come into play on this since Morse is a well known conservative. Worst case scenario is less than $5,000/house. Big dent in my Johnnie Walk Black budget! |
Quote:
I don’t think so. The IRS is not after me/you or the developer. The IRS is after the CDD. It is my understanding the amity fees are caped at $155/mo. The CDD may have to take money from the flower fund or sell a golf course. The way I see it, it is not my problem. If the IRS seizes the golf course and sells it and a trailer park is built on the golf course my property value would be my problem. However I would not loose my house because I could not pay the $5,000. Can I have an amen. |
FYI, the CDD's don't own the golf courses or any other amenities. My view is the IRS would penalize those who benefited from the sale and ownership of tax free bonds. That's not me.
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.