[EdV]

Originally Posted by collie1228

///. I wish I could say the same for the IRS, but I can't. I hope this discussion keeps going, and look forward to Wednesday's column and (hopefully) EdVinMass' analysis and member comments on TOTV. I won't be buying in TV for another year, so I'm really paying attention to this.

Not to worry, we'll leave the light on for Ya.

[saratogaman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the IRS is challenging the tax-exempt status of bonds only in the two commercial CDDs and only those two would be liable if an adverse determination is made. I don't see how the other eight CDDs (the ones where our homes are) would be liable or affected.
What say you?

[missypie]

Julie....you're good, you go girl....

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by saratogaman

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the IRS is challenging the tax-exempt status of bonds only in the two commercial CDDs and only those two would be liable if an adverse determination is made. I don't see how the other eight CDDs (the ones where our homes are) would be liable or affected.
What say you?

It is my understanding the two commercial districts receive the amenity fees paid by the residents of the other districts to be used to provide the amenities. It is my concern those amenity fees will be used to pay attorney fees or IRS penalties IF the IRS wins and that will hurt the amenities in the villages. Someone please tell me if not from amenity fees, where will the money come from?
Thanks.
JJ

[Kelsie52]

Great job Julie ! --Thanks so much for posting your discussion with the "reporter"

We have just bought in Buttonwood and will be moving in 10/27 --been following this story for some time now and truthfully while it did concern us before buying it would not have swayed us from our decision .

Your added Bond Buyer article was probably the best explination I have read stating the FACTS of the arguement.

Keep up the great work ..

Rich/Liz

[`willy]

It is my understanding the two commercial districts receive the amenity fees paid by the residents of the other districts to be used to provide the amenities. It is my concern those amenity fees will be used to pay attorney fees or IRS penalties IF the IRS wins and that will hurt the amenities in the villages. Someone please tell me if not from amenity fees, where will the money come from?
Thanks.
JJ JJ I think the land owners in the special development districts should be responsible for any tax liability (developer) They benifited from the bonds.
They, THE LAND OWNERS could sell off assets to satisfy these tax liabilities,
but I don't think we have any worries with this case because the developer has to preserve his reputation in order to sell off the rest of his homes.

The problem,I see, for us (Villagers) is near the end of build out when the last of the amenities are sold to the special development districts. Will the price be so high that it will use up the amenity fees to pay off the purchase bonds (Taxable or not) and not enough left for proper upkeep of the amenities.

We really have no input in purchases of the amenity facilities and I think
thats what the IRS agent was after. JUST MY THOUGHTS

Willy

[Talk Host]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand any of this?

[villa2]

Originally Posted by Talk Host

Am I the only one who doesn't understand any of this?

Thank-you for your candor. There are at least two people in that boat. LOL

[bkcunningham1]

Could someone tell me what Richie's newest discovery is with the IRS issue? What new thing did she reveal in her opinion column?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Talk Host

Am I the only one who doesn't understand any of this?

No, include Ms Ritchie.

[BobKat1]

Originally Posted by Talk Host

Am I the only one who doesn't understand any of this?

You are not alone TH. This issue makes my (gray) head spin.

Seems like it's best to let the IRS and the other parties involved resolve it, and live with the results.

[The Shadow]

Using some higher mathematical calculation I have come to the conclusions that if the CDDs have $209,000 to spend on lawyers the residents were over charge for amenity fees.

OR

The CDDs knew from the get go their interpretation of the IRS rules would be questioned. Questioned after the developer got his inflated price his amenities and all that was at stake was the existence of the CDDs. The CDDs only needs to stall the IRS to the 2015 build out or as close to it as possible. At that point the IRS can seize the assets of the CDDs, the CDDs would no longer exist the assets would be auctioned off and the builder would start a new project in Arizona.

[zcaveman]

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Could someone tell me what Richie's newest discovery is with the IRS issue? What new thing did she reveal in her opinion column?

Sunday was only background. The new info comes out in tomorrow's issue.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

Using some higher mathematical calculation I have come to the conclusions that if the CDDs have $209,000 to spend on lawyers the residents were over charge for amenity fees.

OR

The CDDs knew from the get go their interpretation of the IRS rules would be questioned. Questioned after the developer got his inflated price his amenities and all that was at stake was the existence of the CDDs. The CDDs only needs to stall the IRS to the 2015 build out or as close to it as possible. At that point the IRS can seize the assets of the CDDs, the CDDs would no longer exist the assets would be auctioned off and the builder would start a new project in Arizona.

Did these monies really come out of amenity fees. Where is it written?

[`willy]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

Using some higher mathematical calculation I have come to the conclusions that if the CDDs have $209,000 to spend on lawyers the residents were over charge for amenity fees.

OR

The CDDs knew from the get go their interpretation of the IRS rules would be questioned. Questioned after the developer got his inflated price his amenities and all that was at stake was the existence of the CDDs. The CDDs only needs to stall the IRS to the 2015 build out or as close to it as possible. At that point the IRS can seize the assets of the CDDs, the CDDs would no longer exist the assets would be auctioned off and the builder would start a new project in Arizona.

Excellent Post, never thought of that

willy
ONLY THE SHADOW KNOWS