[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

“The agency wanted $16 million in back taxes and a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government.”

More accurately,
The agency wanted $16 million in back taxes and a promise by community development districts never again issue tax free bonds.

Or
The agency wanted $16 million in back taxes and a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a government qualified to issue tax free bonds.

“masquerade as a legitimate government” That phrase was not used.

Do you live here Shadow?

[graciegirl]

I hope you all will read EdvinMass post on Lauren Ritchies latest article. He just posted it.

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

We really cannot make that assumption.

If amenities fees were used to pay those attorney fees, it will be the residents that lost the beneficial use of that money.
Where did the money come from to pay attorneys $209,000 so far if it was not from the amenities fees?.. and they have not even started court proceedings.

This is why I say this needs to be resolved. Having it pending unnecessarily hurts the villagers and has the potential to hurt The Villages growth. The longer it goes, the more expensive it gets, win or lose. Who benefits by it not being resolved?

And I thought the IRS offered to settle for a lot less, something like 3 million with a promise to not issue any more tax free bonds... am I right?
If so, who rejected that offer? Did the villagers get to vote on that decision?
This settlement voting issue is also very complicated and goes to the structure of TV, which is at the heart of the IRS claims.

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by jannd228

not to ask but has anyone asked a tax attorney or former IRS retiree who may live in TV questions, it might be helpful at some point

I am looking at TV and elsewhere now because of the posts I read here

I do not think you will find anything better than TV, but I do think your idea of asking the retired experts in TV is excellent.
Anyone an expert or know one who can give help on this? Please.

[Carol K]

We have been following this IRS information since we plan on moving to TV. I agree that asking someone with knowledge (like a tax attorney) would be helpful rather than a lot of guessing. There must be someone that lives in TV that is an attorney. This matter would not prevent us from moving to TV, but sure would be nice to know the true facts.

[jmitchell]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

jmitchell:
I enjoyed your most recent post. I can see your point about the language used in the article. Maybe a better way to have said it would be they want 14 million dollars in back taxes and a promise not to issue tax free bonds.

I am not sure if CDDs are technically "governments". Do residents get to vote on the directors of the two commerical districts that issued the bonds? I don't think so but I could be wrong.

I doubt the State of Florida can authorize the use of FEDERAL tax free bonds unless someone had a private opinion letter from the IRS, which I do not understand why one was not obtained before these bonds were issued. I would think they had a bond attorney look at this before they were issued.

But my point is still this: whether the article used inflamatory language or not, owners and potential owners in TV have a need and a right to accurate information about this issue so they can make rational decisions about investing in TV. Going after the messengers on any issue only detracts from enlightenment. I understand there are times when it is necessary to point out the use of language that may be inaccurate or misleading. I never like it when discussions are reduced to who is stupid or not. I do give the Orlando Sentinel credit for shedding some light on this topic. I just want it resolved asap, and I would like to know why it is taking so long. Any ideas?

I do appreciate your imput on this topic. I would like to know if it is not too personal if any realtor informed you before you bought about the IRS issue, or did you have to ask about it? Thanks. JJ

JimJoe,

Regarding my agent telling us -- no, he did not, but I found TOTV early on and read about it. TOTV is the greatest.

My life experience has been "it is always something". Life is never without challenges. You can say, well I'm not going to move to TV because of the IRS issue, but other communities have other issues. I'm taking my chances. TV has too many positives, the first, and IMO, the greatest, is the PEOPLE, and then the FUN!

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Do you live here Shadow?

I do not live in TV but I want to. I have been there many times and everyone I know who lives there loves it. Does it matter that I do not live there? I do not think so.

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

“masquerade as a legitimate government” That phrase was not used.

Actually it's right here in your (I mean Ms Ritchie's) article: From the Orlando Sentinel:

The agency wanted $16 million in back taxes and a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government.

[jannd228]

Originally Posted by Carol K

We have been following this IRS information since we plan on moving to TV. I agree that asking someone with knowledge (like a tax attorney) would be helpful rather than a lot of guessing. There must be someone that lives in TV that is an attorney. This matter would not prevent us from moving to TV, but sure would be nice to know the true facts.

it never hurts to ASK, retired or maybe someone has a son or daughter currently in the field (or grandson/granddaughter, relative, friend, etc)

I taught technology, some of the posts on this thread and others we would call "trolled" or put their by someone to cause a positive or negative response, I don't live in TV but the bond question needs light shed on it rather than conjecture just an opinion

[jmitchell]

Originally Posted by Midge538

R we residents 'the last to know' what 'facts' are available to us.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...5465947.column

http://www.orlandosentinal.com/news/...5465947.column

Hope this article helps explain the details that the IRS is questioning with regard to the tax exempt status.

http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/118_104/-304059-1.html

[missypie]

Thank you for being so articulate with your response. I will be waiting to hear what the Reporter responds to your letter. I'm sure she is enjoying all of the attention.

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by jmitchell

JimJoe,

It is my understanding from reading the IRS complaint against TV that CDDs can issue tax exempt bonds but that they must "qualify". There are a number of factors -- use of the money, etc. What the IRS is now saying is that TV was not "qualified" for some of the bonds. It get very weird IMO because the goverment says and I am paraphasing "o.k. if you pay us XX we will go away, but if you don't we are going after you big time and will look at everything". It seem quite an odd stance for a government agency to take. My husband and I both worked for the Department of Homeland Security and my x-husband was and FBI Agent. TV either broke the law or they didn't. It seems almost like a plea bargain in a criminal case to be bargaining like this and from our experience in the federal government -- that means that the government does not have all their ducks in a row. Again, just my opinion!

Regarding my agent telling us -- no, he did not, but I found TOTV early on and read about it. TOTV is the greatest.

My life experience has be "it is always something". Life is never without challenges. You can say, well I'm not going to move to TV because of the IRS issue, but other communities have other issues. I'm taking my chances. TV has too many positives, the first, and from what I have from the greatest is the PEOPLE, and then the FUN!

I was an attorney for 31 years before I retired. Both criminal and civil cases settle all the time. I do not think there is anything unusual about it, and I do not think it means anything about the strength of either side's case. Sometimes it is a matter of cost of litigation, and sometimes it is a matter of not wanting to look like you are beating up on old people, and sometimes if what you really want is for the other party to change it's behavior, you reduce your claim and require the other party to do what you really want ... like in this instance, issuing tax free bonds. Just a guess and I could be wrong.

Can you please tell me why they did not get an IRS private opinion letter before issuing these bonds?

[Pturner]

One thing to keep in mind is that Lauren Ritchie is an opinion columnist, not a news reporter. Like any and all commentors, she expresses her opinions, some of which she supports with facts.

A fact is empiracal and verifiable. An opinion is just someone's belief, often emotional, often based on selective information, often based one the person's interpretation of facts.

Thus, when Ms. Ritchie states that, "The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on (attorneys)", she is making a statement of fact as to the amount and source of spending. Although she did not provide the source of this information, the statement itself is verifyable and I personally am inclined to believe it is accurate unless I find out otherwise. (When she states that the money was spent on "high-powered lawyers," she's providing a subjective if probably accurate assessment.)

When she states that the IRS wants, "...a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government," she is stating her interpretation of the facts.

As a commentator, she is entitled to her opinions, assessments and interpretations, just as we are entitled to ours. We should, however, recognize that as a columnist, she is not reporting news per se, but merely giving her commentary.

I agree with JimJoe that Villagers and would-be Villagers should be educated about issues affecting our community. I think a well-rounded education includes understanding the facts, as well as understanding how knowledgeable people on all sides of the issue interpret those facts.

Too often we want to hear the voices of only those with whom we agree. While I do not agree with all of Ms. Ritchie's assessments and conclusions, I feel no need whatsoever to silence her.

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by Pturner

One thing to keep in mind is that Lauren Ritchie is an opinion columnist, not a news reporter. Like any and all commentors, she expresses her opinions, some of which she supports with facts.

A fact is empiracal and verifiable. An opinion is just someone's belief, often emotional, often based on selective information, often based one the person's interpretation of facts.

Thus, when Ms. Ritchie states that, "The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on (attorneys)", she is making a statement of fact as to the amount and source of spending. Although she did not provide the source of this information, the statement itself is verifyable and I personally am inclined to believe it is accurate unless I find out otherwise. (When she states that the money was spent on "high-powered lawyers," she's providing a subjective if probably accurate assessment.

When she states that the IRS wants, "...a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government," she is stating her interpretation of the facts.

As a commentator, she is entitled to her opinions, assessments and interpretations, just as we are entitled to ours. We should, however, recognize that as a columnist, she is not reporting news per se, but merely giving her commentary.

I agree with JimJoe that Villagers and would-be Villagers should be educated about issues affecting our community. I think a well-rounded education includes understanding the facts, as well as understanding how knowledgeable people on all sides of the issue interpret those facts.

Too often we want to hear the voices of only those with whom we agree. While I do not agree with all of Ms. Ritchie's assessments and conclusions, I feel no need whatsoever to silence her.

Very well said with two great points.
1. Ritchie is a columnist.
2. Hear all the facts on all sides of an issue.

[jmitchell]

Originally Posted by Pturner

One thing to keep in mind is that Lauren Ritchie is an opinion columnist, not a news reporter. Like any and all commentors, she expresses her opinions, some of which she supports with facts.

A fact is empiracal and verifiable. An opinion is just someone's belief, often emotional, often based on selective information, often based one the person's interpretation of facts.

Thus, when Ms. Ritchie states that, "The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on (attorneys)", she is making a statement of fact as to the amount and source of spending. Although she did not provide the source of this information, the statement itself is verifyable and I personally am inclined to believe it is accurate unless I find out otherwise. (When she states that the money was spent on "high-powered lawyers," she's providing a subjective if probably accurate assessment.

When she states that the IRS wants, "...a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government," she is stating her interpretation of the facts.

As a commentator, she is entitled to her opinions, assessments and interpretations, just as we are entitled to ours. We should, however, recognize that as a columnist, she is not reporting news per se, but merely giving her commentary.

I agree with JimJoe that Villagers and would-be Villagers should be educated about issues affecting our community. I think a well-rounded education includes understanding the facts, as well as understanding how knowledgeable people on all sides of the issue interpret those facts.

Too often we want to hear the voices of only those with whom we agree. While I do not agree with all of Ms. Ritchie's assessments and conclusions, I feel no need whatsoever to silence her.

Pturner,

Ohhh... I didn't catch that little "Commentary" above her articles! I agree with you that these types of columnists are entitled to their opinions. Online it is hard to tell that you are reading such an article, especically when someone posts them on TOTV. When reading a newspaper it is clear when you are reading the Op Eds - a little harder in this context, but THANK YOU for pointing it out. I hope everyone reads your post and does not take Ms. Ritchies "opinions" for "fact". As I am sure you have read, her opinions (articles) have and are affecting peoples decision to move to TV and I think that is a shame.