Many families and individuals are one step closer to seeing tax relief, thanks to the passage of the Mortgage Cancellation Tax Relief Act by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, according to the National Association of Realtors®. Since the early 1990s, NAR has advocated repealing the current law that forces individuals to pay an income tax when they have had a loan forgiven in either a foreclosure, a sale in a market where prices are declining or because the lender grants new mortgage terms.

“In sending this bill to the president, Congress made a good decision today that will affect many Americans who find themselves in a truly bad situation,” said NAR President Richard Gaylord, a broker with RE/MAX Real Estate Specialists in Long Beach, Calif. “As the leading advocate for housing issues, NAR believes that changing the IRS code is an issue of fundamental fairness. It will relieve a tax burden at a time when an individual or family has experienced a true economic loss arising from the sale or loss of their home. These people are already in financial distress and are most likely unable to pay additional taxes.”

NAR is committed to continuing efforts to make the horror of losing a home less burdensome for families. “This is not only about the subprime turmoil we are currently experiencing. This is about families where job loss, divorce, health issues, a drop in the value of the home or other unfortunate circumstances have caused them to lose their home or have to sell that home for less than the amount owed. Clearly, it is unfair to tax people on a phantom income when they most likely have no cash with which to pay the tax,” said Gaylord.

The current tax code requires a lender who forgives debt to provide a Form 1099 to the IRS stating the amount the borrower has been forgiven. This disclosure applies whether it is a short sale, foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure or any similar arrangement that relieves the borrower of the obligation to pay some portion of their debt. If the property is sold at foreclosure or is sold for less then was borrowed, that difference is considered income and is subject to the tax.

The Mortgage Cancellation Tax Relief Act would ensure that any debt forgiven on any mortgage debt secured by a principal residence will not be taxed. The legislation includes a provision to safeguard against abuses. The provision, similar to one that already exists for commercial real estate owners, would treat commercial and residential property equally.

http://nationalrealtynews.com/content/templates/standard.aspx?articleid=698&zoneid=2

Rent Manitoba Vacation Properties

Lake Manitoba Hunting Plots

Realty Tax Consultant

www.realtytaxconsultant.com

For some it may be hard to imagine, but there are first hand benefits for paying taxes. What are they you ask? The government uses our tax dollars to fund various home ownership incentive programs, at all levels of governments. Federal, state, county and

localities all offer home opportunity programs (H.O.P) through a multitude of means. These are actually our tax dollars at work! Many counties and cities offer down payment assistance programs, these programs increase ones buying power. While the federal and state governments provide affordable and stable financing through low interest rate loans. The majority, but not all, of the programs are intended for first time homebuyers (FTHB) and/or low to moderate-income buyers without a down payment. Buyers are encouraged to use these programs in conjunction with one another. They also provide funds to cover closing costs and to help rehabilitate the property if the property is somewhat distressed.

The federal government has an entire department dedicated to housing development – HUD (Housing and Urban development). Most are familiar with their FHA loans program, which for many years was the primary method used by Americans to purchase their home. These are still used by many people, but they have limitations that make it impossible for many residents of communities where the average price of homes are priced above the price limits set by HUD. The government has another department to help as well, FANNIE MAE. Fannie Mae offers a multitude of programs for home ownership; one of the most used programs is the MY COMMUNITY MORTGAGE (MCM).

MCM loans tend to be more flexible than FHA loans. MCM loans have higher loan limits, higher debt-to-income ratio allowances, zero down payment and less property restrictions. There are income limits; however, they can be waived under certain circumstances. MCM loans can also be combined with down payment assistance programs provided by counties or cities. Other programs offered with low or no down payments, by the Federal government are the “Flex “programs.

The State of California also offers first and second mortgages for homebuyers. Through the CALHFA program, California can offer its citizens low interest rate loans with no money down. They also have “jr.” liens available for down payments, closing costs, and/or rehabilitation of the property. For various professions they have even lower interest rates available. In addition to the low interest rate, they also have higher loan limits (much more suitable for the higher priced communities of California), higher debt-to-income ratio allowances, and liberal income limits. These loans can also be used in conjunction with down payment assistance programs. These loans are available throughout the state of California. Other states have similar programs, for information on any specific state, go to that states’ website.

Throughout the state, many local communities have grants and low interest and deferred payment loans available, for people to use towards down payments. What this does is increase the buying power of the consumer. For instance, the city of Los Angeles has an excellent down payment assistance program, in which they will provide up to $90,000 to be used as a down payment. Therefore, if you qualify for and can obtain a loan for $300,000 you could purchase a home for $390,000. You would not be required to make payments on the $90,000, just on the $300,000; if you utilize the CALHFA or the MCM loan you would qualify for more than the $300,000, because of the lower interest rates. This example demonstrates the L.A. program, but many other cities and counties have funds available and they all work pretty much the same. Within the California, contact myself Melvin Burrell at melvinb@caploanrealty.com or go to www.capitalloanspecialists.com and contact any of the loan specialists for assistance. Outside California go to your city’s city hall or the website and search housing”.

These programs are all designed to provide people the opportunity of achieving the ultimate dream of home ownership. They do this by providing affordable mortgages and down payment assistance with deferred payments allowing people to work within their means and still have the pride of ownership. Therefore, it behooves all who aspire to turn the dream into realty to seek out a qualified professional to guide them through the path to their home. Many people believe that they are just not qualified, but the reality is that many people are qualified. Do not procrastinate, these are programs that are funded and as with all programs that are funded, once the funds run out, we must wait for more funding. If more information is needed please go to www.capitalloanspecialists.com

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/44923

Rent Manitoba Vacation Properties

Lake Manitoba Hunting Plots

Realty Tax Consultant

www.realtytaxconsultant.com

Baby-boomers need to consider  why they should own real estate as they enter into retirement. Here are a few that I can think of:

1. Buying real estate now, at rock bottom prices, you will have the opportunity to see your money grow as your equity grows. The huge amount of people facing foreclosure will keep them out of the house-buying market for about 7 years. That will be 7 years of a booming rental market where you should have few problems finding qualified tenants to make your mortgage payments for you.

2. You can always sell it if you need cash. When you buy real estate low enough, you have the comfort of knowing that you can always sell it quickly if you need to.

3. Tax deductions! There are a lot of ways to deduct taxes from investment properties. Did you know that you can write off DEPRECIATION from a rental property that produces an income?

4. Snag that smaller place just incase. You may be living in that big house and the kids are leaving for college. You want to downsize but now just isn’t the time for you to move out. Take advantage of todays low prices and lock in that dream cottage! Go ahead and buy it, enjoy the tax breaks and the positive cash flow from a renter while you wait. When the time is right and you’re ready to move, you already have plenty of equity in the house. You can either enjoy that in the form of a home equity loan, keep it where it is or even use it to refinance so that your monthly payments are much, much lower.

http://mbradford.blogspot.com/2007/12/retirement-with-real-estate.html

Rent Manitoba Vacation Properties

Lake Manitoba Hunting Plots

Realty Tax Consultant

www.realtytaxconsultant.com

The Jupiter-Tequesta-Hobe Sound Association of Realtors is hosting a forum on the property tax amendment that will be on the Jan. 29th ballot on Wednesday, Jan. 9 from 11:15 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The event will take place at the Maltz Jupiter Theatre, and is open to the public at no charge. Seating is limited to the first 350 attendees.

During the event, John Sebree, vice president of the Florida Association of Realtors will present the features of the property tax reform, “Amendment One”. Those attending will be able to write questions to the Sebree, which Sebree will answer at the end of the presentation. Handouts will be available with the exact language of the amendment.

Hotel Property Realty Tax Appeals

Hotel Discount Bargain Online Resource

www.realtytaxconsultant.com

The statute of limitations did not bar the government’s suit to reduce assessments to judgment. The ten-year statute of limitations on collection was extended for the period the taxpayer was in bankruptcy and for six months thereafter. Consequently, the ten-year period did not expire until ten days after the government filed its suit to reduce the assessments to judgment.

IRS collection actions against an individual were timely because the statute of limitations had not run on its ability to pursue the collection of unpaid taxes. The interaction of the amendments relating to offers in compromise made to Code Sec. 6502 by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-206), the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-554) and the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-147) did not cause the collection action to be untimely. Also, the doctrine of laches did not bar the enforcement of government tax claims.

A married couple did not have a meritorious defense against the government’s claim relating to their tax liability. The husband’s tax liability was not negated by the government’s late filing of its suit to collect taxes because the government filed its complaint within the 10-year limitations period set forth in Code Sec. 6502(a).

Hotel Property Realty Tax Appeals

Hotel Discount Bargain Online Resource

www.realtytaxconsultant.com

The 10-year statute of limitations applied to a partnership, even though the six-year statute of limitations would have expired prior to the effective date of the 10-year statute, because the general partners of the partnership signed consents to extend the limitations period. The consents extended the last day for collection to a date beyond the effective date of the 10-year limitations period. In addition, levies against the partners’ bank accounts were properly commenced within the limitations period because the partners’ received sufficient notice of the levies through bank statements and IRS notices.

Property Realty Tax Appeals

Pembina Highway

www.realtytaxconsultant.com

The mailing of a deficiency notice to a taxpayer’s former address did not begin tolling the statute of limitations for collecting the tax deficiency. The notice was abated by the IRS, based upon a reasonable belief that it was invalid, two years before the IRS mailed a second deficiency notice to the taxpayer at her correct address. The Tax Court proceeding against the taxpayer arose out of the second notice, which was mailed within the limitations period.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=87850&src=1

(THE ARTICLE: Cook County commissioners Friday overwhelmingly shot down a proposal calling for 7 percent across-the-board cuts in county offices — a result that jibed with the pleas of county workers but put the board no closer to plugging a looming budget hole. The proposal, backed by four Republican commissioners, was lambasted by other county board members as crude, inefficient and ill-conceived. Supporters, though, argued it was at least a solid step toward erasing what for now remains a roughly $238 million budget shortfall. The 7 percent cuts would have saved about $95 million. “We are going to have to cut costs to balance this budget. Period,” commissioner and proposal sponsor Gregg Goslin said. “This is an honest, sincere attempt to begin that process.” Commissioner Mike Quigley acknowledged cuts likely loom in the future, but urged cooperation among government offices first to determine what can be sliced — and where. He denounced the 7 percent across-the-board approach as a waste of time and, because of the sheer volume of the printed-out proposal, a “waste of rainforest.” Until people work together, Quigley told the board, “all we’re going to do is run reams of paper through our machines, pass them out and throw them in the recycling bin.” In the meantime, the board appears stalemated. Though commissioners have repeatedly stressed they have only two options — beefing up revenue or cutting costs — little progress actually has been made toward putting the plan back in the black. Earlier this week, in a lengthy session that stooped to name-calling, shouting and taunting, commissioners haggled for hours before cutting a mere $1 million from the $3 billion budget. Friday’s tamer meeting yielded only $100,000 in total budget savings. “How many days can we spend cutting $1 million a day?” Commissioner Peter Silvestri asked. “By that mathematical formula, in 235 days, we’ll have a budget.” Silvestri joined Goslin and commissioners Timothy Schneider and Liz Gorman in supporting the 7 percent cuts. Eleven others voted against it, on the heels of presentations from Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown and County Treasurer Maria Pappas, who said such cuts would serve only to devastate services in their already depleted offices. “That is not a way to balance the budget,” Brown told commissioners. “Enough is enough.” Cook County President Todd Stroger has proposed a 2 percentage point sales tax hike to help trim the budget shortfall; that plan also has drawn its share of opposition. The board also plans a hearing on another package of utility taxes — proposed by Commissioner William Beavers — for next Thursday or the following Monday. Beavers on Friday urged support for tax increases, saying something must be done to make inroads in the budget process. In the same breath, he alleged much of the board’s bickering has been more about politics than actually balancing the spending plan. Stroger, who talked with the media Friday for the first time since this week’s raucous meeting, also blamed the earlier blow-ups — which included accusations of racism — on politics. He remains optimistic the board can work out the budget kinks before January, though, “I think we also realize we’re going to be meeting an awful lot,” he said.)

– 56th House District: Kegarise ballot challenge heads for judge’s hands - Ashok Selvam

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=87832

(THE ARTICLE: The GOP could know by Monday if only one candidate’s name will appear on the February primary ballot for the heated 56th District state House race. Charlotte Kegarise’s nominating petitions have been under scrutiny since Charles Linkenheld of Schaumburg, a supporter of her rival, filed an objection on Nov. 13 to knock Kegarise off the ballot. Anita Forte-Scott is the other Republican challenger for the Feb. 5 primary for the seat currently held by Democrat Paul Froehlich. The primary will be the first electoral challenge for him since he left the Republican Party back in June after leading the Schaumburg Township GOP for nearly a decade. Retired Judge John E. Morrissey will hear arguments Monday morning in Chicago on the challenge to Kegarise’s petitions. The judge will then submit a recommendation to the state elections board, which is to certify the decision Thursday. But Kegarise’s camp is charging she’s hasn’t received a fair shot to be on the ballot. Her attorney, Don Laxton, said the state board failed to notify them properly of hearings on the matter. No one from her side was present Thursday in Springfield for the state board’s record check, which infuriated Laxton. He said he’s going to move Monday to restart the challenge process. “Both parties are supposed to be there, and one is and one isn’t,” he said. “That doesn’t cut it. She’s not getting her due process.” Laxton said he’s represented candidates on both sides of ballot challenges for 30 years and has “never seen anything like this.” Linkenheld is a former GOP precinct captain, and has the backing of state party organization lawyers. He couldn’t be reached for comment Friday but his attorney, John W. Countryman, said he was in Springfield Thursday on another case when Kegarise’s happened to be called. He also said he wasn’t properly notified. Countryman asserts that 113 of Kegarise’s nominating signatures are faulty. That would reduce the number of valid signatures on her petition to 445 — below what’s needed to get on the ballot. According to the state elections board, Linkenheld is challenging 172 signatures on Kegarise’s petition. She needed 500 to get on the ballot and turned in 558. Countryman said he made a motion for default, based on the fact that no one from Kegarise’s side was present Thursday. That would have kicked Kegarise off the ballot, though Countryman said that motion was denied. That doesn’t sit too well with Kegarise, who said the state GOP is working against her. “I don’t think because you aren’t affiliated with a certain group of people you should be denied that right,” said Kegarise, who is president of the Schaumburg Township Elementary District 54 school board. Forte-Scott is president of the Schaumburg Township District Library board, on which Froehlich’s wife, Marilyn, also has a seat. Forte-Scott denied having anything to do with Linkenheld’s objection. “I just think he’s someone who believes in me,” she said. “He’s told me he feels uncomfortable with what they’re doing.” In the Democratic primary, Froehlich is being challenged by Schaumburg attorney John Moynihan. The 56th includes most of Schaumburg and parts of Bloomingdale, Elk Grove Village, Hanover Park. Hoffman Estates, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Roselle.

Property Realty Tax Appeals

Pembina Highway

www.realtytaxconsultant.com

An IRD official who features in a movie about a Christchurch property developer’s four-year GST battle gave “misleading” information to the Taxation Review Authority in another case.

Gibb Lee is still on the Inland Revenue Department’s payroll, and is still working on the case of the Nelson man the authority’s decision relates to.

Like that of Dave Henderson - the businessman bankrupted by IRD after it rejected his claim for a $65,000 refund, and whose 206-week fight with the department is the subject of both a book, Be Very Afraid, and a movie, We’re Here to Help - this is a story of convolution, intrigue and litigation.

Gaire Thompson, president of the Nelson Residents’ Association, and his wife Nanette own several companies and a number of commercial properties.

In a nutshell, IRD thinks Thompson should be GST registered. He doesn’t. The dispute has been ongoing for almost a decade now.

Thompson registered for GST in 1986. In 1997 he sold some residential land plus a tenanted house, and a year later was looking to transfer the rest of the properties he owned to one of his companies.

Advice at the time in an official IRD guide, and confirmed by both an accountant and tax consultant, indicated he could deregister for tax purposes if his annual income from the properties was less than $30,000. Thompson deregistered. He subsequently claimed a $90,000 GST refund.

Six months later he was asked to meet IRD inspector Gibb Lee from the department’s Christchurch office.

He was told the information in the guide had been misinterpreted, he wasn’t due a refund and in fact owed more than $20,000 plus penalties. Lee asked him to hand over his files.

Thompson says he did so because he naively thought he had to.

“Now I know I didn’t have to and should have given him copies of specific papers… I still don’t know whether I got everything back or not.”

The dispute between Thompson and the department heated up.

“I was continually receiving letters saying I was re-registered and owed GST, then others to say I was deregistered,” he says.

There was an argument over the date Lee sent out one critical document - a notice of response (NOR) - which went to the wrong address.

Eventually the case went to adjudication and, in 2004, the Taxation Review Authority.

The authority ruled in Thompson’s favour. It also found Lee had given evidence he knew to be wrong regarding the date the NOR was sent out: “In cross-examination, the witness agreed that this evidence was wrong. Unhappily the inspector knew this when he gave the evidence on oath concerning this matter. Contrary to what he deposed, he further knew that the window [on a computer] he had relied on did not show when the document was printed,” the authority said.

IRD appealed and the dispute went to the High Court.

The court found against Thompson but backed up the authority’s views on Lee, describing his actions as “misleading”. It pointed out “that though the authority did not say so in so many words that Mr Lee was untruthful” his carelessness had been found to be “understandably inexcusable”.

After the authority’s ruling, Thompson says he asked to see the files IRD had about his case. Astonishingly, in what he describes as a serious security breach, he was given papers that showed the names of two Nelson business people who were also in dispute with the department over the same GST issues that he had.

Another time, he says, Lee advised him one of his other companies hadn’t paid enough GST. After going through bank statements and other documents, he discovered the tax inspector had added rent from another company to his figures.

“It turned out we had actually paid a bit too much GST. This is the guy who tried to mislead the court with his evidence… And here he is, still working for IRD and … on my case.

“It is totally unacceptable. As far as I am concerned I am not registered, and I still haven’t seen any real proof that I am, which is what they keep telling me. I don’t know when I get a notice from them whether it’s fact or fiction.”

Property developer Dave Henderson described the culture at IRD as “wholly adversorial”.

Lee was a major player in Henderson’s dispute with the department. “In my opinion he had a closed mind, and in my case he was focused absolutely on finding and proving me wrong.” In his book Henderson says: “In a telephone conversation with Mr Lee on the July 1, 1997, he acknowledged that he had acted in an adversorial way, and further acknowledged that he saw no problem in such an approach.”

In the movie, the character Lesley Costello, played by John Leigh, was loosely based on Lee, Henderson said.

He said Lee regularly promised to deliver explanations, then failed to do so “to the point of denying that he had ever undertaken to give an explanation”.

Henderson began taping his conversations with Lee and several other IRD staff.

“I was going crazy with the duplicity. Those tapes caught them out.”

In the book, Henderson describes a situation over a mistaken doubling up in GST claims that his company had made. It had been dealt with by the IRD in Wellington in the early 1990s, but Lee and colleagues still pursued him over it. “During the entire four years of this audit [no] IRD officers involved had ever bothered to check with the IRD auditor in Welling-

ton… ,” Henderson writes.

It was “just woeful” that Lee continued to work in the organisation, he said.

Henderson was finally given his $65,000 refund in 1999. He is now being audited again.

Thompson said seven years of battling the department had taken its toll, and he and his wife felt hounded. “My philosophy is that you have to sleep at night, you have to put it out of your mind and not let them get to you. If you do, you wouldn’t be able to carry on. The pressure is terrible.”

Thompson’s solicitor, Grant Pearson, a specialist tax lawyer at Duncan Cotterill, was at a loss to understand how an official who had been pulled up by two judges could still be employed at IRD, and was still investigating the same taxpayer.

“Every day the courts place confidence in officials giving evidence. [They] must rely on those officials to be honest and to do their best to present the whole truth about what is before the court.”

When asked why Lee was still employed as an inspector when both the authority and High Court found he had given wrong evidence, a spokeswoman for IRD said the allegations were historical and had been extensively investigated.

The most prominent street corner in this college town used to bustle with life. Now it’s more befitting a dying city like Detroit. Until a few years ago, University of Florida students flocked here to order the “Primo Beef” from Burrito Bros. and get cheap trims from Wild Hair. Earlier generations came en masse every semester to get their course readings from Goering’s Book Store. More recently arrived Gators sipped skinny lattes inside the corner Starbucks.

Now the corner of University Avenue and 13th Street, plus two adjacent city blocks, is a fenced parcel covered in weeds and graffiti. All that remains of favorite haunts like Burrito Bros. are a few patches of brick floor.

The three city blocks were razed a few years ago to make way for University Corners, a proposed eight-story development of pricey condos, retail shops and restaurants that would cater largely to successful alumni who spend weekends here cheering on their beloved football team.

City commissioners approved the $206-million project with great enthusiasm in 2004, back when the market was hot and they needed a high-profile project to fuel redevelopment efforts in the campus area known affectionately as the “student ghetto.”

But now the market is getting colder by the month, and a recent Florida Supreme Court ruling leaves in doubt the legality of $98-million in city tax incentives that developers were counting on. The project also faced delays because of legal skirmishes with some tenants of the now-demolished buildings.

So the parcel that was the campus area’s trademark gateway has become an eyesore. And to many longtime Gators and area residents, the uncertain future of the property is a disheartening reminder of how the real estate market’s steep rise and rapid fall can alter a place so rich in tradition and memories.

Project supporters, among them city commissioner and UF professor Jeanna Mastrodicasa, are optimistic University Corners will eventually be more than just an architect’s rendering.

But those opposed to the project wonder which is worse: an upscale complex that seems to them more befitting tony Boca Raton, or a failed parcel covered in weeds.

“All over town, we’re losing what makes Gainesville, Gainesville,” says Burrito Bros. owner Janet Akerson.

She started the business with her husband, Randy, three decades ago in a tiny storefront off 13th Avenue. Now they serve their famous burritos and guacamole in a church courtyard down the street.

“It was a tiny little place, but it hummed, and it was totally jammed,” Akerson said. “Now we’re losing all that. We’re losing the college town atmosphere.”

Catering to students

From the moment classes began here for 102 men on Sept. 26, 1906, Gainesville’s businesses and people catered to the university community.

That’s especially true in the “ghetto” across from campus, where students share aging bungalows, duplexes and apartments within walking distance of UF’s lecture halls and sporting venues.

They’ve long been the primary customers for the many businesses and eateries surrounding University Avenue and 13th Street. But what used to be a corridor filled largely with small mom and pop businesses has grown increasingly commercial and franchised, with the proposal for University Corners just the largest example.

A Chipotle and a Tijuana Flats opened right near the fiercely independent Burrito Bros. Goering’s, the independent bookstore, moved out. Starbucks came in.

The area was slowly shifting from grunge to franchised glamor.

By 2005, when city commissioners gave developers the first of several tax incentives for University Corners, the state was riding high on a real estate boom and the city was eager to take advantage. And alumni-targeted condos like the ones planned for University Corners were being built in big college football towns around the nation.

Fast forward to today, and even supporters concede the project has stalled and might have to be downsized to move forward.

The Florida Supreme Court’s recent ruling against tax incentives “might change the scope of the project,” said John Thomas of Bosshardt Realty, which is selling the condos.

Still, he insisted something will come of the corner.

“That is the most prestigious site in North Central Florida,” said Thomas, 59, a Gainesville native who started assembling land for the project in 2000. “A project will go there.”

Thomas said 60 percent of the University Corners units are reserved. But that’s down from 100 percent before the project stalled, according to real estate agent Henry Rabell, also of Bosshardt.

High-priced living

And local developers trying to unload their own condos before the market gets worse worry that University Corners’ prices are just too high.

“I want it to succeed, but no way would I try to build something like that now,” said Eric Wild, a 1999 UF graduate, who earned his Ph.D. in business management from UF two years ago. “Our project was only $20-million and it almost gobbled us up.”

Wild is a partner in two completed condominium projects in the student ghetto, including Jackson Square, a $20-million venture that sits in the shadow of the University Corners site. He recently showed a first-floor model to prospective buyers.

His buyers so far are alumni, he said, many of whom plan for their kids to live in the condos when they attend UF. In the meantime, they’ll use the condos as game-weekend lodging.

Wild’s French Quarter-style condos are priced from $288,000 to $650,000, but he has yet to sell the priciest units. University Corners’ units are supposed to sell for between $200,000 and more than $1.5-million.

“I’m just not sure about that price,” Wild said. “It might be too high.”

A few blocks away on University Avenue, a crane looms over construction crews working on the second floor of Stadium Club, an eight-story building that will feature 24 condominiums and ground-floor retail. The condos range from an 861-square-foot one-bedroom unit to two penthouses with more than 3,000 square feet of living space. The cheapest units are listed at $419,000, and the penthouses have a $2-million price tag.

Stadium Club’s promotional materials boast that the condos are just 550 feet from the football stadium.

Thomas of Bosshardt Realty said not all of Stadium Club’s units have sold, but the project is moving ahead as scheduled.

Developers want to finish construction before the final football game next season, Thomas said.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/02/State/Corner_of_UF_s_bustle.shtml

Appeal  Property Tax

Appeal   Realty Tax

Appeal Real Estate Taxes