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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

Orange Park will continue pursuing a non-ad valorem tax on all residents - including tax-exempt properties - to fund the town’s fire department beginning in 2008.

Town Council members on Tuesday night voted to inform county and state officials of their intentions to create a “municipal service benefit unit,” and to hire a consultant to develop fee structures. Meanwhile, a final vote won’t come until after two public hearings in May.

Town Manager John Bowles proposed the idea to replace some dried up funding sources including interlocal agreements and reduced property taxes.

The non-ad valorem tax will affect all entities served by the department including Moosehaven, retirement Baptist/St. Vincent’s, churches and day-care centers.

“We believe we have the responsibility to pay,” said Moosehaven director John Capes, who attended Tuesday’s meeting. Capes asked the council to keep him apprised of developments as he is in the middle of a multi-million dollar renovation and preparing Moosehaven’s budget.

“This timing is going to push us,” Capes said. “This will be an extremely important financial decision for Moosehaven.”

In other business, the council agreed to pursue a bank loan of up to $1 million for sorely needed street and drainage projects in the Montclair and Village Green subdivisions.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/120707/nec_223112216.shtml

Import Car Canada  Shipper

ebay Import Car Canada Transport

www.realtytaxconsultant.com

Sphere: Related Content

Local governments drained more than $1.1 billion from Florida’s state-run investment pool when it reopened Thursday, a week after it was frozen amid a run that withdrew almost $10 billion on worries about its investments in securities backed by troubled mortgages.The pool’s problems provided another illustration of the wide-ranging and sometimes unexpected consequences rippling across the world’s financial markets as defaults rise on mortgage loans to people with shaky credit histories.

The withdrawals amounted to about 8 percent of the $14 billion pool, state officials said, and were expected because of the pent-up need governments had for cash after being unable to access their money for a week. The run dropped the pool from about $25 billion to under $15 billion before it was frozen last Thursday.

Some governments said they had renewed confidence because the most troublesome investments were walled-off from the rest of the fund. One large investor that left its money alone Thursday was the Charlotte County School Board.

The board’s chief financial officer, Greg Griner, said it had money to pay bills because December is when property tax collections come in, so the county was leaving its $50 million in place.

But several local government entities didn’t have the same confidence.

The Lee County School District withdrew a little over $45 million, the limited percentage allowed to be taken out, on Thursday, according to Greta Campbell, the financial accounting director.

Another $308 of the district’s money remains in the fund.

When the run on the fund occurred last week, the district only took out the normal amount of money to pay for normal operating cost. But now they feel a need to have safeguards to make sure payroll and accounts payable expenses are met.

“At this time we are working with our consultants and our staff to take the best action to protect taxpayers dollars,” Campbell said.

When the state froze an investment pool for local governments last week, Bonita Springs appeared to be in a better position than many other cities, counties and school districts that had relied on accessing that fund to cover routine expenses.

While Bonita Springs still had $3.8 million in fund at the time it was frozen, that money represented a portion of the city’s reserve fund, and it was not money that was budgeted to be spent in the coming year, City Finance Director Lisa Griggs Roberson said.

But Wednesday, the city learned that Lee County, which collects property tax dollars for the city and then invests the money until the city needs it, had placed $1.5 million of 2007 Bonita Springs property tax revenues in the state fund.

That is money the city had been counting on spending this year, and when the fund was partially unfrozen Thursday, Bonita Springs joined the crowd of local governments moving their holdings elsewhere.

“We’re in the process of pulling out $2 million, which is the maximum we can pull out right now,” Griggs Roberson said. “We just don’t want to be short of cash flow.”

Beyond that, she said, “we are going to be going to City Council at the next meeting to see what their wishes are.”

The council next meets Dec. 19.

She described the situation is unfortunate, and said that the state “should be held accountable” for its handling of the investment pool.

As for other investments the city has — those would be private money market accounts, and Griggs Roberson said she is not aware of any problems there.

State officials characterized the day’s activity as a positive, insisting that the withdrawals were less than they’d anticipated and noting that the fund was “well able to handle” them.

“There is no run,” said Tara Klimek, a spokeswoman for state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, who is a member of the board that oversees state investments.

Klimek also noted that a few deposits were actually made into the account, although new money coming in only totalled $7 million.

The fund pools money from towns, counties, school boards and other government investors. Last month, many governments withdrew their money when they found out the fund held millions of dollars in securities backed by mortgages, some of which were in default.

Local governments now only have access to 86 percent of their money in the pool. The remaining 14 percent has been blocked off as it is questionable in value because of ties to mortgages.

Of the amount available now, governments are able to withdraw up to 15 percent of their money, or $2 million, whichever is greater without penalty. To get more than that, they have to pay a 2 percent fee. The fund’s investments are now being managed independently by New York financial firm BlackRock Inc., which was hired by the state to address the account’s problems.

As soon as he was told he could take money out of the SBA account Lee County Clerk of Courts Charlie Green took out every dime he could.

Despite that, and the fact he took out $289 million before the state-run investment account was closed, the county still has $131 million in it.

That’s because Tax Collector Cathy Curtis had put $229 million into the account.

“She could have taken it out if she’s known,” Green said. “It’s the middle of tax season, and that’s what the SBA is set up for: someplace to put money short-term until it can be distributed.”

Of that $229 million $102 million was county money. When the SBA account was re-opened that money was transferred to the account Green controlled. When the state had closed the account it still had $54 million in county money in it, making a total of $156 million. The SBA told governments they could remove 15 percent of their money, and Green did.

Green said the SBA was divided into two accounts, split 86 percent and 14 percent. The 14 percent, he explained, is the solid investments and the 86 percent is that portion propped up by shaky investments like subprime loans. Interest from the good investments will be placed into the other account to help cover losses there. Governments are likely to receive no return on their ‘investments”.

“They made a big mistake,” Green said. “You never back short-term loans with long-term securities, and that’s what they did.”

Green said as soon as he can he will remove as much of the county’s money from the SBA account as possible.

“I’m kind of stupid but I’m not totally stupid,” he laughed.

The pool’s largest investor, state-backed Citizens Property Insurance Corp., didn’t withdraw any of its roughly $2 billion, said Citizens spokesman Rocky Scott. The insurance company said earlier in the week that it has ample cash on hand, including other investment income, to meet all expenses.

The city of Naples pulled an additional $2 million from the SBA account Thursday, said Interim City Manager Chet Hunt.

Naples City Council authorized the city’s finance director to pull the money from the account during Wednesday’s meeting. As of Thursday the city had about $11 million in the account.

Florida Gulf Coast University in San Carlos Park withdrew $10 million from the State Board of Administration fund before it was frozen by Gov. Charlie Crist last week.

FGCU usually has its investment money split between the SBA and the Special Purpose Investment Account but decided to put it all in the SPIA after several large entities like Orange County started taking their money away.

“We felt the run would continue, and at some point there would be a freeze on our assets,” said Joe Shepard, FGCU’s chief financial officer. “We don’t expect anything of a similar nature to happen with SPIA.”

Thursday three investors drained all the money they had in the part of the account that remained accessible, paying the fees to go above the limit, taking about $67 million out of the pool, Klimek said. She said she didn’t know who those investors were.

In a plea to local governments on the board’s Web site, it asked for governments to rejoin the fund to help shore it up. “If you can make a subscription — we urge you to support the fund by doing so,” the statement said.

If local governments decide to put new money into the account, all of it will be immediately liquid, with no restrictions on withdrawals, a rule intended to encourage new investment.

But local governments that pulled money out before the fund was frozen appeared to be taking a cautious approach to getting back in.

“I’m going to kind of sit and wait-and-see,” said Edward Bass, finance director for the city of Apopka in central Florida, one of the governments that fueled the run by withdrawing $12.4 million last month. “I’d want to see it in action, to show me there’s some preservation of the principal.”

St Vital Shopping Center Hotel

Realty Tax Property Assessment Consultant

Sphere: Related Content

IRS tax liens, which attached more than six but less than ten years previously to married debtors’ property that was transferred to a realty trust of which the wife was the sole beneficiary, were still in existence because the collection period had been statutorily extended from six to ten years. However, the IRS was required to file new notices of the liens but failed to do so prior to the expiration of the refiling period. Thus, the IRS’s claims lost their priority status with respect to existing mortgages as well as the bankruptcy trustee.

An IRS action to foreclose tax liens on property which the taxpayer fraudulently conveyed to her daughter was timely brought within ten years after the taxes were assessed. The action to collect the fraudulently conveyed property from the daughter was not governed by the six-year statute of limitations under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990 because that Act does not limit the federal government’s right to collect taxes. Although the IRS’s right to set aside the conveyance was based on state (Florida) fraudulent conveyance law, the IRS was not bound by any state statute of limitations.

The statutory amendment that changed the statute of limitations on collection actions from six years to ten years and applied the change retroactively was not unconstitutional. The amendment did not give rise to a due process claim because its purpose, to raise revenue without imposing additional prospective tax liabilities, was rational and reasonable. Moreover, the extended limitations period did not abrogate any rights of or create any new liabilities for a partner. The taxpayer did not rely on the expiration of the six-year limitations period to avoid the tax, and the length of the retroactivity was not inappropriate given the purpose of the statute. The amendment did not give rise to an equal protection claim because the classification purportedly created by its retroactive application was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.

The statute of limitations for enforcing a levy against two consulting firms that failed to surrender funds owed to a bankrupt company was suspended as long as the company was in bankruptcy proceedings and for six months thereafter. The firms’ argument that the limitations period should not have been tolled because the IRS could have sued the firms or the bank to which the funds were paid once they surrendered the funds to the bank was rejected.

The ten-year statute of limitations for collection properly applied in a case where the six-year limitations period, in effect before its amendment by Congress in 1990, had not expired as of November 5, 1990. Although an initial District Court order stated that the IRS had six years from the date of assessment to collect the taxes, a subsequent opinion issued in the same proceeding by a successor judge properly revised the limitations period to reflect the newly enacted ten-year period. The “law if the case” doctrine did not prevent the successor judge from amending the order to reflect the longer period of limitations because, at the time the order was entered, the change did not prejudice the taxpayer. Under either limitations period, the IRS was not time-barred from collecting the assessed taxes as of the time the order was entered. Moreover, collateral estoppel prevented the taxpayer from rearguing the limitations period. The taxpayer had ample opportunity at his prior District Court proceeding to argue that the six-year limitations period should apply.The IRS’s failure to meet the 60-day mailing deadline for giving notice and demand of payment of tax did not void the otherwise valid assessments. The court concluded that the purpose of the 60-day notice requirement was to allow the taxpayer an opportunity to make voluntary payments of tax before the IRS could use its lien and collection powers. Thus, the IRS’s failure in this case resulted only in the removal of its nonjudicial collection powers. The taxpayer remained liable for the amounts assessed. Further, the IRS’s counterclaim to reduce to judgment the assessments made for two of the years at issue was not barred by the statute of limitations as a result of its not meeting the 60-day deadline for notice and assessment.
Liens for taxes did not lapse with the passage of time inasmuch as (1) the administrative procedure of collecting the assessment did not have to be completed within six years after the tax lien was perfected, and (2) an action was instituted within the statutory period of six years.
The government was entitled to the portion of proceeds from the sale of a delinquent, insolvent individual’s property that were attributable to fraudulent enhancement of the property. Although a 6-year limitations period applied at the time the IRS assessed the taxpayer’s unpaid liabilities, it was subsequently changed to 10 years. Because the 6-year limitations period had not expired at the time of the amendment and the government’s fraudulent enhancement claim was within the 10-year limitations period, it was timely.

Hotel Property Realty Tax Appeals

Winnipeg  Extended Stay Hotels

Hotels Near St. Vital Shopping Center

www.realtytaxconsultant.com

Sphere: Related Content