[quote=CA renter]
2.) Responding to that first link of yours, though, this has nothing at all to do with the Mills Act. The Mills Act is a California state program; the program in your link is federal.
If you have some issue with a particular property having a Mills Act designation, you should look up why they have that designation.
3.) Again, the issue with the software does not point to any fraud. There was no fraud found when they *tried* to find problems with the system. There is no smoke, nor any fire, from what I can see. If you have any evidence or reason to believe that there was fraud, please make your case. The fact is that fraud *can* be committed all over the place — in the public and private sectors — but we don’t get to randomly accuse people of fraud when there is no evidence nor reason to believe that any fraud was committed.
4.) I’m not sure how your parents would have been accessories to insurance fraud if the owner of the other property was willing to fix the problem and pay for it. Are you saying that he was filing a claim? That’s not made clear based on your posts. Quite frankly, if the owner was willing to pay to fix the problem, I’m not sure what the complaint is about.
[/quote]
The current (political and bureaucratic) SD management, seem to have a “history” of looking the other way kinda like the old sgt schultz character,
[quote=livinincali]
I worked on a project for RISK management about 12 years ago, which is the San Diego’s self funded disability insurance office. What firefighter and cops did at retirement was pretty bad. That was more a case of disability fraud, where if you retire under disability 50% of you pension income is tax free. But there were crazy things in the payroll system. People claiming to work more than 24 hours in a day. People claiming light duty (aka a disability claim) and regular duty in the same day.
[/quote]
In recent years, the Internal Revenue Service has denied 70 percent of facade easement deductions, court filings show. Since 2002, the Justice Department estimates that inflated easement deductions have totaled $1.2 billion.
is directly related to fact that with a “historic property” classification its possible to game federal taxes (with a city policy)
Ability to donate a facade easement to the city or other historical preservation agency as a charitable donation deduction from income taxes.
Still don’t see the connection with software developed by the city that “allows for fraud?”
Bottom line, I was un-necessarly dragged into court and had to face delaying tactics because I seem to have uncovered a web of dishonesty no one wants to admit to (while initially I had concerns about being an accessory to insurance fraud)
