Mello-Roos Tax Deductible

[all]

[quote=svelte][quote=LAAFTERHOURS][quote=Oxford]http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/faq/net/909.shtml

OX
…googleholic[/quote]

So if you are in a mello-roos area and all those things on that link are built out, therefore all are receiving ongoing maintenance, wouldnt that mean all benefits and therefore the MR are tax deductible?

I know the answer but thats a pretty “loose” definition. Until they start enforcing, people will keep deducting.[/quote]

Even if they are already built, during the original M-R period you are still paying off the bonds that built them, so my take is that they would not be deductible.

Now, once the M-R period expires…if they continue on with a smaller, maintenance M-R (as many on here have theorized M-R districts will do) then that would be deductible as I read it.

I like the way the enclosed link says that streets and sidewalks are for local benefit. Next time I see an out-of-towner on a street or sidewalk in a M-R district, I’m gonna tell’em to get the hell off since they are for local benefit only.[/quote]

What about the ‘interest’ clause? The entry says you can deduct the interest charges related to the benefits, if you can document the breakdown.

I went over the CDF#6 report for 2008-2009 and 91% of the expenses went to interest.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I think not being able to deduct the MR is BS. I mean, technically, it’s property tax were it not for Prop 13. This is their roundabout way to go around Prop 13, but the reality is it is property tax. You should be able to deduct it. There must be some way to get a law overturned on this. It’s really screwing the homeowner. Prop 13 was supposed to help homeowners, but it just helps those who have been there for a long time. The new homeowners in new communities are really getting the shaft and carrying a load. It adds insult to injury. We will screw you w/a higher tax AND you can’t deduct it. That blows and sucks.[/quote]

jpinpb, the prop 13 portion of a tax bill (1% + voter-approved bonds and fees) IS tax deductbile.

It is only the portion of the bill for the Community Facilities Districts (CFD’s) that are NOT tax deductible. The CFD portion of a typical tax bill can be substantially more than the 1.*% of the Prop. 13 portion, however.

These homeowners of *newer* property get the *newer* benefits. For instance:

-Maintained landscaping on thorougfares leading to their tracts;

-Fairly new and high-tech police and fire substation in *their own* area for faster response time;

-New sidewalks and newer streets in their subdivision;

-Concrete walking/biking trails along their thoroughfares;

-Newer HS’s with swimming pools, carpeting, indoor lockers, wifi in every classroom, separate auditorium from cafeteria, landscaping, food courts (similar amenities in Elem. & MS);

-New branch libraries and parks in their neighborhoods;

-Separate fire protection districts with addt’l services (in some fire-prone areas);

ETC.

Compare these enhancements and services with SD’s “pothole mgmt” (or “mismanagement”?) in older ‘hoods, power lines still on wood poles and older, scraggly-looking businesses that you have to pass by to get to a *perfectly decent* house in an established ‘hood (even in an “expensive” area) and you can see why buyers are “psychologically drawn” to MR areas. It’s really hard for them to compare new and old RE side-by-side because they never leave a main drag that doesn’t “feel good or familiar” to them to see what’s off on the side sts.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I think not being able to deduct the MR is BS. I mean, technically, it’s property tax were it not for Prop 13. This is their roundabout way to go around Prop 13, but the reality is it is property tax. You should be able to deduct it. There must be some way to get a law overturned on this. It’s really screwing the homeowner. Prop 13 was supposed to help homeowners, but it just helps those who have been there for a long time. The new homeowners in new communities are really getting the shaft and carrying a load. It adds insult to injury. We will screw you w/a higher tax AND you can’t deduct it. That blows and sucks.[/quote]

jpinpb, the prop 13 portion of a tax bill (1% + voter-approved bonds and fees) IS tax deductbile.

It is only the portion of the bill for the Community Facilities Districts (CFD’s) that are NOT tax deductible. The CFD portion of a typical tax bill can be substantially more than the 1.*% of the Prop. 13 portion, however.

These homeowners of *newer* property get the *newer* benefits. For instance:

-Maintained landscaping on thorougfares leading to their tracts;

-Fairly new and high-tech police and fire substation in *their own* area for faster response time;

-New sidewalks and newer streets in their subdivision;

-Concrete walking/biking trails along their thoroughfares;

-Newer HS’s with swimming pools, carpeting, indoor lockers, wifi in every classroom, separate auditorium from cafeteria, landscaping, food courts (similar amenities in Elem. & MS);

-New branch libraries and parks in their neighborhoods;

-Separate fire protection districts with addt’l services (in some fire-prone areas);

ETC.

Compare these enhancements and services with SD’s “pothole mgmt” (or “mismanagement”?) in older ‘hoods, power lines still on wood poles and older, scraggly-looking businesses that you have to pass by to get to a *perfectly decent* house in an established ‘hood (even in an “expensive” area) and you can see why buyers are “psychologically drawn” to MR areas. It’s really hard for them to compare new and old RE side-by-side because they never leave a main drag that doesn’t “feel good or familiar” to them to see what’s off on the side sts.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I think not being able to deduct the MR is BS. I mean, technically, it’s property tax were it not for Prop 13. This is their roundabout way to go around Prop 13, but the reality is it is property tax. You should be able to deduct it. There must be some way to get a law overturned on this. It’s really screwing the homeowner. Prop 13 was supposed to help homeowners, but it just helps those who have been there for a long time. The new homeowners in new communities are really getting the shaft and carrying a load. It adds insult to injury. We will screw you w/a higher tax AND you can’t deduct it. That blows and sucks.[/quote]

jpinpb, the prop 13 portion of a tax bill (1% + voter-approved bonds and fees) IS tax deductbile.

It is only the portion of the bill for the Community Facilities Districts (CFD’s) that are NOT tax deductible. The CFD portion of a typical tax bill can be substantially more than the 1.*% of the Prop. 13 portion, however.

These homeowners of *newer* property get the *newer* benefits. For instance:

-Maintained landscaping on thorougfares leading to their tracts;

-Fairly new and high-tech police and fire substation in *their own* area for faster response time;

-New sidewalks and newer streets in their subdivision;

-Concrete walking/biking trails along their thoroughfares;

-Newer HS’s with swimming pools, carpeting, indoor lockers, wifi in every classroom, separate auditorium from cafeteria, landscaping, food courts (similar amenities in Elem. & MS);

-New branch libraries and parks in their neighborhoods;

-Separate fire protection districts with addt’l services (in some fire-prone areas);

ETC.

Compare these enhancements and services with SD’s “pothole mgmt” (or “mismanagement”?) in older ‘hoods, power lines still on wood poles and older, scraggly-looking businesses that you have to pass by to get to a *perfectly decent* house in an established ‘hood (even in an “expensive” area) and you can see why buyers are “psychologically drawn” to MR areas. It’s really hard for them to compare new and old RE side-by-side because they never leave a main drag that doesn’t “feel good or familiar” to them to see what’s off on the side sts.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I think not being able to deduct the MR is BS. I mean, technically, it’s property tax were it not for Prop 13. This is their roundabout way to go around Prop 13, but the reality is it is property tax. You should be able to deduct it. There must be some way to get a law overturned on this. It’s really screwing the homeowner. Prop 13 was supposed to help homeowners, but it just helps those who have been there for a long time. The new homeowners in new communities are really getting the shaft and carrying a load. It adds insult to injury. We will screw you w/a higher tax AND you can’t deduct it. That blows and sucks.[/quote]

jpinpb, the prop 13 portion of a tax bill (1% + voter-approved bonds and fees) IS tax deductbile.

It is only the portion of the bill for the Community Facilities Districts (CFD’s) that are NOT tax deductible. The CFD portion of a typical tax bill can be substantially more than the 1.*% of the Prop. 13 portion, however.

These homeowners of *newer* property get the *newer* benefits. For instance:

-Maintained landscaping on thorougfares leading to their tracts;

-Fairly new and high-tech police and fire substation in *their own* area for faster response time;

-New sidewalks and newer streets in their subdivision;

-Concrete walking/biking trails along their thoroughfares;

-Newer HS’s with swimming pools, carpeting, indoor lockers, wifi in every classroom, separate auditorium from cafeteria, landscaping, food courts (similar amenities in Elem. & MS);

-New branch libraries and parks in their neighborhoods;

-Separate fire protection districts with addt’l services (in some fire-prone areas);

ETC.

Compare these enhancements and services with SD’s “pothole mgmt” (or “mismanagement”?) in older ‘hoods, power lines still on wood poles and older, scraggly-looking businesses that you have to pass by to get to a *perfectly decent* house in an established ‘hood (even in an “expensive” area) and you can see why buyers are “psychologically drawn” to MR areas. It’s really hard for them to compare new and old RE side-by-side because they never leave a main drag that doesn’t “feel good or familiar” to them to see what’s off on the side sts.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I think not being able to deduct the MR is BS. I mean, technically, it’s property tax were it not for Prop 13. This is their roundabout way to go around Prop 13, but the reality is it is property tax. You should be able to deduct it. There must be some way to get a law overturned on this. It’s really screwing the homeowner. Prop 13 was supposed to help homeowners, but it just helps those who have been there for a long time. The new homeowners in new communities are really getting the shaft and carrying a load. It adds insult to injury. We will screw you w/a higher tax AND you can’t deduct it. That blows and sucks.[/quote]

jpinpb, the prop 13 portion of a tax bill (1% + voter-approved bonds and fees) IS tax deductbile.

It is only the portion of the bill for the Community Facilities Districts (CFD’s) that are NOT tax deductible. The CFD portion of a typical tax bill can be substantially more than the 1.*% of the Prop. 13 portion, however.

These homeowners of *newer* property get the *newer* benefits. For instance:

-Maintained landscaping on thorougfares leading to their tracts;

-Fairly new and high-tech police and fire substation in *their own* area for faster response time;

-New sidewalks and newer streets in their subdivision;

-Concrete walking/biking trails along their thoroughfares;

-Newer HS’s with swimming pools, carpeting, indoor lockers, wifi in every classroom, separate auditorium from cafeteria, landscaping, food courts (similar amenities in Elem. & MS);

-New branch libraries and parks in their neighborhoods;

-Separate fire protection districts with addt’l services (in some fire-prone areas);

ETC.

Compare these enhancements and services with SD’s “pothole mgmt” (or “mismanagement”?) in older ‘hoods, power lines still on wood poles and older, scraggly-looking businesses that you have to pass by to get to a *perfectly decent* house in an established ‘hood (even in an “expensive” area) and you can see why buyers are “psychologically drawn” to MR areas. It’s really hard for them to compare new and old RE side-by-side because they never leave a main drag that doesn’t “feel good or familiar” to them to see what’s off on the side sts.

[bearishgurl]

Piggs, look at the full year tax bill (not supplemental bill) of 2810 Rambling Vista Rd. in 91915 (which recently sold) by plugging in the address and zip here:

https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/(3g0f1z45r0yu3xfx2e02fhvh)/Search.Aspx

In addition to the 1% under Prop 13 and voter-approved bonds, under fixed charge assessments, it shows:

CFD 07M Eastlake III $272.58
Chula V. Elem CFD #1 $260.88
CFD 061 Eastlk Woods $1,869.64
Sweetwater Hi CFD #1 $813.50
Assmt Dist 2001-1 $ 92.06

Total: $3,308.66

The other “fixed charge assessments” are charged to ALL landowners in the area. $3,308.66 (payable to CFD’s) out of a $9,398.64 tax bill is NOT tax deductible. The assessed value for FY 09/10 was $568K (reduced) and it sold June of this year for $520K. See:

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100005724-2810_Rambling_Vista_Rd_Chula_Vista_CA_91915

[bearishgurl]

Piggs, look at the full year tax bill (not supplemental bill) of 2810 Rambling Vista Rd. in 91915 (which recently sold) by plugging in the address and zip here:

https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/(3g0f1z45r0yu3xfx2e02fhvh)/Search.Aspx

In addition to the 1% under Prop 13 and voter-approved bonds, under fixed charge assessments, it shows:

CFD 07M Eastlake III $272.58
Chula V. Elem CFD #1 $260.88
CFD 061 Eastlk Woods $1,869.64
Sweetwater Hi CFD #1 $813.50
Assmt Dist 2001-1 $ 92.06

Total: $3,308.66

The other “fixed charge assessments” are charged to ALL landowners in the area. $3,308.66 (payable to CFD’s) out of a $9,398.64 tax bill is NOT tax deductible. The assessed value for FY 09/10 was $568K (reduced) and it sold June of this year for $520K. See:

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100005724-2810_Rambling_Vista_Rd_Chula_Vista_CA_91915

[bearishgurl]

Piggs, look at the full year tax bill (not supplemental bill) of 2810 Rambling Vista Rd. in 91915 (which recently sold) by plugging in the address and zip here:

https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/(3g0f1z45r0yu3xfx2e02fhvh)/Search.Aspx

In addition to the 1% under Prop 13 and voter-approved bonds, under fixed charge assessments, it shows:

CFD 07M Eastlake III $272.58
Chula V. Elem CFD #1 $260.88
CFD 061 Eastlk Woods $1,869.64
Sweetwater Hi CFD #1 $813.50
Assmt Dist 2001-1 $ 92.06

Total: $3,308.66

The other “fixed charge assessments” are charged to ALL landowners in the area. $3,308.66 (payable to CFD’s) out of a $9,398.64 tax bill is NOT tax deductible. The assessed value for FY 09/10 was $568K (reduced) and it sold June of this year for $520K. See:

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100005724-2810_Rambling_Vista_Rd_Chula_Vista_CA_91915

[bearishgurl]

Piggs, look at the full year tax bill (not supplemental bill) of 2810 Rambling Vista Rd. in 91915 (which recently sold) by plugging in the address and zip here:

https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/(3g0f1z45r0yu3xfx2e02fhvh)/Search.Aspx

In addition to the 1% under Prop 13 and voter-approved bonds, under fixed charge assessments, it shows:

CFD 07M Eastlake III $272.58
Chula V. Elem CFD #1 $260.88
CFD 061 Eastlk Woods $1,869.64
Sweetwater Hi CFD #1 $813.50
Assmt Dist 2001-1 $ 92.06

Total: $3,308.66

The other “fixed charge assessments” are charged to ALL landowners in the area. $3,308.66 (payable to CFD’s) out of a $9,398.64 tax bill is NOT tax deductible. The assessed value for FY 09/10 was $568K (reduced) and it sold June of this year for $520K. See:

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100005724-2810_Rambling_Vista_Rd_Chula_Vista_CA_91915

[bearishgurl]

Piggs, look at the full year tax bill (not supplemental bill) of 2810 Rambling Vista Rd. in 91915 (which recently sold) by plugging in the address and zip here:

https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/(3g0f1z45r0yu3xfx2e02fhvh)/Search.Aspx

In addition to the 1% under Prop 13 and voter-approved bonds, under fixed charge assessments, it shows:

CFD 07M Eastlake III $272.58
Chula V. Elem CFD #1 $260.88
CFD 061 Eastlk Woods $1,869.64
Sweetwater Hi CFD #1 $813.50
Assmt Dist 2001-1 $ 92.06

Total: $3,308.66

The other “fixed charge assessments” are charged to ALL landowners in the area. $3,308.66 (payable to CFD’s) out of a $9,398.64 tax bill is NOT tax deductible. The assessed value for FY 09/10 was $568K (reduced) and it sold June of this year for $520K. See:

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100005724-2810_Rambling_Vista_Rd_Chula_Vista_CA_91915

[all]

[quote=bearishgurl] $3,308.66 (payable to CFD’s) out of a $9,398.64 tax bill is NOT tax deductible. [/quote]

What is your source for this?

The most authoritative source that I can find is the one quoted in this thread (http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/faq/net/909.shtml) and that one is not that explicit.

[all]

[quote=bearishgurl] $3,308.66 (payable to CFD’s) out of a $9,398.64 tax bill is NOT tax deductible. [/quote]

What is your source for this?

The most authoritative source that I can find is the one quoted in this thread (http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/faq/net/909.shtml) and that one is not that explicit.

[all]

[quote=bearishgurl] $3,308.66 (payable to CFD’s) out of a $9,398.64 tax bill is NOT tax deductible. [/quote]

What is your source for this?

The most authoritative source that I can find is the one quoted in this thread (http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/faq/net/909.shtml) and that one is not that explicit.

[all]

[quote=bearishgurl] $3,308.66 (payable to CFD’s) out of a $9,398.64 tax bill is NOT tax deductible. [/quote]

What is your source for this?

The most authoritative source that I can find is the one quoted in this thread (http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/faq/net/909.shtml) and that one is not that explicit.

[Author]

Posts