Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantNavydoc, even though you are already in contract, I still think you shouldn’t have given up on South Park/Burlingame. I toured most of it recently and it is getting better and better around there and (unlike SR) has been holding its value over the last few years. A large “fixer-type” property (or a =<2000 sf property on a largish lot) around there would be a fantastic investment for years to come, IMO.
And you could ride your bike from there thru "high and scenic" Balboa Golf Course every morning, drink in the city, bridge and Coronado views, exit the park at 26th st and cross Florida Cyn at the light before climbing the hill and showing your ID to enter Naval Hospital!
Total commute = 1 to 3 miles 🙂
edit: And 1+ mile north of the NAVHOSP entrance is SD's infamous "Velodrome" where you can pace and race to your heart's content :=D
Participant[quote=Navydoc]…Really can’t wait to move back to SD. Anybody want a nice house in Gaithersburg MD?[/quote]
That’s a really NICE (and convenient) town, Navydoc! You shouldn’t have any problem unloading it (assuming arguendo you are NOT underwater) :=]
February 21, 2012 at 11:05 PM in reply to: State tax deductibility of all Mello-Roos charges threatened beginning tax year 2012 #738461Participant[quote=briansd1]…Btw flu, nobody I know adds up purchases made out of state and online and remits use taxes at the end of thet year. Too much responsibility placed on the taxpayer.
Businesses that have accountants do that but not average joes. That’s why the state is going after big retailers like Amazon. There are billions at stake[/quote]
Agreed, brian. I am not a big “shopper” per se, but often order (out-of-state) online (Amazon – YES) for the “esoteric” (often-hard-to-locally-find) things I need. ebay is my friend, lol. I’m an authorized reseller who realizes the value of the price of gas and that you can’t often find exactly what you need locally.
I will, of course, pay my relevant “sales tax” at such time it is charged to me in an online transaction and not before. There is no compelling reason to do so for out-of-state transactions at this time.
February 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM in reply to: State tax deductibility of all Mello-Roos charges threatened beginning tax year 2012 #738432Participant[quote=flu]And it will be fun to watch a computer figure out when one county calls something “voter approved school bond” or something else “ad valorem” in one way, and anothe county calls it something else, and there is no “code” or “key” that computer system can parse universally.. Meanwhile, if this hodgepodge “system” is put in place and operational by next year, it would be even more fun seeing a bunch of tax filings incorrectly flagged, in person audits being requested, and then finding that their aren’t enough auditors to go through what most likely are correct reporting by filers (because after all, it costs money to hire more auditors…probably more so than how many people actually incorrectly file intentionally)… Lol, this is gonna be fun to watch….[/quote]
flu, no matter what colors or fonts they use, each CA county follows the same format in their tax bills:
A typical CA property tax bill is set up like this:
Parcel #: 111-1111-11-0000
Assessed value: $200,000
In this example, $2,040 is deductible property tax.
Description Tax Rate/Phone Tax Amount Total
County Wide 1% 2,000.00
College Gov .020% 40.00
Total Tax on Net Value (Ad Valorem) $2,040.00Community College 800-111-1111 190.00
Mello–Roos/CFD 800-111-1112 800.00
Water Fees 800-111-1113 10.00
Total Direct Levy/Special Assessments $1,000.00Total Property Tax $3,040.00
The Total Tax on Net Value is the only part that can be deducted on an income tax return.
see: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/Real_Estate_Tax_Deduction/index.shtml
Check your own tax bill and spot check one on in RIV or any other county to see for yourself.
February 21, 2012 at 2:15 PM in reply to: State tax deductibility of all Mello-Roos charges threatened beginning tax year 2012 #738427Participant[quote=flu]You’re missing the entire point. Where is the state going to come up with the money to build this “system”. Hello???? We’re in the red, which budget is this going to come from?[/quote]
The work on the new system is apparently already underway. I have no idea where the money came from to build it.
[quote=flu]You really underestimate how flawed this thing is. This took 2 minutes. Not that hard when things are online and in html…
(pics of doctored tax bills)[/quote]
I would venture that only a miniscule portion of taxpayers are as talented as you in this regard, flu – that is, the ones that are doing their own tax returns :=}
Just try to find a legitimate tax-preparer that will use your “doctored” tax bills.
[quote=flu]Also, I’m curious how the CA state systems are going to deal with all the different ways that each county’s assessment forms look. After all, the property tax forms are nowhere near standardized…exposing yet a bunch more technical issues….[/quote]
This is a very good question, flu. However, bear in mind that each state has different income tax forms as well and the IRS seems to successfully scan and read each state’s electronic tax-return filing just fine :=)
Don’t you think the same success could be achieved with a CA “assessor-reporting-provision” in the law?
February 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM in reply to: State tax deductibility of all Mello-Roos charges threatened beginning tax year 2012 #738424Participant[quote=UCGal]Sure you couldn’t legally deduct mello roos in the first place… but most folks did.
Now the state will be able to look at your itemized bill since you have to provide that info along with your parcel number.
For those of us that live in non HOA areas… it seems like it might apply to various bond measures as well…[/quote]
Upon reviewing my tax bill, it appears the voter-approved school and CC bonds ARE part of the ad valorem portion of a property tax bill and thus ARE and will CONTINUE to be deductible.
Following UCGal’s example, she is correct.
For example – from my bill:
FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 2.28Acc to the FTB website, a total $29.64 of the tax bill of my primary residence will not be deductible beginning next year.
I do not live in a MR-encumbered CFD, either.
February 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM in reply to: State tax deductibility of all Mello-Roos charges threatened beginning tax year 2012 #738420Participant[quote=flu]You’re thinking way too hard.
It’s called electronic copy of and photoshop. How does the state plan to go about verifying the submitted paperwork’s numbers are real? Not saying people are going to do this. But this system is flawed. For it to work, state needs to be able to tap into the countys’ systems. Or the counties need to be able to send a form to the state directly.
And guess what? State ain’t gonna have money to put a system like this in place in the forseeable future.
A random audit *might* expose a tax cheat, but otherwise a photoshopped bill it’s not going to trigger any computer system flag because a computer isn’t going to be able to tell a real form from a fake…
Anytime you depend on the filer to fill “forms” as proof of information, that’s a flawed design. That’s exactly why 1099’s need to be sent from banks/financial institutions directly to the IRS/FTB.
Otherwise, counting on a taxpayer to send in the paperwork is just plain stupid.This is just one of many ways I can think of that folks can rig the system… This is the most bold (arguably most stupid way of doing it, because it only bypasses the electronic “eyes”, but not the human eye in case of a random audit). There are a bunch other ways I can think of how it can be gamed from that angle.
I’m not condoling anything illegal. I just like pointing out flawed systems, and it is a very flawed system. But to most people’s point out here, most people probably aren’t going to go that extreme and send in doctored statements…[/quote]
flu, I can’t see this *new* FTB software being “glitch free” the first year of operation either without legislation requiring county assessors to send only the ad valorem tax portion of each of their parcels to the FTB.
Perhaps such a bill is in the pipeline now. I will research this issue later tonight.
And good luck with all your copy/paste and photoshop ideas, flu :=0
February 21, 2012 at 1:23 PM in reply to: State tax deductibility of all Mello-Roos charges threatened beginning tax year 2012 #738417ParticipantI just ran across this (1/9/12) article:
…The difference between deductible and non-deductible property taxes is not a new rule. Mello-Roos fees, which pay for roads, schools, fire stations and other public facilities in new developments, have not been deductible from state income taxes since the legislature authorized the special assessments 30 years ago.
Many property owners, however, routinely deduct the entire amount of their property tax bill from their state income taxes instead of only the parts that legally are deductible. Others just use the amount on the Form 1098 that their mortgage holder paid to the county tax collector on their behalf.
Until now the Franchise Tax Board didn’t to go after them. A new computer system being installed this year, however, will allow the agency to distinguish the portions of property tax bills that are deductible and non-deductible, said Daniel Tahara, a FTB spokesman.He said the new scrutiny of property taxes is not due to any political pressure to increase tax revenues to close the state’s gaping budget deficit. “Every year we look at areas of non-compliance and this happened to be one that came up,” he said.
Tahara said the agency is announcing the new rules now so taxpayers can make any adjustments this year for their 2012 state tax filing next year.
He said the FTB had planned to impose the new rules on 2011 tax filings due this April, but held off after getting “negative feedback” from tax preparers and the public…(emphasis added)
see: http://economy.ocregister.com/2012/01/09/state-targets-property-tax-payers/101799/
February 21, 2012 at 1:14 PM in reply to: State tax deductibility of all Mello-Roos charges threatened beginning tax year 2012 #738415ParticipantI just thought of a potential quagmire affecting the deductibility of MR of those affected CA taxpayers’ Federal return. All of the figures from the Federal Return are reported to the the FTB in an electronic tax return filing, incl line 6 of Schedule A (used to report property taxes for a principal residence).
If the FTB’s software can flag both (electronically-filed) returns, it would be reasonable to believe that the CA taxpayer would not be able to report a different property tax amount on line 6 of Schedule A than they do on line 73 of their Form 540, without getting flagged.
Again, FTB workers would have to be available to go thru paper tax return filings which include a copy of the taxpayers Federal return to determine the property tax amount reported to the IRS on their Schedule “A” filed with their Federal return. These “human scanners” could actually be their lowest-paid clerical workers or even temporary contract help.
It would be worth it for the FTB to go thru all this for its “debut tax year (2012)” this because the prevention of present and future deductibility of MR is for the life of the taxpayer’s ownership of that parcel if that ownership period does not exceed the life of the bonds . . . a potentially long-overlooked HUGE income tax revenue stream to the State!
Edit: Here is the actual link referred to by First Tuesday:
https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/Real_Estate_Tax_Deduction/index.shtml
February 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM in reply to: State tax deductibility of all Mello-Roos charges threatened beginning tax year 2012 #738406Participant[quote=flu]I’m pretty sure CA is not going be looking much at anyting.
You really think CA has enough auditors to be auditing? They can barely process the tax returns on time with all the budget cuts.[/quote]
This is not rocket science, flu. All the FTB has to do is set their software up to trigger line 73? on Form 540, if filled, and if the scanned tax bill is not included with the return and an explanation of what is deductible and non-deductible, that return will be set aside and flagged for a letter to the taxpayer and/or refusal of the entire property tax deduction and a new tax calculated.
Obviously, they will have to have workers to go thru the mailed Form 540’s by hand (small percentage?), as well as biz returns filed by mail to flag the returns which did not include the proper paperwork for a property tax deduction.
Shorter Form 540’s (ES/EZ etc) don’t take itemized deductions so they are exempt from review.
I have no doubt there will be new forms invented by tax year 2012 to assist the CA taxpayer with itemizing their property tax deductions.
This is a big potential source of income to the state and they have been asleep at the switch all these years letting taxpayers get by with claiming improvement bonds that were not part of their “property taxes” to claim.
February 21, 2012 at 12:31 PM in reply to: State tax deductibility of all Mello-Roos charges threatened beginning tax year 2012 #738399Participant[quote=UCGal] . . . Looking at the other bonds- which are tied to the value of the house – it appears they are not neighborhood specific, so probably still deductable.[/quote]
UCGal, I thought the same thing about these smallish (“universal” charges) when reading this. It appears the 1% tied to the property’s assessed value is the “ad-valoream” portion of the tax bill and will continue to be deductible.
Participant[quote=Jacarandoso]I agree with BG.
The terrible investment theory makes no sense unless you cherry pick.Cherry pick in favor of a large set of different people and different houses and it’s a totally different story.[/quote]
Yeah, “cherry-picking” the currently (anything could change) “well-heeled” set that was rooked into agreeing to no-doubt exorbitant MR and a min of 50 mins underground on a BART train to Jack London Square (OAK) or 1+ hrs to the Embarcadero (SF) – and that’s after traveling to Dublin to the park-n-ride to board! Not to mention boarding a SAMTRANS bus (or light rail) afterwards for any Silicon Valley job they might have.
OR traversing the SF Bay, SM or Dumbarton bridge to work by car 1 – 1.5 hrs one way (depending on city of employment).
Good L@rd!!
If they’re lucky enough to have their employer in Alameda or Contra Costa County, they are MUCH better off!
I fail to see here where Arzaga’s “local” clients are having such a “wonderful `lifestyle,'” lol …
February 17, 2012 at 11:02 PM in reply to: OT:Looming Disaster for the Temecula Area: Liberty Quarry/Mega Mine #738280Participant[quote=paramount]…They could choose to sue the county, but on what basis; because they didn’t get their way?…[/quote]
It has nothing to do with this. It has to do with the fact that the county may have not performed their “ministerial duty” or performed it properly. The quarry could allege that the county succumbed to (political) NIMBYism pressure instead of following the law or the rules/directives set forth by the county’s own ordinances and/or Charter.
My experience has told me that we shouldn’t count our chickens before they actually hatch. We have no way of knowing which remedy (if any) the quarry will try to resurrect their rights in this case.
Stay tuned. It’s never over ’til it’s over …
ParticipantExamining 250 properties around the U.S., and going through close to 40 client files to project the financial impact of owning real estate versus liquidating it, Arzaga, an adjunct professor in personal finance at the University of California at Berkeley, found that, “100 percent of the time it was better to rent, rather than own.”
That’s right: 100 percent.
I don’t know who Arzaga’s clients are, but I don’t agree with this statement. Many thousands of people have mortgage payments of $400 to $1200 mo (PI only). Yes … even in CA.
The article states he lives in a 5000 sf home in San Ramon. I’m from that area and can competently attest that it used to be a “hick town.” Back in the day, it had a church, graveyard and a handful of small biz. It must be another mcmansion-laden suburban megalopolis by now, lol.
The average USA homeowner doesn’t live in one of those.
McBride crunched the numbers in a pre-bubble era (2004) for a home purchased at $200,000 by a buyer in the 27 percent marginal tax bracket. Factoring in a 30-year mortgage, $1,200 in annual home insurance, closing costs of $5,500 and maintenance costs of $100 a month, along with property taxes, he calculated that it would take a selling price, 10 years later, of $395,404 just to break even. His conclusion gave Arzaga’s view credence: “Homeownership may not be the moneymaker you think it is.”
He’s probably factoring in a 2% (of assessed value) or higher property tax (as with most states or CA subdivisions with MR). In addition, he doesn’t appear to be factoring in the effect of taking the MID.
Hands down, owning makes a LOT more sense, esp for a family with pets … or horses or other large animals. In most markets, it’s cheaper than renting …. of course, NOT if one will live in nothing less than a 5000 sf “mcmansion.”
-
AuthorPosts
