[equalizer]

A little known secret, but Klansman Byrd was responsible for the “race calls” about McCain in 2000 in SC.

Another secret is that in 2007, 74.56% of Klan members in south are Democrats and support Clinton. (+/- 74% margin of error)

[equalizer]

Am I to believe that no one here is a CPA or has never asked their CPA for detailed example??? I’ll bet 99% of MR is deducted, so dont ask, dont tell.

Lets please have a CPA give a few examples because Not one CPA in this state wants to answer that question!!! The CA FTB deflects question to IRS and the IRS gives generic answer with no examples. The FTB hints that generally answer is no, but REFUSES to provide examples, IRS refuses to provide examples, as do CPAs and tax lawyers. Maybe they want to bill $500/hr for 10 hours to answer no.

This question is not as complicated as those fancy FPGA thingamagics that SDR designs. If the IRS, FTB, cant provide reasonable guidance, then 99% are out of strict compliance.

[equalizer]

Am I to believe that no one here is a CPA or has never asked their CPA for detailed example??? I’ll bet 99% of MR is deducted, so dont ask, dont tell.

Lets please have a CPA give a few examples because Not one CPA in this state wants to answer that question!!! The CA FTB deflects question to IRS and the IRS gives generic answer with no examples. The FTB hints that generally answer is no, but REFUSES to provide examples, IRS refuses to provide examples, as do CPAs and tax lawyers. Maybe they want to bill $500/hr for 10 hours to answer no.

This question is not as complicated as those fancy FPGA thingamagics that SDR designs. If the IRS, FTB, cant provide reasonable guidance, then 99% are out of strict compliance.

[equalizer]

Am I to believe that no one here is a CPA or has never asked their CPA for detailed example??? I’ll bet 99% of MR is deducted, so dont ask, dont tell.

Lets please have a CPA give a few examples because Not one CPA in this state wants to answer that question!!! The CA FTB deflects question to IRS and the IRS gives generic answer with no examples. The FTB hints that generally answer is no, but REFUSES to provide examples, IRS refuses to provide examples, as do CPAs and tax lawyers. Maybe they want to bill $500/hr for 10 hours to answer no.

This question is not as complicated as those fancy FPGA thingamagics that SDR designs. If the IRS, FTB, cant provide reasonable guidance, then 99% are out of strict compliance.

[equalizer]

Am I to believe that no one here is a CPA or has never asked their CPA for detailed example??? I’ll bet 99% of MR is deducted, so dont ask, dont tell.

Lets please have a CPA give a few examples because Not one CPA in this state wants to answer that question!!! The CA FTB deflects question to IRS and the IRS gives generic answer with no examples. The FTB hints that generally answer is no, but REFUSES to provide examples, IRS refuses to provide examples, as do CPAs and tax lawyers. Maybe they want to bill $500/hr for 10 hours to answer no.

This question is not as complicated as those fancy FPGA thingamagics that SDR designs. If the IRS, FTB, cant provide reasonable guidance, then 99% are out of strict compliance.

[equalizer]

Am I to believe that no one here is a CPA or has never asked their CPA for detailed example??? I’ll bet 99% of MR is deducted, so dont ask, dont tell.

Lets please have a CPA give a few examples because Not one CPA in this state wants to answer that question!!! The CA FTB deflects question to IRS and the IRS gives generic answer with no examples. The FTB hints that generally answer is no, but REFUSES to provide examples, IRS refuses to provide examples, as do CPAs and tax lawyers. Maybe they want to bill $500/hr for 10 hours to answer no.

This question is not as complicated as those fancy FPGA thingamagics that SDR designs. If the IRS, FTB, cant provide reasonable guidance, then 99% are out of strict compliance.

[equalizer]

SDR,

You are (for once) not correct by stating simple NO.
Since there is NO detailed answer on web, we must read and interpret.
CA FTB defelect to IRS Chapter 22:

“Taxes for local benefits. Deductible real estate taxes generally do not include taxes charged for local benefits and improvements tending to increase the value of your property. These include assessments for streets, sidewalks, water mains, sewer lines, public parking facilities, and similar improvements. You should increase the basis of your property by the amount of the assessment.

Local benefit taxes are deductible only if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest charges related to those benefits. If only a part of the taxes is for maintenance, repair, or interest, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the deduction. If you cannot determine what part of the tax is for maintenance, repair, or interest, none of it is deductible.”

OK, in plain english, most MR are for school and road bonds, principal and interest. So you can deduct interest for the road, maybe even the schools. However, the part about increasing the basis of property is odd, bet its never used, I bet 99% deduct MR year.

[equalizer]

SDR,

You are (for once) not correct by stating simple NO.
Since there is NO detailed answer on web, we must read and interpret.
CA FTB defelect to IRS Chapter 22:

“Taxes for local benefits. Deductible real estate taxes generally do not include taxes charged for local benefits and improvements tending to increase the value of your property. These include assessments for streets, sidewalks, water mains, sewer lines, public parking facilities, and similar improvements. You should increase the basis of your property by the amount of the assessment.

Local benefit taxes are deductible only if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest charges related to those benefits. If only a part of the taxes is for maintenance, repair, or interest, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the deduction. If you cannot determine what part of the tax is for maintenance, repair, or interest, none of it is deductible.”

OK, in plain english, most MR are for school and road bonds, principal and interest. So you can deduct interest for the road, maybe even the schools. However, the part about increasing the basis of property is odd, bet its never used, I bet 99% deduct MR year.

[equalizer]

SDR,

You are (for once) not correct by stating simple NO.
Since there is NO detailed answer on web, we must read and interpret.
CA FTB defelect to IRS Chapter 22:

“Taxes for local benefits. Deductible real estate taxes generally do not include taxes charged for local benefits and improvements tending to increase the value of your property. These include assessments for streets, sidewalks, water mains, sewer lines, public parking facilities, and similar improvements. You should increase the basis of your property by the amount of the assessment.

Local benefit taxes are deductible only if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest charges related to those benefits. If only a part of the taxes is for maintenance, repair, or interest, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the deduction. If you cannot determine what part of the tax is for maintenance, repair, or interest, none of it is deductible.”

OK, in plain english, most MR are for school and road bonds, principal and interest. So you can deduct interest for the road, maybe even the schools. However, the part about increasing the basis of property is odd, bet its never used, I bet 99% deduct MR year.

[equalizer]

SDR,

You are (for once) not correct by stating simple NO.
Since there is NO detailed answer on web, we must read and interpret.
CA FTB defelect to IRS Chapter 22:

“Taxes for local benefits. Deductible real estate taxes generally do not include taxes charged for local benefits and improvements tending to increase the value of your property. These include assessments for streets, sidewalks, water mains, sewer lines, public parking facilities, and similar improvements. You should increase the basis of your property by the amount of the assessment.

Local benefit taxes are deductible only if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest charges related to those benefits. If only a part of the taxes is for maintenance, repair, or interest, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the deduction. If you cannot determine what part of the tax is for maintenance, repair, or interest, none of it is deductible.”

OK, in plain english, most MR are for school and road bonds, principal and interest. So you can deduct interest for the road, maybe even the schools. However, the part about increasing the basis of property is odd, bet its never used, I bet 99% deduct MR year.

[equalizer]

SDR,

You are (for once) not correct by stating simple NO.
Since there is NO detailed answer on web, we must read and interpret.
CA FTB defelect to IRS Chapter 22:

“Taxes for local benefits. Deductible real estate taxes generally do not include taxes charged for local benefits and improvements tending to increase the value of your property. These include assessments for streets, sidewalks, water mains, sewer lines, public parking facilities, and similar improvements. You should increase the basis of your property by the amount of the assessment.

Local benefit taxes are deductible only if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest charges related to those benefits. If only a part of the taxes is for maintenance, repair, or interest, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the deduction. If you cannot determine what part of the tax is for maintenance, repair, or interest, none of it is deductible.”

OK, in plain english, most MR are for school and road bonds, principal and interest. So you can deduct interest for the road, maybe even the schools. However, the part about increasing the basis of property is odd, bet its never used, I bet 99% deduct MR year.

[equalizer]

TG,

Philadelphia Ordinance An ordinance banning predatory lending, banning public investment in predatory lenders, and requiring loan counseling for borrowers of high-cost loans was passed by the unanimous vote of the Philadelphia City Council in April 2001. It was overturned by state legislation in June 2001.

A working reseach paper looked into loan laws: "State and Local Anti-Predatory Lending Laws: The Effect of Legal Enforcement Mechanisms" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1005423 Very detailed analysis shows that laws have some effect, but do NOT drive out supply. North Carolina's tough law did not reduce supply overall, for people under 50K, yes it did, for people over 50K income, supply went up.

There was a story in WSJ last month about parties to blame for the loan mess. A few members of Congress tried for some regulation of mortgage industry as did some states. The housing lobby killed all bills and the one that did pass in one state, the lending industy BLACKMAILED the state to repeal the bill. So, this bill may be junk, but it happened becuase the lobby killed good bills years back. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120406115972594515.html

GA had the tough anti-predatory law that would place buyer of predatory loan at risk (aks stolen property) and S&P and Fitch blackmailed the state so they watered it down. Funny how S&P and Fitch were WHOLLY resposible for this subprime mess, yet they interefered with state law that would likely have reduced the mess in the first place. http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/01/regulatory-neglect-and-subprime.html

[equalizer]

TG,

Philadelphia Ordinance An ordinance banning predatory lending, banning public investment in predatory lenders, and requiring loan counseling for borrowers of high-cost loans was passed by the unanimous vote of the Philadelphia City Council in April 2001. It was overturned by state legislation in June 2001.

A working reseach paper looked into loan laws: "State and Local Anti-Predatory Lending Laws: The Effect of Legal Enforcement Mechanisms" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1005423 Very detailed analysis shows that laws have some effect, but do NOT drive out supply. North Carolina's tough law did not reduce supply overall, for people under 50K, yes it did, for people over 50K income, supply went up.

There was a story in WSJ last month about parties to blame for the loan mess. A few members of Congress tried for some regulation of mortgage industry as did some states. The housing lobby killed all bills and the one that did pass in one state, the lending industy BLACKMAILED the state to repeal the bill. So, this bill may be junk, but it happened becuase the lobby killed good bills years back. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120406115972594515.html

GA had the tough anti-predatory law that would place buyer of predatory loan at risk (aks stolen property) and S&P and Fitch blackmailed the state so they watered it down. Funny how S&P and Fitch were WHOLLY resposible for this subprime mess, yet they interefered with state law that would likely have reduced the mess in the first place. http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/01/regulatory-neglect-and-subprime.html

[equalizer]

TG,

Philadelphia Ordinance An ordinance banning predatory lending, banning public investment in predatory lenders, and requiring loan counseling for borrowers of high-cost loans was passed by the unanimous vote of the Philadelphia City Council in April 2001. It was overturned by state legislation in June 2001.

A working reseach paper looked into loan laws: "State and Local Anti-Predatory Lending Laws: The Effect of Legal Enforcement Mechanisms" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1005423 Very detailed analysis shows that laws have some effect, but do NOT drive out supply. North Carolina's tough law did not reduce supply overall, for people under 50K, yes it did, for people over 50K income, supply went up.

There was a story in WSJ last month about parties to blame for the loan mess. A few members of Congress tried for some regulation of mortgage industry as did some states. The housing lobby killed all bills and the one that did pass in one state, the lending industy BLACKMAILED the state to repeal the bill. So, this bill may be junk, but it happened becuase the lobby killed good bills years back. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120406115972594515.html

GA had the tough anti-predatory law that would place buyer of predatory loan at risk (aks stolen property) and S&P and Fitch blackmailed the state so they watered it down. Funny how S&P and Fitch were WHOLLY resposible for this subprime mess, yet they interefered with state law that would likely have reduced the mess in the first place. http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/01/regulatory-neglect-and-subprime.html

[equalizer]

TG,

Philadelphia Ordinance An ordinance banning predatory lending, banning public investment in predatory lenders, and requiring loan counseling for borrowers of high-cost loans was passed by the unanimous vote of the Philadelphia City Council in April 2001. It was overturned by state legislation in June 2001.

A working reseach paper looked into loan laws: "State and Local Anti-Predatory Lending Laws: The Effect of Legal Enforcement Mechanisms" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1005423 Very detailed analysis shows that laws have some effect, but do NOT drive out supply. North Carolina's tough law did not reduce supply overall, for people under 50K, yes it did, for people over 50K income, supply went up.

There was a story in WSJ last month about parties to blame for the loan mess. A few members of Congress tried for some regulation of mortgage industry as did some states. The housing lobby killed all bills and the one that did pass in one state, the lending industy BLACKMAILED the state to repeal the bill. So, this bill may be junk, but it happened becuase the lobby killed good bills years back. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120406115972594515.html

GA had the tough anti-predatory law that would place buyer of predatory loan at risk (aks stolen property) and S&P and Fitch blackmailed the state so they watered it down. Funny how S&P and Fitch were WHOLLY resposible for this subprime mess, yet they interefered with state law that would likely have reduced the mess in the first place. http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/01/regulatory-neglect-and-subprime.html

[Author]

Posts