[SK in CV]

Probably getting a bit off topic here, however…

[quote=Shadowfax]
Foreign corporations do have to register, but only if they are conducting business. owning a residence is not “doing business” in CA. In fact, many states provide that as an exception to what constitutes doing business. And most states require some documentation reporting who the directors or officers of a corporation (or members/managers for an LLC) are. These records are not always available via the internet, but can be obtained (for a small fee) by the public by requesting the records from the Secretary of State or some equivalent agency.

Buying the corporation (foreign or domestic) is not that big a deal if the only asset is the real property. But a better way might be to just have the entity sell the real property to the buyer, then dissolve the entity.[/quote]

I’ll take your word for it that owning a house (or a piece of vacant land for that matter) doesn’t qualify as “doing business”, and if we’re assuming that the property is a personal residence, we’ve got the imputed income issue of fair rent for the property. That would qualify as doing business, whether rent is actually being collected or not. If it’s a piece of rental property, same thing, collecting rent would be “doing business”.

Another issue is that corporations aren’t entitled to the personal residence tax exclusion ($250K for single, $500K for married), so any gain would be fully taxable at corporate rates. And for either rental property or personal residence (though inside a corporation, i’m not sure how it could be anything but rental property if someone is living in the house) a corporation would pay at full rates, there’s no lower tax for corporations for capital gains. That’s also a problem with selling the whole corporation. The buyers wouldn’t be entitled to adjust the basis of the asset upon sale. Doesn’t matter what they paid for the corporation stock, the gain would still be computed based on what the corporation paid for the property (adjusted for any depreciation, whether taken or not). Which is one of the many reasons that anyone with good advisors would ever buy a corporation whose only asset is a piece of property. There is just no upside and plenty of downside.

And we have the whole issue of the 3.5% california withholding on the gross sales price, when the property is sold. Can’t get around it if the seller is a foreign corporation, like you can if it’s the sale of a primary residence.

Conclusion is, that if the goal is protecting privacy on the purchase of a personal residence, a corporation is NOT the way to go. There may be a way to do it. But this isn’t it.

[SK in CV]

Probably getting a bit off topic here, however…

[quote=Shadowfax]
Foreign corporations do have to register, but only if they are conducting business. owning a residence is not “doing business” in CA. In fact, many states provide that as an exception to what constitutes doing business. And most states require some documentation reporting who the directors or officers of a corporation (or members/managers for an LLC) are. These records are not always available via the internet, but can be obtained (for a small fee) by the public by requesting the records from the Secretary of State or some equivalent agency.

Buying the corporation (foreign or domestic) is not that big a deal if the only asset is the real property. But a better way might be to just have the entity sell the real property to the buyer, then dissolve the entity.[/quote]

I’ll take your word for it that owning a house (or a piece of vacant land for that matter) doesn’t qualify as “doing business”, and if we’re assuming that the property is a personal residence, we’ve got the imputed income issue of fair rent for the property. That would qualify as doing business, whether rent is actually being collected or not. If it’s a piece of rental property, same thing, collecting rent would be “doing business”.

Another issue is that corporations aren’t entitled to the personal residence tax exclusion ($250K for single, $500K for married), so any gain would be fully taxable at corporate rates. And for either rental property or personal residence (though inside a corporation, i’m not sure how it could be anything but rental property if someone is living in the house) a corporation would pay at full rates, there’s no lower tax for corporations for capital gains. That’s also a problem with selling the whole corporation. The buyers wouldn’t be entitled to adjust the basis of the asset upon sale. Doesn’t matter what they paid for the corporation stock, the gain would still be computed based on what the corporation paid for the property (adjusted for any depreciation, whether taken or not). Which is one of the many reasons that anyone with good advisors would ever buy a corporation whose only asset is a piece of property. There is just no upside and plenty of downside.

And we have the whole issue of the 3.5% california withholding on the gross sales price, when the property is sold. Can’t get around it if the seller is a foreign corporation, like you can if it’s the sale of a primary residence.

Conclusion is, that if the goal is protecting privacy on the purchase of a personal residence, a corporation is NOT the way to go. There may be a way to do it. But this isn’t it.

[SK in CV]

Probably getting a bit off topic here, however…

[quote=Shadowfax]
Foreign corporations do have to register, but only if they are conducting business. owning a residence is not “doing business” in CA. In fact, many states provide that as an exception to what constitutes doing business. And most states require some documentation reporting who the directors or officers of a corporation (or members/managers for an LLC) are. These records are not always available via the internet, but can be obtained (for a small fee) by the public by requesting the records from the Secretary of State or some equivalent agency.

Buying the corporation (foreign or domestic) is not that big a deal if the only asset is the real property. But a better way might be to just have the entity sell the real property to the buyer, then dissolve the entity.[/quote]

I’ll take your word for it that owning a house (or a piece of vacant land for that matter) doesn’t qualify as “doing business”, and if we’re assuming that the property is a personal residence, we’ve got the imputed income issue of fair rent for the property. That would qualify as doing business, whether rent is actually being collected or not. If it’s a piece of rental property, same thing, collecting rent would be “doing business”.

Another issue is that corporations aren’t entitled to the personal residence tax exclusion ($250K for single, $500K for married), so any gain would be fully taxable at corporate rates. And for either rental property or personal residence (though inside a corporation, i’m not sure how it could be anything but rental property if someone is living in the house) a corporation would pay at full rates, there’s no lower tax for corporations for capital gains. That’s also a problem with selling the whole corporation. The buyers wouldn’t be entitled to adjust the basis of the asset upon sale. Doesn’t matter what they paid for the corporation stock, the gain would still be computed based on what the corporation paid for the property (adjusted for any depreciation, whether taken or not). Which is one of the many reasons that anyone with good advisors would ever buy a corporation whose only asset is a piece of property. There is just no upside and plenty of downside.

And we have the whole issue of the 3.5% california withholding on the gross sales price, when the property is sold. Can’t get around it if the seller is a foreign corporation, like you can if it’s the sale of a primary residence.

Conclusion is, that if the goal is protecting privacy on the purchase of a personal residence, a corporation is NOT the way to go. There may be a way to do it. But this isn’t it.

[SK in CV]

Probably getting a bit off topic here, however…

[quote=Shadowfax]
Foreign corporations do have to register, but only if they are conducting business. owning a residence is not “doing business” in CA. In fact, many states provide that as an exception to what constitutes doing business. And most states require some documentation reporting who the directors or officers of a corporation (or members/managers for an LLC) are. These records are not always available via the internet, but can be obtained (for a small fee) by the public by requesting the records from the Secretary of State or some equivalent agency.

Buying the corporation (foreign or domestic) is not that big a deal if the only asset is the real property. But a better way might be to just have the entity sell the real property to the buyer, then dissolve the entity.[/quote]

I’ll take your word for it that owning a house (or a piece of vacant land for that matter) doesn’t qualify as “doing business”, and if we’re assuming that the property is a personal residence, we’ve got the imputed income issue of fair rent for the property. That would qualify as doing business, whether rent is actually being collected or not. If it’s a piece of rental property, same thing, collecting rent would be “doing business”.

Another issue is that corporations aren’t entitled to the personal residence tax exclusion ($250K for single, $500K for married), so any gain would be fully taxable at corporate rates. And for either rental property or personal residence (though inside a corporation, i’m not sure how it could be anything but rental property if someone is living in the house) a corporation would pay at full rates, there’s no lower tax for corporations for capital gains. That’s also a problem with selling the whole corporation. The buyers wouldn’t be entitled to adjust the basis of the asset upon sale. Doesn’t matter what they paid for the corporation stock, the gain would still be computed based on what the corporation paid for the property (adjusted for any depreciation, whether taken or not). Which is one of the many reasons that anyone with good advisors would ever buy a corporation whose only asset is a piece of property. There is just no upside and plenty of downside.

And we have the whole issue of the 3.5% california withholding on the gross sales price, when the property is sold. Can’t get around it if the seller is a foreign corporation, like you can if it’s the sale of a primary residence.

Conclusion is, that if the goal is protecting privacy on the purchase of a personal residence, a corporation is NOT the way to go. There may be a way to do it. But this isn’t it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hatfield]Let’s assume that this was a cash purchase. In some states (Nevada? Colorado?) the officers of a corporation are not a matter of public record. So it seems that you could form such a corporation in one of these states and then have the corporation buy the property.

In fact, assuming that’s possible, it seems like you could later sell the property without having the sale recorded or the property re-assessed, simply by selling the corporation.

There has to be a catch. What have I missed?[/quote]

A few problems.

First, a corporation formed in a different state must register with the state of CA before doing business here. I suspect, though I’m not positive, that purchasing real property would qualify as “doing business”. A foreign corporation has to file similar documents with the secretary of state as domestic corps, identifying officers and an agent for service of process.

Second, who’s going to buy the corporation (an out of state corp at that) and assume potential liablities of that corporation, the tax and legal headaches that would go along with maintaining the corporation and even bigger headaches of liquidating it. And legally, that transfer would have to be reported to the county assessor by the beginning of May following the sale if not sooner.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hatfield]Let’s assume that this was a cash purchase. In some states (Nevada? Colorado?) the officers of a corporation are not a matter of public record. So it seems that you could form such a corporation in one of these states and then have the corporation buy the property.

In fact, assuming that’s possible, it seems like you could later sell the property without having the sale recorded or the property re-assessed, simply by selling the corporation.

There has to be a catch. What have I missed?[/quote]

A few problems.

First, a corporation formed in a different state must register with the state of CA before doing business here. I suspect, though I’m not positive, that purchasing real property would qualify as “doing business”. A foreign corporation has to file similar documents with the secretary of state as domestic corps, identifying officers and an agent for service of process.

Second, who’s going to buy the corporation (an out of state corp at that) and assume potential liablities of that corporation, the tax and legal headaches that would go along with maintaining the corporation and even bigger headaches of liquidating it. And legally, that transfer would have to be reported to the county assessor by the beginning of May following the sale if not sooner.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hatfield]Let’s assume that this was a cash purchase. In some states (Nevada? Colorado?) the officers of a corporation are not a matter of public record. So it seems that you could form such a corporation in one of these states and then have the corporation buy the property.

In fact, assuming that’s possible, it seems like you could later sell the property without having the sale recorded or the property re-assessed, simply by selling the corporation.

There has to be a catch. What have I missed?[/quote]

A few problems.

First, a corporation formed in a different state must register with the state of CA before doing business here. I suspect, though I’m not positive, that purchasing real property would qualify as “doing business”. A foreign corporation has to file similar documents with the secretary of state as domestic corps, identifying officers and an agent for service of process.

Second, who’s going to buy the corporation (an out of state corp at that) and assume potential liablities of that corporation, the tax and legal headaches that would go along with maintaining the corporation and even bigger headaches of liquidating it. And legally, that transfer would have to be reported to the county assessor by the beginning of May following the sale if not sooner.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hatfield]Let’s assume that this was a cash purchase. In some states (Nevada? Colorado?) the officers of a corporation are not a matter of public record. So it seems that you could form such a corporation in one of these states and then have the corporation buy the property.

In fact, assuming that’s possible, it seems like you could later sell the property without having the sale recorded or the property re-assessed, simply by selling the corporation.

There has to be a catch. What have I missed?[/quote]

A few problems.

First, a corporation formed in a different state must register with the state of CA before doing business here. I suspect, though I’m not positive, that purchasing real property would qualify as “doing business”. A foreign corporation has to file similar documents with the secretary of state as domestic corps, identifying officers and an agent for service of process.

Second, who’s going to buy the corporation (an out of state corp at that) and assume potential liablities of that corporation, the tax and legal headaches that would go along with maintaining the corporation and even bigger headaches of liquidating it. And legally, that transfer would have to be reported to the county assessor by the beginning of May following the sale if not sooner.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hatfield]Let’s assume that this was a cash purchase. In some states (Nevada? Colorado?) the officers of a corporation are not a matter of public record. So it seems that you could form such a corporation in one of these states and then have the corporation buy the property.

In fact, assuming that’s possible, it seems like you could later sell the property without having the sale recorded or the property re-assessed, simply by selling the corporation.

There has to be a catch. What have I missed?[/quote]

A few problems.

First, a corporation formed in a different state must register with the state of CA before doing business here. I suspect, though I’m not positive, that purchasing real property would qualify as “doing business”. A foreign corporation has to file similar documents with the secretary of state as domestic corps, identifying officers and an agent for service of process.

Second, who’s going to buy the corporation (an out of state corp at that) and assume potential liablities of that corporation, the tax and legal headaches that would go along with maintaining the corporation and even bigger headaches of liquidating it. And legally, that transfer would have to be reported to the county assessor by the beginning of May following the sale if not sooner.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]SK in CV, I don’t know how 60 minutes came to that conclusion, then. IMO, insurance companies and Medicare should be willing to pay for hospice up to six months or about $50K. Acc. to 60 minutes, that’s roughly five days in the ICU.[/quote]

Not sure, I’ll take a look at the video later. But the date on the article is 11/22/09. The bill underwent hundreds, maybe thousands of changes before it passed 4 months later.

Medicare does pay for hospice. As does most private medical insurance (in addition to Medi-Cal and TRICARE). For those uninsured or covered by private insurance that doesn’t include hospice care, hospice care is still available at little or no cost for those that can’t afford it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]SK in CV, I don’t know how 60 minutes came to that conclusion, then. IMO, insurance companies and Medicare should be willing to pay for hospice up to six months or about $50K. Acc. to 60 minutes, that’s roughly five days in the ICU.[/quote]

Not sure, I’ll take a look at the video later. But the date on the article is 11/22/09. The bill underwent hundreds, maybe thousands of changes before it passed 4 months later.

Medicare does pay for hospice. As does most private medical insurance (in addition to Medi-Cal and TRICARE). For those uninsured or covered by private insurance that doesn’t include hospice care, hospice care is still available at little or no cost for those that can’t afford it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]SK in CV, I don’t know how 60 minutes came to that conclusion, then. IMO, insurance companies and Medicare should be willing to pay for hospice up to six months or about $50K. Acc. to 60 minutes, that’s roughly five days in the ICU.[/quote]

Not sure, I’ll take a look at the video later. But the date on the article is 11/22/09. The bill underwent hundreds, maybe thousands of changes before it passed 4 months later.

Medicare does pay for hospice. As does most private medical insurance (in addition to Medi-Cal and TRICARE). For those uninsured or covered by private insurance that doesn’t include hospice care, hospice care is still available at little or no cost for those that can’t afford it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]SK in CV, I don’t know how 60 minutes came to that conclusion, then. IMO, insurance companies and Medicare should be willing to pay for hospice up to six months or about $50K. Acc. to 60 minutes, that’s roughly five days in the ICU.[/quote]

Not sure, I’ll take a look at the video later. But the date on the article is 11/22/09. The bill underwent hundreds, maybe thousands of changes before it passed 4 months later.

Medicare does pay for hospice. As does most private medical insurance (in addition to Medi-Cal and TRICARE). For those uninsured or covered by private insurance that doesn’t include hospice care, hospice care is still available at little or no cost for those that can’t afford it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]SK in CV, I don’t know how 60 minutes came to that conclusion, then. IMO, insurance companies and Medicare should be willing to pay for hospice up to six months or about $50K. Acc. to 60 minutes, that’s roughly five days in the ICU.[/quote]

Not sure, I’ll take a look at the video later. But the date on the article is 11/22/09. The bill underwent hundreds, maybe thousands of changes before it passed 4 months later.

Medicare does pay for hospice. As does most private medical insurance (in addition to Medi-Cal and TRICARE). For those uninsured or covered by private insurance that doesn’t include hospice care, hospice care is still available at little or no cost for those that can’t afford it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
The second refers to the statement that was made that the (HCRA of 2010) “reduces Medicare payments for hospice programs that studies have shown to be very cost efficient.”

[/quote]

There are no absolute cuts in the act that specifically target hospice. There are (almost) across the board cuts in whats called the “market basket increase”. This isn’t technically a cut, but rather a reduction in possible increases in reimbursements. Additionally, there is a provision for some possible (maybe probable?) additional cuts related to revenue neutrality subject to negotiations of per diem rates with major hospice providers. But nothing that I’ve found that specifies any reduction in covered services. There are quite a few quality of care surveys specified in the plan. Some of these may ultimately set and/or reduce some limits for hospice coverage.

[Author]

Posts