Mello-Roos of Irvine

@subsolar and everyone else - nowhere in that letter does it say MR is dedectible. If anything, it is explicit in saying that MR for sidewalks and streets (which is what MR is for) is not deductible. California did say that essentially they will not look for it, but again, that doesn't make it deductible. Just like the DOJ has been instructed to leave marijuana dispensaries alone, someone new can come into California and be a stickler and go after people that deducted it.
 
Where can I read about what exactly mello roos is spent on?

Per the 2012 dated IRS letter:

Assessments on real property owners, based other than on the assessed value of the property, may be
deductible if they are levied for the general public welfare by a proper taxing authority at
a like rate on owners of all properties in the taxing authority?s jurisdiction, and if the
assessments are not for local benefits (unless for maintenance or interest charges).
Click to expand...

So if an assessment on real property owners is spent on local benefits other than maintenance and interest, it's not deductible.  Okay. 

Every resident better back out a portion of their regular property tax because some of it makes it's way back to expand local school/police/fire/road services via state transfer payments to local governments.

What is local?  Within 500 yards? 1 mile? 10 miles?

Local to who?  The tax payer?  The property?  What if the tax payer pays mello roos on a property but lives 100 miles away in an area where he receives no local benefit from the mello roos, is it deductible then since it's not local to the tax payer?

What if the mello roos goes towards building a park that is public to anyone in the world?  Isn't that more than just a local benefit?

What if the mello roos goes towards building a school near the property but the resident/owner is impotent and childless forever or send them to private school?  That school is providing no local benefit to the property/owner.

Surely some of these "local benefits" actually benefit more than just the locals, right?  Good parks, schools, roads, neighborhoods provide a benefit to the entire city, future residents, visitors, neighboring cities, and the entire state when they show high marks to meet federal funding criteria.

If it's a tax is levied on a property, call it as such and make it deductible.  Don't call it a fee.  Don't name it after some people whose legacy is a piece of legislation.  Call it a property tax and treat it like all other property tax.

If it's an installment payment secured by a house to pay off the land preparation so the developer hit their margins with the help of a subsidy, call it a shady installment payment secured via lien to spread the full purchase price into the future.  Do not allow home builders to advertise it as part of the tax rate.  I would love to receive a new home brochure that listed "Shady corporatocracy made lien - $3,000 per year for 40 years and maybe more because things"  Or like the truth in lending disclosures where they are required to show you the total amount of principle + interest due to be repaid in a clear understandable way printed in normal sized font top of the page.

If it's an installment payment to pay off a loan used to construct local parks/schools to service additional citizens because the city/county couldn't pay for it out of their general fund and is obsessed with open space and blue ribbons, well... call it a tax and make it deductible.
 
qwerty said:
@subsolar and everyone else - nowhere in that letter does it say MR is dedectible. If anything, it is explicit in saying that MR for sidewalks and streets (which is what MR is for) is not deductible. California did say that essentially they will not look for it, but again, that doesn't make it deductible. Just like the DOJ has been instructed to leave marijuana dispensaries alone, someone new can come into California and be a stickler and go after people that deducted it.
Click to expand...
This again?

I used to be on the side of MRs not being deductible because it's not totally for "local benefit" (as someguy also pointed out) but there was another thread somewhere that pointed out if the state could not make it easy to discern which taxes are not ad-valorem, the taxpayer could deduct the entire amount.

Supposedly the state was supposed to change the tax bill to specifically show this, but did not go through with it, thus making the entire tax bill deductible (you can figure out what is MRs and what isn't on the breakdown, but you have to know what you're looking for which can be argued is not consumer friendly).

Can it be technically argued otherwise? Yes (which we have done ad nausea on TI) , but until there is an official change stating such, taxpayers are probably safe deducting MRs too (but I am not a tax attorney or a CPA).

Local benefit or not, even though MRs are not ad-valorem (although they are based on type/size of property), they are a "tax" and should be deductible.
 
Yeah, I think you should deduct MR. The worst that could happen is you'll owe it later plus interest. I don't think they'll throw you in jail for deducting MR, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
 
SubSolar said:
Yeah, I think you should deduct MR. The worst that could happen is you'll owe it later plus interest. I don't think they'll throw you in jail for deducting MR, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Right on.  Most of the time it's not worth their time anyways.
 
@qwerty - you pay a good amount of MR.  Do you really not tax deduct this yourself?  It's the only way I can stomach paying mine, knowing that it'll help a bit come tax season.
 
aquabliss said:
@qwerty - you pay a good amount of MR.  Do you really not tax deduct this yourself?  It's the only way I can stomach paying mine, knowing that it'll help a bit come tax season.
Click to expand...

I don't get any federal benefit because we make too much money, for state though, we do get a benefit of about 10% of the deduction. I'm not saying don't deduct it. I'm just saying technically it's not deductible. They should be deductible since it smells land looks like a tax.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
#OnePercenterProblem

:)
Click to expand...

Not anymore...AMT is hitting just about every middle/upper middle class family these days.  And to think it was designed to go after a handful of millionaires who paid 0 taxes decades ago...
 
gasman said:
irvinehomeowner said:
#OnePercenterProblem

:)
Click to expand...

Not anymore...AMT is hitting just about every middle/upper middle class family these days.  And to think it was designed to go after a handful of millionaires who paid 0 taxes decades ago...
Click to expand...
I would change that to upper middle class. Middle class families can't possibly be getting hit by AMT. 
 
Bullsback said:
gasman said:
irvinehomeowner said:
#OnePercenterProblem

:)
Click to expand...

Not anymore...AMT is hitting just about every middle/upper middle class family these days.  And to think it was designed to go after a handful of millionaires who paid 0 taxes decades ago...
Click to expand...
I would change that to upper middle class. Middle class families can't possibly be getting hit by AMT. 
Click to expand...

Quote from 2015 CNN article - "This year, the Tax Policy Center estimates that 953,000 of households making between $50,000 and $200,000 will have to pay the AMT."

It hits more in high income tax states such as CA.
 
Hearing all this talk about MR's...makes my baker ranch purchase feel so much better haha  >:D I know many people here are anti Baker ranch at TI but no MR was a huge factor for poor folks like me.  It was the equivalent for me buying a house $100k more expensive at the same monthly payment.

I used to own in cypress village and paying that MR would eat at my soul every month...unless I hit the lotto, probably priced out of new communities in Irvine for many years or I'll just buy resale in older parts in Irvine. 
 
SoclosetoIrvine said:
Hearing all this talk about MR's...makes my baker ranch purchase feel so much better haha  >:D I know many people here are anti Baker ranch at TI but no MR was a huge factor for poor folks like me.  It was the equivalent for me buying a house $100k more expensive at the same monthly payment.

I used to own in cypress village and paying that MR would eat at my soul every month...unless I hit the lotto, probably priced out of new communities in Irvine for many years or I'll just buy resale in older parts in Irvine.
Click to expand...

Meloroos sounds like something fun... at least that's what I tell myself at night.  ;)
 
Can new owners of Eeatwood confirm if their CFD tax consists of R2: CFD 86-1 and R0: CFD 09-1.

The total CFD in EW is around $1,700 and that is similar to to other adjacent villages which consist of R2 CFD 86-1 (around $625) and R0 09-1 (around $1,080).

If that's is correct, the EW's property tax will drop by $625 by the end of 2020 since that R2 CFD 86-1 expires in 9-1-20. 

Here's partial list of taxes in EW (the total is excluding the base tax):

Avalon:
Base: 1.05%
AD Tax: $950
CFD Tax: $1700
Other Tax: $164
Total: $2814

Belvedere:
Base: 1.05%
AD Tax: $1350
CFD Tax: $1700
Other Tax: $164
Total: $3214

Calistoga:
Base: 1.05%
AD Tax: $1425
CFD Tax: $1700
Other Tax: $406
Total: $3531

Helena:
Base: 1.05%
AD Tax: $1050
CFD Tax: $1700
Other Tax: $164
Total: $2914

Marin:
Base: 1.05%
AD Tax: $1200
CFD Tax: $1700
Other Tax: $167
Total: $3067

Petaluma:
Base: 1.05%
AD Tax: $1150
CFD Tax: $1700
Other Tax: $164
Total: $3014

Piedmont:
Base: 1.05%
AD Tax: $1200
CFD Tax: $1700
Other Tax: $167
Total: $3067
 
Bringing up an old thread but is there any sort of map or source that clearly shows me what neighborhoods have what CFD?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top