27 Haziran 2012 Çarşamba

Just another weekend? Not if you take advantage of a great project you can easily pull off for under $300

To contact us Click HERE

Improve your home with a weekend DIY project you can easily pull off for under $300.

Install Window Awnings

Project #2: Install a window awning



The setup:
Summer is super, but too much sunlight from south- and west-facing windows can heat up your interiors and make your AC work overtime. Beat that heat and save energy by using an awning to stop harsh sunlight before it enters your house.

Specs and cost: Residential awnings come in many sizes and colors.   Some are plastic or aluminum, but most are made with weatherproof fabrics.   They’re engineered for wind resistance, and some are retractable.   A 4-foot-wide awning with a 2.5-foot projection is $150-$250.

Tools: Cordless drill/driver; adjustable wrench; tape measure; level.   You can install an awning on any siding surface, but you’ll need a hammer drill to drill holes in brick.   To prevent leaks, fill any drilled holes with silicone sealant before you install screws and bolts.

Time
: 3-4 hours

Source: By: John Riha
Published: May 24, 2012
Featured Single Family Homes
http://McDermondSellsHomes.com

Real Estate News: Do We Need Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

To contact us Click HERE


Do we need Freddie and Fannie?
There’s a flicker of hope despite the nightmarish poverty and unemployment numbers released in the past week.   Signaling that the government is indeed concerned about the housing market situation, top Senate lawmakers started debating housing finance reforms at a Congressional panel.   Among the issues taken up were whether to wind down government backed entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.   Many people following the housing market have wondered, why do we need Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae at this stage in the game?   According to Reuters, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree that the two entities should be “wound down,” but senators can’t decide where the government should have a role in doling out housing finance subsidies.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, was quoted in Reuters saying he is concerned about consequences that might happen if the government completely washes off its hands.   He said that historic low mortgage rates, now around 4 percent, would likely inch upwards.   Peter Wallison, an American Enterprise Institute fellow, argued in favor of a private system to enable investors.   Right now, taxpayers are forced to take the risks the government is taking, he said.

It will be interesting to see how this debate shakes out.   According to Reuters, the first test will come at the month’s end when the conforming loan limit draws back to pre-financial crisis levels.   Lawmakers were warned by industry experts against reducing the size of government-backed mortgages.   According to a Wall Street Journal story, without lawmakers’ intervention the maximum number of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would drop Oct.1.   The paper reported that Democrats representing pricey coastal areas and real estate lobbyists are advocating to block the change, but they have failed to make any headway.   Only a handful Republicans are in their corner, the others want to reduce the mortgage market’s dependency on the government, the paper reported.   For potential homeowners, this would be a good one to follow.   At a time when lending has come under strict scrutiny, it's easier to get the government-backed mortgages than seeking your luck with a private lending agency.

Mortgages are Hard to Get


Buying a house is not as easy as it was a few years ago.   And you may be in for a lot of heartburn when you shop for a loan.   According to a USA Today story, tight lending standards have become a nightmare for consumers trying to get a loan.   The paper reported that home lending standards are at its strictest in decades, making it a struggle for consumers.   Current homeowners also share the pain while looking for refinancing because of dwindling equity in their homes.   The only mantra to get a quick loan these days seems to be enough savings for a hefty down payment and stellar credit scores.   USA Today says these days, despite near-perfect credit scores, consumers "face more demands to prove their incomes, verify assets, show steady employment and explain things such as new credit cards and small bank account deposits.”   And despite the mountain of paperwork, you may still not qualify for the sweetest deal around.   It’s a vicious cycle.   On the one hand, lenders want to make sure that consumers are absolutely able to meet their financial commitments thereby cutting down on foreclosures and arresting falling home prices.   On the other hand, the stringent rules are discouraging customers who have the means and perhaps hurting the industry’s recovery.

Orlando Bucks National Trend


Now for some good news.   Home prices in Disney’s home, Orlando, jumped 15.1 percent in the last year, according to Propertywire.com.   This at a time when Florida, along with California and Arizona, has been declared the worst hit by the housing crisis.   Orlando is a favorite destination for Europeans and folks from other parts of the world.   And they could have a major role in those numbers.   What’s also comforting for the market is that home prices have increased 21.2 percent since January last year.   So, if you are looking to invest, this market may not be a bad one to keep an eye on.

Create a Free Account

Get a home search login to view the most up-to-date home listings in your area. Registration is free and we never sell your information.
http://McDermondSellsHomes.com


Smart Upgrades for Decks

To contact us Click HERE
Upgrade Your Deck

A few cost-effective add-ons can give a modest deck an edge and deliver a handsome payback should you sell your house.


Hidden fasteners for decking


For years now, deck screws have been the fastener of choice.   (Nails, prone to popping out over time, are old news.)   Deck screws come in a useful range of colors, won’t corrode, and hold exceptionally well.   However, even when installed carefully, they cover the deck with rows of little pockmarks—tiny depressions that may have splintered edges and trap dirt.

Enter the hidden fastener.   This clever innovation holds deck planks down while leaving the surface looking sleek and minimalist.   There are scores of hidden fasteners on the market, each of a slightly different design.   One category fastens with a screw to the framing and grips the side of each plank with barbs.   Another fits into a groove in the side of the plank (some composite planks come with this groove) before being fastened to the joist.   Yet another type fastens from underneath the deck, firmly snugging the decking onto the joists.

Hidden fasteners are labor intensive to install, which adds a premium of about $4 per square foot compared with the cost of an installation using deck screws.   However, many deck owners find the investment worthwhile, especially if they have selected composite, vinyl, or premium wood decking and want to show off these materials to best advantage.

Adding style with planters


Planters give a deck character.   The various shapes and sizes of planters add texture and color.   Built-in versions, often made of the same material as the decking, can be positioned to separate seating areas from cooking areas.   When planted with tall plants, such as ornamental grasses, they can act as living privacy screens.

Wood planters typically are lined with galvanized sheet metal, plastic containers, or are built to conceal standard pots that are easily removed for cleaning or planting.   Planters made of pressure-treated wood sometimes forego the liner altogether.

With all built-ins, some means of drainage is necessary, which may mean you’ll have to bore holes in the bottom of the container.   Because excess water will drain from the bottom of your planter, you’ll need to be mindful of where you position the planter.   If you hire a pro to custom build your deck planters, assume a cost of $150 to $250 labor and materials for each lineal foot of a 2-foot deep and 2-foot high built-in planter.

Built-ins aren't your only option.   Home centers offer a wide variety of planters available at prices from $10 to $200.   Ceramic or cement pots can be a decorative feature, running $50 and up for a 2-foot tall container.   Hanging planters (about $25 each) are a great addition to a pergola or trellis. Planters that attach to the railing ($70 for a 40-inch-long terracotta planter with metal holder) all but disappear when filled with plants.

Cable railings


Railings are typically required on any deck when the decking surface is more than 2 feet above ground.   Railings are the most visible part of the deck from ground level and offer a great opportunity to echo the colors and architectural details of your house.   However, if you are lucky enough to a have a scenic vista (or just an awfully nice yard) you won’t want the railing in the way.

One solution is a cable railing--thin stainless steel cables strung tautly between wood or metal posts.   This alternative looks great, preserves the view and, at a cost of about $70 per lineal foot for a pro installation, is about $1,200 more expensive than a standard wood railing for a 16x20-foot deck.   To further spare the budget, consider using cable only where the view is important and use wood elsewhere.   Or, if you are handy, do it yourself for a materials cost of about $25 a lineal foot.

Taming the sun with shade sails


Overhead structures like wood pergolas and trellises help shield a deck from the sun, adding a pleasantly dappled shade pattern.   However, they can be costly to install and challenging to maintain over the years.

Shade sails are a cool, eye-catching alternative.   Made of UV-resistant polyethylene knit fabric, sails are triangular, square, and rectangular, and come in a variety of colors.   They produce a muted, diffuse light, cutting the glare of full sunlight while still permitting light into windows adjacent to the deck.   Shade is not all the sails offer.   Many homeowners consider shade sails a form of aerial sculpture and delight in watching them rise and fall gently in the evening breeze.

Shade sails for a 16 x 20-foot deck would cost about $5,500 when professionally installed.   (Expect to pay at least 30% more for a custom-built pergola of comparable size.)   If you have a smaller installation in mind, you can buy a 12-foot triangular shade at your home center for as little as $200.   However, bear in mind that a sail can exert a mighty force on a windy day and must be attached to the framing of the house or to steel or wooden poles set in concrete.   A professional installation is recommended.
Source: By: Dave TohtPublished: November 25, 2009

Create a Free Account

Get a home search login to view the most up-to-date home listings in your area. Registration is free and we never sell your information.
http://McDermondSellsHomes.com


Close

Neumann University Homecoming 2012

To contact us Click HERE
Homecoming 2012

Save the Date for Homecoming 2012

October 16-21, 2012Celebrating Alumni, Students & Parents 
  • Concert
  • Fireworks
  • Neumannfest Picnic
  • Live Music, Games, Bounces, Funnel Cakes & More
  • Taste of Neumann Pavilion featuring local vendors and their food specialties
  • Hall of Fame and Alumni Awards
  • Scholarship Reception
  • NCAA & Alumni Sporting Events
  • Janet Massey Breast Cancer Scholarship 5K Run (hosted by SIFE)

More info on www.alumni.neumann.edu/homecoming12

Aston Real Estate for Sale

http://McDermondSellsHomes.com




5 Good Reasons to Use an Experienced REALTOR®

To contact us Click HERE
Use an Experienced REALTOR®

Is it smart to buy a home (possibly your largest investment) without representation?

  1. Knowledge is Power.   An experienced REALTOR® has access to information that will help you find the home you want and negotiate the best deal for it.   Someone who has been in business for many years has made contacts with other REALTORS®, homeowners and local businesses.   The have the "inside scoop" on desirable properties that are on the market and those that may soon become available.
  2. Experience is Everything.   There is absolutely nothing that substitutes for experience.   An experienced REALTOR®knows how to research properties that meet your needs, can help you see the potential in the properties that you visit and can help you negotate a favorable contract.
  3. Local Market Expertise.   Most REALTORS®specialize in particular communities.   Your agent should have information about a neighborhood's property value trend, demographics, quality of schools, places of worship and future residential, commercial and road construction.
  4. Skilled Negotiations.   When you find that special home, you'll want to negotiate a favorable contract that closes the deal.   An experienced REALTOR® can guide you through the process of negotiation ~ suggesting terms and conditions that may appeal to both buyer and seller.
  5. Save Time and Money.  Your time is valuable.   You could spend months looking for that perfect house and even longer calling bankers, brokers and credit unions.   Don't.   Use an experienced REALTOR®.   They have the skills and the knowledge to help you find a home quickly, direct you to a competent lender and refer you to proven professionals that will perform the functions needed to make buying a home a smooth one.

Call a Professional you can count on!   610-800-9059.   Look at my resume and testimonials.

http://McDermondSellsHomes.com

     

25 Haziran 2012 Pazartesi

County Commissioners Argue Madison County is Fiscally "Healthy"

To contact us Click HERE
From the Anderson Herald-Bulletin:

In April, the Madison County Council’s Republican majority declared a financial emergency.

Because of a $5.8 million deficit, they said, immediate personnel reductions and other cuts were necessary to keep the county solvent.

The county was headed down the tracks of a budgetary “train wreck,” County Councilman Rick Gardner said at the time.

Last week, however, an independent analyst hired by the Board of County Commissioners presented a different view.

“If they thought there was a $4 million to $5 million shortfall, I think they’re off base,” said Jim Steele, a former controller for the cities of Anderson and Indianapolis. He made that statement in a follow-up interview on Friday.

Steele said the county will end the fiscal year on Dec. 31 with a general-fund balance of $7.4 million.

The general fund is the county’s main bank account, and that $7.4 million represents slightly more than a 20 percent reserve based on the county’s adjusted 2012 budget of $32.5 million, he said.

“Based on the general fund balance, I’d say the county is in pretty good shape,” Steele added.
...
Last fall, over the objections of Gardner and other members who now make up the Republican majority, the county council approved a $33.4 million spending plan for 2012.

The budget was based on projected billed property taxes of $19.7 million, and $15.6 million in miscellaneous income, for a total revenue figure of $35.3 million.

That number does not take into account an adjusted general-fund balance of $9.1 million carried over from fiscal 2011, according to Steele.

Counties never receive all the property taxes they are owed, however.

So-called circuit breaker provisions in Indiana’s property-tax laws designed to protect landowners from large tax increases from one year to the next reduce tax revenue, and some people don’t pay because of financial hardship.

Those factors, Steele said, required a downward adjustment to the county’s projected property tax revenue, which he placed at $15.1 million.

In part based on those projections, the council moved to cut expenses by about $2 million, eliminating jobs in the Information Technology Services department, the election office and on the county commissioner’s staff. They also trimmed health insurance costs.

Those actions lowered the county’s budget to $32.5 million, according to Steele’s figures.

“If the county council had taken no action, the (general) fund balance would have gone down about $3.5 million, which would have been a concern,” Steele told the county commissioners last week.
...
http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x439051135/Financial-analyst-says-Madison-County-in-good-shape

DLGF Publishes Guidance on Demonstrating Need in Excess Levy Appeals

To contact us Click HERE
MEMORANDUM
 TO: All Political Subdivisions
FROM: Brian E. Bailey, Commissioner
RE: Demonstrating Need in Excess Levy Appeals
DATE: June 22, 2012
DEMONSTRATING NEED IN EXCESS LEVY APPEALS
Introduction
This memorandum informs civil taxing units (meaning every taxing unit except school corporations) of the criteria the Department of Local Government Finance (“Department”) uses to determine whether a civil taxing unit (“unit”) is eligible for an excessive maximum levy appeal (“appeal”). Indiana Code 6-1.1-18.5-12 permits a unit to appeal to the Department for relief from its levy limitations after the unit has determined that it cannot carry out its governmental functions for the ensuing calendar year. The Department must examine and determine the merits of the unit’s claim.
Appeals are fact sensitive inquiries. Indiana Code 6-1.1-18.5-12(a)(2) requires a unit to support its claim for an appeal with reasonably detailed statements of fact. In evaluating the merit of an appeal, the Department takes a “need-based” approach based on the information presented and the prescriptions of the Code. However, the Department generally will not approve an appeal if doing so gives the unit a fund balance of 10% or more (in other words, the excess of cash and investments exceed liabilities and obligations by 10% or more). If an appeal is approved, the appeal amount is incorporated prior to certification of budgets, tax rates, and levies for the unit.
Type of Factors Evaluated by the Department
The Department may consider the following factors in reviewing an appeal:
(1) What is the percent increase of the rate due to the appeal?(2) What is the percent increase of the levy due to the appeal?
(3) What is the appeal impact per capita?
(4) Is the taxing unit affected by circuit breaker credits?
(5) Will the appeal create a circuit breaker credit?
(6) Has the unit experienced levy excess in the recent years?
(7)What is the taxing unit’s history of excessive levy appeals?
(8) Is the unit located in a TIF district?
(9) Does the unit have a balance in its rainy day fund and if so, how much?
(10) Does the unit plan to transfer surpluses in the current year to its rainy day fund and if so, how much?
(11) What is the unit’s fund balance as a percent of its budget?
(12) What will be the effect on the unit if the appeal is denied?
(13) If the appeal is a correction of an error, what is the error?
(14) If the appeal is an emergency appeal, what is the emergency?
(15) If the appeal is due to an annexation, consolidation, or extension of services, how many additional persons will the unit serve?
a. What is the expected increase in assessed value?
b. What will be the impact of the income and excise tax distribution?
(16) If the appeal is due to an annexation, does the amount of the appeal reflect the fiscal plan as originally submitted and would the percent increase in maximum levy mirror the percent increase in assessed value?
(17) Was there opposition or objection to the appeal?
(18) What was the vote by the fiscal body in approving the appeal?
(19) Was the appeal advertised with the ensuing year’s budget advertisement?
(20) Is the appeal a permanent or temporary increase to the maximum levy?

Note: appeals are not allowed to recover losses due to circuit breaker credits. When a unit reaches a circuit breaker threshold, increasing property tax rates and levies will only reduce revenues to other governmental units.
Types of Appeals
Indiana Code 6-1.1-18.5 permits the Department to provide relief for the following types of claims:
(1) Annexation, consolidation, or extension of services.(2) Three-year growth factor exceeding 2% of the state-wide average.(3) Correction of advertising errors, mathematical errors, or errors in data.(4) Shortfall due to erroneous assessed valuation.(5) Emergency.
Annexation, Consolidation, or Extensions of Services
Indiana Code 6-1.1-18.5-13(a)(1) allows a unit to seek an increase in its maximum levy to pay additional costs for providing services to newly annexed or consolidated areas or for extending governmental services to additional geographic areas or persons. In other words, this appeal is intended to assist cities and towns in accommodating growth in land area.
The Department evaluates the merits of an annexation, consolidation, or extension of services appeal based on the nature of the area being annexed. Specifically, the Department looks at both the costs associated with providing police and fire services to the annexed area and when such services are established in the area. The Department treats annexation appeals in a manner similar to how it handles reorganizations of political subdivisions under IC 36-1.5, the Government Modernization Act.
In evaluating the costs the unit alleges it will incur due to the annexation, consolidation, or extension of services, the Department pays particular attention to the proportionality of the unit’s proposed percent increase in maximum levy to the percent increase in the unit’s assessed value following the annexation, consolidation, or extension of services. In other words, if a unit’s assessed value increases by 20% due to an annexation, the Department would expect to see the unit’s maximum levy increase by no more than approximately 20%. Implicit in the statutory provision that the Department determine whether a maximum levy increase is “reasonably necessary due to increased costs of the civil taxing unit resulting from annexation, consolidation, or other extensions of governmental services” is the notion that an increase in a unit’s maximum levy should rationally mirror the expenses incurred through the annexation, consolidation, or extension of services, and that the expenses are sensible and credible. An appeal requesting a 40% increase in a unit’s maximum levy when the unit’s assessed value increased by only 20% due to an annexation would be a cause for concern. To justify an increase in maximum levy, a unit must demonstrate that the area it is annexing or into which it is extending services will actually be receiving new benefits and services it was not previously receiving.
Note, an annexing unit is entitled to either an automatic increase in its maximum levy of up to 15% pursuant to IC 6-1.1-18.5-13(a) (Version b) or an appeal awarded by the Department, but not both. If a unit increases its assessed value through annexation by more than 15%, the unit would potentially qualify for an increase in its maximum levy through an appeal that is greater than would be the automatic adjustment of up to only 15% provided by IC 6-1.1-18.5-13(a) (Version b).
A unit seeking an annexation, consolidation, or extension of services appeal must submit the following information to the Department for review:
(1) The time frame of annexations to be considered.(2) Any levy increases granted for each budget year within the time frame of annexations.(3) The types of services that will be needed and/or increased due to annexation.(4) The increased expenses due to annexation for each year.(5) The appeal amount requested, determined by the following:a. The total amount of the appeal, supported by evidence of increased expenses, less the levy increases granted in the years of annexation; divided byb. The total number of years of annexation.(6) Whether the total amount requested matches the amount in the fiscal plans for each annexation.(7) Whether the unit transferred funds to its rainy day fund during the budget year or the immediately preceding budget year and:a. if it did, the amount and the fund from which the transfer was made; orb. if it did not, whether the unit plans to transfer funds to the rainy day fund in the near future. If the unit plans to transfer funds, what is the anticipated amount?
Three-Year Growth
Indiana Code 6-1.1-18.5-13(a)(3) permits a unit to appeal if its average assessed value growth quotient (“AVGQ”) over the last three years exceeds the statewide AVGQ by at least 2%. The amount, if any, of an appeal for which a unit may be eligible is determined by the following formula:
Step 1: Determine the unit’s certified assessed valuation for the last four years.Step 2: Calculate the assessed value growth for each of the last three years.
Step 3: Calculate the AVGQ by taking the sum of the results of Step 2 and dividing by three.
Step 4: Determine the statewide certified assessed value for the last four years.
Step 5: Calculate the assessed value growth for each of the last three years.
Step 6: Calculate the statewide AVGQ by taking the sum of the results of Step 5 and dividing by three.
Step 7: Divide the Step 3 amount by the Step 5 amount.

For a unit to qualify for the appeal, the Step 7 amount must be equal to or greater than 1.02. The percentage by which an appealing unit’s maximum levy is increased will likely mirror the percentage by which the unit’s growth exceeds statewide growth.
Correction of Advertising Errors, Mathematical Errors, or Errors in Data
Through a Correction of Error Appeal pursuant to IC 6-1.1-18.5-14, the Department may order a correction of any advertising error, mathematical error, or error in data made at the local level for any calendar year if the Department finds that the error affects the determination of the unit’s maximum levy, tax rates, or tax levies. The unit must state what type of error occurred and the amount of the error that should be considered by the Department. The unit should provide documentation showing that a specific error actually occurred. Requests for consideration of errors that may occur will not be considered.
Most critically, because this appeal contemplates errors involving advertising or mathematical calculations, the Department will not consider appeals seeking to correct a unit’s past policy decisions. In other words, if in a year a unit voluntarily reduces its maximum levy but subsequently regrets this decision, this is not an error as meant by IC 6-1.1-18.5-14 and thus would not qualify for a Correction of Error Appeal.
Shortfall Due to Erroneous Assessed Value
Under IC 6-1.1-18.5-16, a unit may seek an appeal due to a shortfall of property taxes resulting from erroneous assessed value or refunds for successful assessment appeals. This appeal is available only when the shortfall affects funds that fall within the maximum levy. This is a temporary appeal, meaning that an approved increase in maximum levy is effective for one year only.
The unit must do the following for consideration by the Department:
(1) State which budget year(s) experienced a shortfall.(2) Describe in detail what caused the error(s) in assessed value and the dollar amount associated with the error(s).(3) List the unit’s district numbers, per the auditor’s reports, and calculate the sum of the following:a. Total District Net Amount from the 127-CER Report.b. Total District Net Amount from the 17-TC Report.c. Total District Net Errors and Refunds Issued.(4) Subtract the actual distribution and the circuit breaker from the certified levy of each fund (excluding debt and cumulative funds).(5) If the unit received a levy excess in the past three years, state the taxing year(s) and amount(s).(6) Whether the unit transferred funds to its rainy day fund during the budget year or the immediately preceding budget year and:a. if it did, provide the amount and the fund from which the transfer was made; orb. if it did not, whether the unit plans to transfer funds to the rainy day fund in the near future. If the unit plans to transfer funds, what is the anticipated amount?(7) Whether the unit has a fund balance of 10% or more of its annual budget before the transfer to its rainy day fund. If yes, give the percent of the fund balance.
The unit must state with specificity the cause of the shortfall and provide the following:
(a) County Form 127CER (Register of Certificates of Error) for the year(s) in which the shortfall occurred for each taxing district of which the unit is a taxing entity;(b) County Form 17TC (Certificate of County Auditor of Tax Refund Claims) for each taxing district of which the unit is a taxing entity. Refunds must clearly indicate the assessment year for which the refund is claimed; and
(c) County Form 22 (County Auditor’s Certificate of Tax Distribution) for each year the unit is claiming a property tax shortfall.

Failure to provide the necessary documents may result in denial of the appeal.
Emergency Levy Appeal
Pursuant to IC 6-1.1-18.5-13(a)(13), a unit may seek an increase in its maximum levy if it cannot carry out its governmental functions for an ensuing year due to a natural disaster, accident, or other unanticipated emergency. A unit must describe the underlying emergency giving rise to the appeal. The Department does not consider a generally poor local or national economy to be an unforeseen emergency. This is a temporary appeal.
A township may submit an appeal resulting from an unanticipated emergency that increases the amount of township assistance requests. In evaluating township requests, the Department evaluates the following criteria:
(1) Did the township identify a specific, unforeseen emergency to which it is responding?(2) Did the township show that more applicants have applied and more relief has been given in the current year than in past years? The township should use TA-7 data from the past ten years and include copies of the forms from these years with the application.(3) Did the township demonstrate that the township assistance budget, all useable cash balances, and other township assets have been exhausted? The township must provide financial information as evidence.(4) Were a significant portion of the total disbursements from the township assistance fund for direct assistance? The Department will compare the direct assistance provided to the total disbursements to ensure that the administrative overhead was reasonable.(5) Any other factors the Department deems relevant.
Again, pervasive unemployment or poverty resulting from a generally weak local or national economy will not be treated as an emergency. A unit will have to point to a specific occurrence, such as a tornado, flood, or the sudden closure of the unit’s sole or primary private employer to qualify for an Emergency Appeal.
School Transportation Appeal
Although a school transportation fund-related appeal is not a traditional maximum levy appeal governed by IC 6-1.1-18.5, it is addressed in this memorandum because it does involve an increase to a school’s transportation fund maximum levy.
A school corporation may appeal to the Department to increase the maximum levy permitted for its transportation fund under IC 20-46-4. To be granted an increase, the school corporation must establish that the increase is necessary because of a transportation operating cost increase of at least 10% over the preceding year as a result of at least one of the following: (1) A fuel expense increase.
(2) A significant increase in the number of students enrolled in the school corporation that need transportation or a significant increase in the mileage traveled by the school corporation’s buses compared with the previous year.
(3) A significant increase in the number of students enrolled in special education who need transportation or a significant increase in the mileage traveled by the school corporation’s buses due to students enrolled in special education as compared with the previous year.
(4) Increased transportation operating costs due to compliance with a court-ordered desegregation plan.
(5) The closure of a school building within the school corporation that results in a significant increase in the distances that students must be transported to attend another school building.

In addition, before the Department may grant a transportation maximum levy increase, the school corporation must establish that it will be unable to provide transportation services without an increase. The Department may grant an increase that is less than the increase requested by the school corporation.If the Department determines that a permanent increase in the transportation maximum levy is necessary, the maximum levy after the increase becomes the school corporation’s maximum levy.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Questions may be directed to Staff Attorney David Marusarz at (317) 233-6770 or by e-mail at dmarusarz@dlgf.in.gov.

Stormwater Hike in Muncie Not Impacting All Customers Equally

To contact us Click HERE
From a lengthy story in the Muncie Star-Press:

Among other fee payers unhappy with the Muncie Sanitary District’s hike in stormwater fees — a sextupling of the price — is Delaware County, which, like everybody else, has to pay.

Unlike property taxes, which exempt local government and most nonprofits, every property owner in MSD’s territory pays for stormwater runoff based on the degree to which their property can’t absorb rainfall.

(The only exception is that public streets and sidewalk are not assessed fees.)

While the increase was 600 percent, the fee for nearly all residences went from $12 annually to $72, not a huge jump in absolute value.

For commercial properties, however, the six-fold leap is significant (as is the amount of rainfall these properties divert into sewers). The county’s total costs for stormwater fees equal $16,000, up from $2,600, most of which is evenly split between the Delaware County Building and the Delaware County Justice Center.

Each used to be one square block of completely impervious surface, thus all rain that fell on the property went into combined sanitary-surface water sewers owned by the Muncie Sanitary District.

MSD is under a court order from both federal and state authorities to divide all combined sewers over 20 years to avoid what happens now: Even modest rainfall overwhelms the system, the sewer treatment plant can’t handle the water, and raw sewage overflows into the White River.

The cost is steep — $186 million — and MSD raised both sewer rates (about 29 percent) and the stormwater fee to start paying for the work.
...
http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012306200002

An earlier post on this issue may be found here:

http://indianapropertytaxreporter.blogspot.com/2012/05/muncie-seeks-ways-to-reduce-stormwater.html

Stormwater Fee Increase Rankles Lake Station Property Owners

To contact us Click HERE
From the Post-Tribune:

Just months after successful re-election bids by the mayor and several city council members, residents here will have to dip into their bank accounts for a third time to pay a new or increased fee thanks to new, temporary storm water management fees.

The fees, approved in March, sparked some confusion, but a little effective communication may go a long way toward clearing up some confusion, Mayor Keith Soderquist said.
So far this year, Soderquist and the city council, which often agrees with the second-term mayor, approved a water rate increase and a sewage rate increase.
Soderquist, who enjoyed a resounding victory at last November’s polls, insisted he and the council chose to institute the new fees only after learning Lake Station’s voters wanted them for another term, and did not delay them to avoid jeopardizing votes by establishing the extra expenses during an election year.
“I waited to see if I was going to be mayor again so I could roll out my next four-year plan, and fees are part of that,” Soderquist said of the temporary storm water fees. “It’s up to the council to pass new fees, and no councilman would even consider any new rates in 2011 until they knew they had the public’s confidence for another term.”
The bills for the storm water fees — $100 per parcel for residential properties, $200 for businesses and $50 each for undeveloped parcels — were mailed along with 2011 property taxes payable in 2012 after a consultant’s study set the rates....
The mayor also said the expected $500,000 to $600,000 the city will collect in storm water fees will be used to fund a new storm water management department and fund a more thorough study that will tell residents and property owners exactly what they owe going forward.
“We are spending tax money and fees and putting them back into the community,” Soderquist said. “In my opinion, that’s what people want.”...
Soderquist said an explanation of the storm water fee structure and the appeals process will be sent in July to every Lake Station owner as part of the monthly newsletter included with water bills.
http://posttrib.suntimes.com/13352254-537/new-storm-water-fees-rankle-some-lake-station-residents.html

Delaware Deciding Significant Issues of Indiana Tax Law in Casino Bankruptcy; Indiana Supreme Court Denies Transfer to Hear Matter

To contact us Click HERE
On October 26, 2011, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an order finding that the slot machine wagering tax did not apply to funds in the 15% set-aside:
"This contested matter presents a dispute between Indianapolis Downs, a corporate debtor in the gaming industry, and the Indiana Department of Revenue (the “Department”), a state taxing authority. The parties disagree over whether an Indiana tax reaches all, or only part, of the Debtor’s revenue from slot-machine wagering. The Debtor claims the latter, arguing that the tax does not extend to slot-machine revenue that it must, by statute, transfer to third parties. The Department insists, however, that the tax extends to all slot-machine receipts, without exception.
The Racino Statute imposes a graduated tax (the “Graduated Tax”) on the adjusted gross receipts (“AGR”) that the Debtor receives from slot-machines wagering.7Id. § 4-35-8-1(a) (the “Graduated Tax Provision”). AGR includes “all cash and property … received by a” racino from slot-machine wagering, minus what is “paid out to patrons as winnings” and certain “uncollectible” amounts. Id. § 4-35-2-2. Depending on how much AGR the Debtor takes in each year, the Graduated Tax rate ranges from 25% (on the first $100 million of AGR) to 35% (on AGR above $200 million). Id. § 4-35-8-1(a)(1)-(3). After applying the proper rate, the Debtor remits what it owes to the Department “before the close of … business” the next day. Id. § 4-35-8-1(b).
The Set-Aside Funds: In addition to paying the Graduated Tax, the Debtor must, each month, “distribute” 15% of its slot-machine AGR (the “Set-Aside Funds”) to various third parties, as detailed in the Racino Statute and its implementing regulations. Id. § 4-35-7-12(b) (the “Set-Aside Funds Provision”); 71 Ind. Admin. Code 1-1-1 et seq (2011).
The Court finds that Indianapolis Downs has satisfied its burden to show that the Graduated Tax does not extend to the Set-Aside Funds. Again, in Indiana, “taxation follow[s] the beneficial interest in income, [and] a person who is a mere conduit for another is generally not taxable on the income.” U-Haul, 784 N.E.2d at 1083-84. Here, the Set-Aside Funds belong to third parties, not the Debtor. The Debtor merely collects the funds and passes them along, and thus they are not included in the Debtor’s income. Because the Graduated Tax is measured by the Debtor’s income, the Set-Aside Funds cannot be subject to that tax."
http://www.deb.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2011/BLS20111026_11-11046.pdf
This order is currently on appeal to the Third Circuit.
On November 23, 2011, Indianapolis Downs filed an appeal in the Indiana Tax Court contesting the Department’s denial of a prior-filed refund of taxes paid between June 2008 and September 2010 on the Set-Aside Funds and a Motion to Stay.  
On December 19, 2011, the Indiana Tax Court granted the Debtor’s Motion to Stay.  
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT RELATED TO THIS MATTER ARE STAYED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE MOTION OF DEBTOR INDIANAPOLIS, DOWNS, LLC FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE ESTATE'S RIGHT TO A REFUND OF CERTAIN TAXES FILED IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ON NOVEMBER 22, 2011 HAS BEEN FULLY ADJUDICATED, INCLUDING ANY APPEALS. MARTHA BLOOD WENTWORTH, JUDGE (ORDER REC'D 12/20/11 AT 12:00 P.M.) ENTERED ON 12/20/11 ED
The Tax Court affirmed its order on January 31, 2012.
http://hats2.courts.state.in.us/ISC3RUS/ISC2detail.jsp?row=7
On March 1, 2012, the Department filed a Petition for Review, seeking to appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court both the propriety of the Indiana Tax Court’s Order on the Motion to Stay and to address the merits of the case.
On June 21, 2012, the Indiana Supreme Court voted to deny transfer:
THE COURT GRANTS THE PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO FILE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TENDERED TO THE COURT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO SHOW FILED, AS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DATES OF TENDER, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: (1) "REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE" (TENDERED MARCH 30, 2012); (2) "INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS VERIFIED MOTION TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF INDIANAPOLIS DOWNS, LLC'S ORIGINAL TAX APPEAL PURSUANT TO INDIANA APPELLATE RULE 56.A" (TENDERED JUNE 4, 2012); (3) "INDIANAPOLIS DOWNS, LLC'S SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S VERIFIED MOTION TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF INDIANAPOLIS DOWNS, LLC'S ORIGINAL TAX APPEAL PURSUANT TO INDIANA APPELLATE RULE 56(A)" (TENDERED JUNE 8, 2012); AND (4), "INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE'S SUR- SURREPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS VERIFIED MOTION TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF INDIANAPOLIS DOWNS, LLC'S ORIGINAL TAX APPEAL PURSUANT TO INDIANA APPELLATE RULE 56.A" (TENDERED JUNE 14, 2012). THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE MATERIALS DESCRIBED ABOVE. THE COURT HAS MET IN CONFERENCE, AND EACH MEMBER OF THE COURT HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE'S VIEWS ON THESE MATERIALS WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES. BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT DENIES THE DEPARTMENT'S PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER APP. R. 63 AND ITS MOTION FOR TRANSFER UNDER APP. R. 56(A). BECAUSE REVIEW AND TRANSFER ARE DENIED, THE COURT DENIES, AS MOOT, THE DEPARTMENT'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND DOWNS'S MOTION TO STRIKE. BRENT E. DICKSON, CHIEF JUSTICE ALL JUSTICES CONCUR, EXCEPT SULLIVAN, J., WHO VOTES TO GRANT THE DEPARTMENT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER APP. R. 63. (ORDER REC'D. 6/21/12 AT 10:45 AM) ENTERED 6/21/12 KM
http://hats2.courts.state.in.us/ISC3RUS/ISC2detail.jsp?row=7
To bring you up to date on this litigation, in their “Second Amended Disclosure Statement” filed with the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, the casino parties describe the tax litigation as follows:  
“On June 29, 2011, Indianapolis Downs Filed the Motion of Debtor Indianapolis Downs, LLC to Determine the Legality of Certain Taxes and a memorandum of law in support of the relief requested therein (the “Tax Litigation”) [Docket Nos. 313-314]. In the Tax Litigation, Indianapolis Downs requested, pursuant to sections 105 and 505 of the Bankruptcy Code, that the Bankruptcy Court declare that under Indiana’s racino statute, it is not required to pay to the Indiana Department of Revenue (the “Department”) a graduated wagering tax on those funds required by Indiana law to be set aside by Indianapolis Downs for various third-party entities (“Set-Aside Funds”), predominantly in the horse racing industry.
Hoosier Park, L.P. (“Hoosier Park”), the only other racino in the state of Indiana, sought to intervene in the Tax Litigation to ensure that it would receive the benefit of a determination on the legality of the taxes that were the subject of the Tax Litigation… The Bankruptcy Court permitted Hoosier Park to intervene by order dated August 26, 2011 [Docket No. 405].
On September 6, 2011, the Department filed its Objection and Memorandum in Support Filed by Indiana Department of Revenue [Docket No. 428], which was amended on September 7, 2011 by the Amended Objection and Memorandum in Support Filed by Indiana Department of Revenue [Docket No. 433]. On September 13, 2011, Indianapolis Downs submitted a reply brief in further support of the Tax Litigation [Docket No. 452], and on September 14, 2011, Hoosier Park Filed a joinder in Indianapolis Downs’ reply [Docket No. 455].
Following a hearing held on September 19, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered its opinion [Docket No. 526] (the “Tax Opinion”) and order [Docket No. 527] (the “Tax Order”) on October 26, 2011, which resolved the Tax Litigation in favor of Indianapolis Downs. The Bankruptcy Court concluded as a matter of law “that the Set-Aside Funds need not be included in Indianapolis Downs’ calculation and payment of the Graduated Tax.” (Tax Opinion at 14; see also id. at 27.) The Bankruptcy Court’s Tax Opinion and Tax Order held that Indianapolis Downs is not required, going forward, to pay the graduated wagering tax as applied to the Set-Aside Funds.
The Department filed a timely notice of appeal on November 30, 2011 from the decision in the Tax Opinion and Tax Order. Although an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court’s final order in a proceeding would ordinarily be heard in the first instance by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“District Court”), federal law 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2), provides that in certain circumstances an appeal from a bankruptcy court order may be heard directly in the United States Court of Appeals. On December 22, 2012, Indianapolis Downs timely filed Debtor-Appellee’s Request for Certification of Direct Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [Docket No. 680] (“Certification Request”) requesting that the Bankruptcy Court certify that circumstances exist that warrant the Department’s appeal in the Tax Litigation to be heard directly by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”). On December 28, 2011, the Department filed an Objection to Debtor-Appellee’s Request for Certification of Direct Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [Docket. No. 686] (“Certification Objection”). At a hearing conducted on January 5, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court announced its decision to grant the Certification Request.
On January 10, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order certifying the Department’s appeal to be heard directly by the Third Circuit [Docket No. 720] (the “Certification Order”). On January 30, 2012, Indianapolis Downs timely filed a petition in the Third Circuit, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, requesting that the Third Circuit exercise its discretion to hear the Department’s appeal, which the Bankruptcy Court had certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2). On February 22, 2012, the Third Circuit granted Indianapolis Downs’ petition. On March 6, 2012, the Department filed a motion in the Third Circuit entitled Appellant's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Appellee's Petition for Leave to Appeal (“Motion to Reconsider”), asking that court to reconsider its decision to hear the Department's appeal directly. On May 7, 2012, the Third Circuit denied the Department's Motion to Reconsider. The Department’s appeal is currently pending in the Third Circuit as appeal number 12-1582. On June 15, 2012, the Department filed its opening brief in the Third Circuit. The brief of Indianapolis Downs will be due in the Third Circuit on or around July 16, 2012.
On November 22, 2011, Indianapolis Downs Filed the Motion of Debtor Indianapolis Downs, LLC for a Determination of the Estate’s Right to a Refund of Certain Taxes [Docket No. 607] (“Refund Motion”), which, for the reasons set forth in the Tax Litigation and the Bankruptcy Court’s Tax Opinion and Tax Order, requested entry of an order determining that its bankruptcy estate is entitled to a refund of certain graduated wagering taxes paid to the Department prior to Indianapolis Downs’ Petition Date. The Department objected to the Refund Motion [Docket No. 628] and also filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal [Docket No. No. 623]. At a hearing conducted before the Bankruptcy Court on January 5, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court announced its decision to hold the Refund Motion in abeyance during the pendency of the Department’s appeal in the Tax Litigation.
On November 23, 2011, the Debtors filed a protective appeal in the Indiana Tax Court contesting the Department’s denial of a prior-filed refund of taxes paid between June 2008 and September 2010 on the Set-Aside Funds. On the same day, Debtor filed a Motion to Stay in which the Debtor requested that the Indiana Tax Court stay the case before it pending final resolution of the appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s Tax Order and Tax Opinion (“Motion to Stay”). On December 19, 2011, the Indiana Tax Court granted the Debtor’s Motion to Stay. The Department filed a Petition for Review, seeking to appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court both the propriety of the Indiana Tax Court’s Order on the Motion to Stay and to address the merits of the case. The Debtors have responded and objected to the Department’s Petition for Review on jurisdictional grounds, but no ruling has yet been rendered. The Department has also filed a motion with the Indiana Supreme Court requesting it assert jurisdiction and determine directly the substantive tax issues pending at the Indiana Tax Court based on the claim that an emergency exists requiring a speedy determination. The Debtors have responded and objected to the motion on the grounds that the rule invoked does not apply under the circumstances and that no emergency exists to justify a direct appeal. The Indiana Supreme Court has not ruled on the Department’s motion seeking direct appeal.”
See Document Number 1180 found here:
http://dm.epiq11.com/INL/Docket/#Debtors=4175&RelatedDocketId=&ds=true&maxPerPage=25&page=1

Earlier this year, the Indiana Attorney General weighed in on this matter:
http://indianapropertytaxreporter.blogspot.com/2012/03/attorney-general-finds-that-funds-in.html

24 Haziran 2012 Pazar

If You Missed the Deadline to File Taxes, Don't Panic

To contact us Click HERE
If you missed the filing deadline, don't panic. The IRS says the same thing. Just file the taxes as as you can. Plus below, you will find the announcement that the IRS released on the subject.

Missed the Income Tax Deadline – IRS Offers Help for Taxpayers

The IRS has some advice for taxpayers who missed the tax filing deadline.

Don’t panic but file as soon as possible. If you owe money the quicker you file your return, the less penalties and interest you will have to pay. Even if you have to mail us your return, the sooner we receive it, the better.

E-file is still your best option. IRS e-file programs are available for most taxpayers through the extension deadline – October 15, 2012.

Free File is still available. Check out IRS Free File at irs.gov/freefile. Taxpayers whose income is $57,000 or less will qualify to file their return for free through IRS Free File. For people who make more than $57,000 and who are comfortable preparing their own tax return, the IRS offers Free File Fillable Forms. There is no software assistance with Free File Fillable Forms, but it does the basic math calculations for you.

Pay as much as you are able. Taxpayers who owe tax should pay as much as they can when they file their tax return, even if it isn’t the total amount due, and then apply for an installment agreement to pay the remaining balance.

Installment Agreements are available. Request a payment agreement with the IRS. File Form 9465, Installment Agreement Request or apply online using the IRS Online Payment Agreement Application available at irs.gov.

Penalties and interest may be due. Taxpayers who missed the filing deadline may be charged a penalty for filing after the due date. Filing as soon as possible will keep this penalty to a minimum. And, taxpayers who did not pay their entire tax bill by the due date may be charged a late payment penalty. The best way to keep this penalty to a minimum is to pay as much as possible, as soon as possible.

Although it cannot waive interest charges, the IRS will consider reductions in these penalties if you can establish a reasonable cause for the late filing and payment. Information about penalties and interest can be found at Avoiding Penalties and the Tax Gap.

Refunds may be waiting. Taxpayers should file as soon as possible to get their refunds. Even if your income is below the normal filing requirement, you may be entitled to a refund of taxes that were withheld from your wages, quarterly estimated payments or other special credits. You will not be charged any penalties or interest for filing after the due date, but if your return is not filed within three years you could forfeit your right to the refund.

Another Tax Loophole Exposed, And This One Is Major

To contact us Click HERE
Below is an article that was published online, May 17, 2012.

This article is a prime example of the very rich having the finances to hire, employ and implement tactics which can save them millions in taxes.  However, the moment this information becomes public, there is always somebody in Congress who needs some media attention. 

When you put these factors together, you get a good, and some times bad, tax loophole exposed and "voted" on in Congress.  Actually they vote on over 100 new tax laws a year, but with these votes, they know exactly, what they are voting on.

----------------------------------------------------------
Sparked by Facebook co-founder Eudardo Saverin's renouncement of his citizenship, two U.S. Senators are planning to unveil a new plan focused on preventing the super rich from dodging taxes.
Saverin has been taking quite a bit of heat over dropping his citizenship, which was announced coincidentally just weeks before Facebook goes public. Many viewed the action as a way for him to save an estimated $100 million on taxes, a sentiment Saverine dines, as VentureBeat reported yesterday.

-------------------------
OK, why did he need to tell "anyone" except his immediate family and tax advisers?
-------------------------
Sens. Charles Schumer, (D-NY) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) plan, unofficially called the “Ex-Patriot Act,” seeks to bar people like Saverin from reentering the U.S. once they’ve renounced their citizenship to avoid heavy taxation. While I understand how it could be upsetting that some people don’t value their citizenship despite everything the U.S. offers, but deciding to block them from ever visiting the country is just asinine. The goal is to compel the super rich to continue paying taxes, not excommunicate them.

---------------------------
Maybe he renounced his citizenship because he was frighten of becoming very, very, very, wealthy in America!  Having lived in Europe for a year, I can tell you, people, all people are treated differently in Europe.  Of course, I couldn't wait to get back to the US, but you must realize, I was poor when I left and I was poor when I returned.
---------------------------

In grand dramatic political fashion, Schumer’s office labels Saverin’s renouncement as a “scheme,” and tries to bring a sense of urgency to the matter due to the recent news. What’s funny about this move is that its anything but urgent. Saverin filed the paperwork to give up his citizenship in January 2011, but was only approved the following September.

Also, people giving up their citizenship to avoid paying taxes is not a new concept. As my fellow staffer Jolie O’Dell previously pointed out, filing taxes as a U.S. citizen while living abroad can be an expensive and complicated nightmare. That said, nearly 1,800 people renounced their citizenship in 2011 to avoid having to deal with those taxes.

Generally speaking, Schumer does some really good things with his power, such as trying to speed up the process of adoption process for sweet German Shepherd dogs that served in the military. But when it comes to the “Ex-Patriot Act,” it seems like little more than banging pots and pans in a silent room filled with people for the sole purpose of grabbing attention.

--------------------------------
There are definite tax loopholes out there.  You just have to know who to hire and employ to protect you.  For sure you don't want to hire the tax professionals who worked on Wesley Snipes taxes.  However, there are some sharp, tax attorneys out there.  How can you identify them?  Well if he shows up at a private airport with a small jet in he background and doesn't feel the need to hid the jet, because no one is trying to repo the jet, then you know for sure, he's your man, or woman.


The New IRS Form 8938 - Foreign Assets - What it Could Mean

To contact us Click HERE
I havedeliberately NOT added my words to the following information.  This is a “hot” top even for an experiencedtax professional.  Just know, thathistory repeats itself and after each and every downturn in the economy, there hasalways been a new set of wealthy people, who arise.  The U.S. Government is clearly on top of thispotential group of wealthy people.

Thefollowing report explains one of the major reasons more and more Americans aremoving offshore and applying for and obtaining citizenships in foreigncountries.  I am not sure if giving up mycitizenship is something I want to do however, it is more than clear to me,that moving offshore is not only a wise move, but a profitable one.  You read and let us know what you think.  You can visit the website: “Forgot to Savefor Retirement”  and click on “44 ThingsYou Should Know Before Moving or Investing Offshore” (left hand side)  also get additional free reports to help youdecide your next move.


SpecialReport ------------------------Taxes – Form 8938 ----- Off Shore Assets

Tax seasonis over, but many U.S. taxpayers remain confused about the new IRS Form8938...including many tax professionals, it seems, given the number of e-mailsI'm getting from readers asking questions to make sure their tax preparerscompleted their forms correctly.

This newform is a catch-all intended to capture information about offshore financialassets that aren't required to be reported on any other IRS form. If you ownsome offshore entity that requires you to complete a related form (5471 for anoffshore corporation or 3520 or 3520-A for an offshore trust, for example),you're already reporting the existence of the asset and don't have to file aForm 8938 for it...if that's the only offshore asset you hold. If you meet therequirements for the form and have additional assets that aren't already beingreported elsewhere...then, yes, you need the new 8938.

Start bydetermining whether you meet the requirements for Form 8938 overall. This meansunderstanding the rules and making some calculations. 

First isthe fixed number threshold. For those residing in the United States, thatnumber is US$50,000 of Foreign Financial Assets (FFA) on the last day of thetax year or US$75,000 of Foreign Financial Assets at any point during the taxyear. Those figures are for people filing single, including married peoplefiling separately. The figures double for people filing jointly.

If youdon't reside in the United States, then the numbers jump to US$200,000 of FFAon the last day of the tax year or US$300,000 at any point during the year.Again, the figures double for people filing jointly.

While theminimum threshold for filing is higher than that for the FBAR form forreporting foreign bank accounts, foreign bank accounts are included in thedefinition of an FFA. Therefore, even if you don't qualify for the FBAR becauseyou have, say, one bank account overseas with only US$8,000 in it (thethreshold for reporting, remember, is an account with US$10,000 or more), youwould be required to report that bank account on Form 8938 if you meet therequirements for the new form overall.

FFAs alsoinclude stock certificates that you hold directly for foreign corporations evenif the corporation doesn't qualify as a U.S.-controlled foreign corporation(USCFC). This could be stocks of a Canadian junior mining stock you purchaseddirectly from the company that now sit in a drawer in your home office. Thisexample is critical as it's not uncommon to have invested in stocks in thismanner and forgotten about the certificates sitting in a file drawer somewhere.A friend whose mother died recently found old certificates for a foreign stockthat his mom had bought years before and hidden in her bedroom. No one elseknew they existed.

Thecatchall part of the definition for an FFA is "Any financial instrument orcontract that has an issuer or counterparty that is not a U.S. person."This definition would include, for example, an offshore life insurance policythat has a cash value. It would not include physical assets held in your ownname...such as real estate and metals if you hold the physical metal ratherthan a certificate.

Debatecontinues about whether physical metal held by a third party qualifies as anFFA. If you have a contract with a third party to store the metal, it could beconsidered to fall under the catchall definition. However, physical gold isclearly not a financial instrument, so most experts agree that physical metalsneed not be reported on Form 8938.

Realestate is much more black and white. It is not reportable...as long as you holdthe property in your individual name. If you hold it in an entity, then theshares of the entity qualify as an FFA and do need to be reported. The realestate then would be disclosed on the forms for the entity.

While theabove explanations are as clear as I can make them, they probably only bring upmore questions. With so much uncertainty as to what should be included on Form8938 and so much worry (thanks to IRS fear-mongering tactics) over the consequencesof not reporting something that is deemed reportable, some taxpayers are optingsimply to report any and all assets they hold outside the United States. Thatmay seem like overkill...and repulsive if you retain any expectations ofprivacy in the United States.

I'dagree...except that I've already given up on any delusion that anythingresembling personal privacy remains possible in the current climate in theStates. Further, I believe it will be only a short time before that will be therequirement anyway--to report any and all offshore assets, in anticipation ofthe imposition of a wealth tax.

With theU.S. government drowning in debt, many believe a wealth tax similar to the onesin France, Colombia, and elsewhere (including, at one time, in the state ofFlorida) is just around the corner. I count myself among them.

Meanwhile,remember: Failure to include even one required disclosure on Form 8938 canresult in a fine of as much as US$10,000 to US$50,000.

Lief Simon


--------------------------------SpecialReport end ----------------

You can view Form 8938 here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8938.pdf   for those who are actively involved in theRV of the Dinar, this hits right at your front door.  The penalty for getting this wrong, aresteep.  For help with un-filed taxes click here.  Click here to get more information on Moving Offshore