The World Peace and Health Organization is asking Amsterdam city officials to change the titles on properties recently bought by individual members of the group at a city auction. The WPHO now wants to be listed as the actual owners of the properties.
City officials are making it clear, however, that just because the group wants its name on the title, it still doesn’t mean the properties will automatically qualify for tax-exempt status. The homes bought are residences, and if the WPHO intends to use them for anything else, they group has to get a zoning change from the city. Members can’t just move in and say “we’re not paying taxes because we belong to the WPHO.”
Quick take: The group’s move to Amsterdam, and the reaction, has been nothing short of fascinating.
September 4, 2010
Changing titles
Advertisement
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Gee, Charlie, your primary defense of the WPHO purchases was that the properties were bought by individuals. Seems, in the end, that they were not.
And yes, I would say that the people who will live in those houses will easily be able to say they don’t have to pay taxes on them because they WON’T have to — they’ll just be tenants, if the WPHO owns the places.
And how many years do you suppose it would take the city to collect unpaid taxes from an organization that can afford excellent long-term legal representation? Or, conversely, how quickly will this weak-kneed city government cave to the WPHO, and let their taxes slide, abandoning potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of city income to the easier path doing nothing rather than fight?
I could be wrong. I hope to be wrong. But this is a very disturbing development. I feel like my city is being taken advantage of by a very slick operation, and no one seems to care. Wouldn’t it be great if the Recorder actually acted like a newspaper for a change and looked into this story (that means investigating, Charlie, not just typing up prepared quotes made by the WPHO spokespeople)?
Curious that all the WPHO cheerleaders opted not to comment on this thread, though…
Comment by Peter — September 7, 2010 @ 11:08 am |
What a surprise! Guess all of those negative non-Team Amsterdam people had reasonable concerns.
And even if Team Amsterdam does respond, it will just be twist and spin.
Comment by JerryRL — September 7, 2010 @ 12:45 pm |
Who knows what the good mayor and GD have promised them. Why do I have a feeling that this organization has already been promised a tax-exempt status? It will be interesting to see how this plays out. (and how MJD will spin this)
Comment by Chris — September 7, 2010 @ 1:07 pm
Chris,
The mayor is in no position to wheel-and-deal tax status (corporations and organizations are not simply **given** a status, be it exempt or not; they first must apply for a status and it is either granted or rejected), so any ‘side deals’ with respect to tax status can be declared null and void if in violation of IRS tax codes.
Need I remind you that the IRS codes FAR supersede the small confines of Amsterdam, New York. If tax-exempt status is/was granted for whatever reason, the CC, County, or State can sue to repeal and collect and retro monies owed while taxes were not collected.
However, IF the mayor DID grant tax exemption, with no regard to IRS codes and based on nothing other than ‘Eh, I like you guys, no taxes for you’, be it in writing or not, then this, too, could easily be challenged.
Comment by Tatum Stevens — September 7, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
Tatum, exactly HOW could this be easily challenged? If the political Mayor’s political assessor decides to grant them tax exempt status, who exactly would have the standing to challenge that determination?
This is all rather confusing. The legal notice for the bidding clearly stated that the deeds would be issue in the names of the bidder only. It was highlighted, in fact.
Just what was the purpose in having a series of strawmen bid on the properties? Can anyone give a plausible reason? I can’t think of one.
Comment by Robert N. Going — September 7, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
Re: ‘easily challenged’, I presume you mean the statement in the last para in my comment- would you agree that results of wheeling-and-dealing (which is what this sounds like) could be challenged on the properties’ only being able to be issued to bidders and that any ‘agreements’ made could be nullified in a transfer?
This is only a guess on legal merits and without any knowledge of how Cline actually functions.
Comment by Tatum Stevens — September 7, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
Peter,
I think the process is still developing and the City still has it in them to simply say ‘no’ to the title change. The tax code is strict enough to interpret individual organization members as unqualified to be tax-exempt.
As I’ve mentioned before, one possible way for individuals to get away with tax-exempt status on their respective properties could be to claim themselves as ‘members of the clergy’, which would even still be hard to get an exemption from since the WPHO is listed as a ‘civic organization’, not ‘religious.’
Comment by Tatum Stevens — September 7, 2010 @ 12:54 pm |
Tatum:
As I said above, I hope I’m wrong. And I also hope the city does stick to its guns, the law, and what is right for its actual taxpayers.
Comment by Peter — September 7, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
Interestingly enough, Peter, as I’m watching the council meeting tonight, both the corporation counsel and the 5th Ward alderman said they believe the WPHO knows that the properties will not automatically become tax-exempt.
I think the whole “tax” issue is a furor manufactured by a few alarmists who wouldn’t raise the same concerns if the properties were bought by someone who looked, talked and worshipped like they do. From the beginning, it has been stated over and over that these properties do not automatically become tax-exempt just because the WPHO buys them. How much clearer can it get?
Even if the group seeks to have the properties changed to tax-exempt status, they have to go through a process, and even then it’s not guaranteed that the exemption will be granted.
Comment by Charlie Kraebel — September 7, 2010 @ 8:07 pm |
I also wonder how much more clear federal code can get.
Comment by Tatum Stevens — September 7, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
With all due respect Charlie, I totally disagree with what you are implying here. You keep insisting that this is a “racial” thing! It seems like you are missing the whole point. Who ever said “the properties would automatically be tax exempt”? The chances of them aquiring tax-exempt status on any of these properties increases tremendously if they are put in the name of the organization. What they say and what they do could be two very different things. We really don’t have any control over that. And by the way, they are not tax-exempt for religious purposes.
Comment by mag — September 7, 2010 @ 11:30 pm
Charlie:
Charlie:
I’m pretty sure I never, ever, even once said that the properties would “automatically” become tax exempt. Where did you get that, exactly?
In fact, I’m pretty sure I tried to make the point that this might be a first step towards avoiding paying taxes. It also might not be, which is what I’m hoping for.
I really wish, since you represent the press, that you would not leap so quickly to defend the WPHO.
Comment by Peter — September 8, 2010 @ 12:41 am
Does this really surprise anyone? Did you not see it coming? They WILL find a way to get out of paying taxes. It’s really not as difficult as some may have lead us to believe, unless of course, they say “NO” to the transfer. Gee, I wonder why Jennie Wong is no longer “The Spokeswoman” for the organization??? Did they name their new spokesperson? Bill Wills is already saying that at least we’ll get user fees and they will improve and keep up their properties. Sounds like he is willing to accept that and is willing to forgive the taxes in exchange for some minimal fees and upkeep on crappy properties. What good does that do for the tax payers of Amsterdam? The underbidder could have been a legitimate tax payer. Unfortunately, these people are alot smarter than most of us! Don’t forget, they have a “mission” here in Amsterdam whether we like it or not.
Comment by mag — September 7, 2010 @ 1:31 pm |
You folks are all Wong – you fret about properties that probably have not generated taxes in years and if they go unattended, are certain to be rundown eyesores. The WPHO will add something, either directly or indirectly, to the city and you gotta let it happen. I was born in Amsterdam in 1952 with a Lithuanian/Polish father and a mother who was English/Irish/Dutch/whatever. I can remember remember the prejudice that Poles and Wops faced all the time. So now what,are the Poles and Wops showing their bias towards Asian’s – geez – don’t be so transparent – open your mind.
Comment by fats — September 7, 2010 @ 2:13 pm |
Fats:
So not wanting to see our city taken for hundreds of thousands of dollars is a prejudice? Not appreciating a group who may be publicly embarrassing my home town, its government, even its newspaper, is bias? Spare me.
You’re going to need a better argument than that.
Comment by Peter — September 7, 2010 @ 4:14 pm |
If your Lithuanian/Polish father and English/Irish/Dutch/whatever mother bought a home here I am sure they had to pay property taxes. I agree with Peter and Diane, by no means is this a racial issue.
Comment by Chris — September 7, 2010 @ 6:53 pm |
Bottom line, this is a TAX ISSUE that will directly effect the residents of this city. It has nothing to do with race, or ethnicity, so please stop trying to turn it into something it is not.
Thank You.
Comment by Diane — September 7, 2010 @ 6:18 pm |
Peter, I applaud your care for the city and it’s future. However, you used the term argument and in doing so you took on the responsibility for issuing one yourself. In logic, you must create a premise and then support it. Willy – nilly comments about your feelings for the city carry no weight in an argument. So support your fears and expectations – what facts do you have Peter?? None that I have read. You must be related to the idiot Wills who is trying to feather his bed at the expense of the city. I’ll bet you believe Obama and blame Bush for everything. That is of course, what Thane didn’t do. Get a life.
Comment by fats — September 7, 2010 @ 6:34 pm |
Got one, thanks!
Comment by Peter — September 8, 2010 @ 12:48 am |
By the way, “Fats,” if you actually read my posts you would notice that I wasn’t arguing – I was presenting an opinion, based upon the facts already provided by Charlie and the Recorder. It was you who were arguing (with weak facts and insults, I might add — not much of an example of arguing there), not me. Shouldn’t my pointing it out have led YOU to get better facts to back up your argument? Also, since you’re so knowledgeable about critical thinking (that’s logic, BTW), why did you break about six syllogistic rules in your post? Odd…unless your knowledge of logic is based on what you read in the dictionary?
Sorry for this post, Charlie. I was going to leave it lie, but I couldn’t — there seems to be a rash of self-righteous (or carefully directed) people on this site who think that if they say “Show me the facts,” even if they’ve already been discussed, they win the “argument.” It’s really annoying, tends to end good conversations, and, I felt, worth a brief dip down to their level.
Honestly, I would have thought that Fats’ last post to me would have been one you would have not allowed, given that it has nothing to do with the thread and everything to do with insulting and belittling one of your contributors.
Comment by Peter — September 8, 2010 @ 3:00 pm