AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 12, 2011 12:05:30 GMT -5
CA, IL, NY and other desperate, failing liberal wonderlands are trying to grab all the money they can from fleeing refugees-- and NY has succeeded with the help of at least one judge. In spite of not living or working in the state, it turns out that owning property in NY could subject a person, or a business entity to the NY State INCOME tax-- the precise tax that people are fleeing. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745704576136671394373928.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Feb 12, 2011 12:30:45 GMT -5
...and stay out!
Wow, I would be very concerned about this if I owned real estate in NY, whether it was for speculation, recreation or as my primary residence. Every peice of real estate that ties an owner to the NY tax system, even though they are not residents, is now a huge liability. At $1.06 million dollars, before maintenance and property taxes, this vacation home has huge "unload me at any price" cost to it. The supply of liquidation price homes could really screw up the NY real estate market for years, if this ruling stands. Million dollar homes for $10, just take the deed, please! At least people without incomes will have access to some pretty stellar properties.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 12, 2011 13:46:35 GMT -5
That will eventually get over turned. The tax home is not NY State, this assumes their earned income is outside of NY. Tax reciprocity agreements exist between states.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 12, 2011 15:58:56 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be great to be selling condos to businesses in Manhattan, or vacation homes in the Hamptons right now? Whooo!
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Feb 12, 2011 16:20:22 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be great to be selling condos to businesses in Manhattan, or vacation homes in the Hamptons right now? Whooo! If you have a list of buyers that already pay NY state income tax. I could see some pretty sweet deals on the buyer side. I wouldn't want to have a list of out of state clients, though. Plus you'll have to sell alot of units $10 per unit, or increase commissions significantly, if you want enough pay to buy a BigMac.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Feb 12, 2011 16:46:49 GMT -5
CA used to have a similar system. If you worked in CA and then retired to another state, CA still tried to tax your retirement income. It was thrown out by the courts years ago.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 12, 2011 17:34:51 GMT -5
I think that the couple should protest this ruling by just giving the house that they only stay at a few times a year to some family who will live in it year round and see what the State of New York thinks of that.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Feb 12, 2011 23:37:18 GMT -5
How this could stick is unbelievable. It should be up to the state to prove you spent enough time there to be required to pay that state's taxes. I wonder if they are off the hook for Connecticut taxes. NY desperate and pathetic? I think it goes beyond that. It could almost be perceived as outright wealth confiscation. Now where have we heard this before? A few MSN threads come to mind. Seems we are starting to see some of those "paranoid" scenarios come to surface. What do the la la land liberals think of this one I wonder.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 13, 2011 0:10:48 GMT -5
How this could stick is unbelievable. It should be up to the state to prove you spent enough time there to be required to pay that state's taxes. I wonder if they are off the hook for Connecticut taxes. NY desperate and pathetic? I think it goes beyond that. It could almost be perceived as outright wealth confiscation. Now where have we heard this before? A few MSN threads come to mind. Seems we are starting to see some of those "paranoid" scenarios come to surface. What do the la la land liberals think of this one I wonder. It's not going to stick. It's the very thought that they'd even try that's offensive. How'd you like to be trying to run a business in the Hamptons, and have your state chasing customers out, and staring down the barrel of blight in what has traditionally been one of the most desireable places in the country to have a vacation home?
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Feb 13, 2011 0:51:05 GMT -5
It's not going to stick.
I wonder. The tax attorneys said they didn't think they could overturn it. Good point about the shopkeepers. I would be livid.
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Feb 13, 2011 8:46:44 GMT -5
I live in IL. Their latest gambit (other than the HUGE increase in income tax) is having a line on the current (2010) state income tax form that DECREES that I spent 1% of my gross adjusted income on internet sales and thus owe the state $XXX in sales tax.
NOT true. Almost all the big (CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowes, Menards, Frys, Circuit City, World Market.....) have a B & M presence in IL and charge me sales tax on anything I buy.
I plan on paying NOTHING since I actually have NOT bought anything over the internet since Feb 2005.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Feb 13, 2011 11:11:13 GMT -5
So there you go. Is there anyone that disagrees these schemes are nothing more than simple wealth confiscation? Again, this concept was floated around back on MSN and was largely laughed at by the resident rosy liberals.
|
|