Paul Steinberg Letter as it appeared in the Dec 5-11 issue of the Gazette--with permission to re-print:
To the editor:
Is Cortlandt Assessor Thomas Waitkins asleep? Croton Trustees are hoping he is.
At the recent village meeting to discuss the Gouveia property, the Board was asked about the tax exemption. The response of the Village Attorney was that Ms. Gouveia would be exempt from Croton taxes and that Cortlandt would almost certainly grant the same exemption.
But there is case law to the contrary, and the Trustees are aware of that fact and choose to ignore it. Nor have the Trustees obtained an opinion from Mr. Waitkins as to the position of Cortlandt.
In this instance, the taxpayer (Ms. Gouveia) would deed the property to the municipality but she would remain in residence on the property and maintain exclusive dominion and control over the residence and much of the surrounding property. In addition, use of the non-restricted property would be limited and have to take into account the continued residency of Ms. Gouveia and be subject to conditions set by Ms. Gouveia on the use of property which would be supposedly owned by the municipality.
As a matter of law, such an arrangement should not warrant a complete exemption.
In essence, the taxpayer is retaining a life estate in the "gift" and in the Gouveia case there is little difference in the use of the property by the taxpayer. Viewed in this light, the tax assessment might properly be similar to that where the property owner has granted an irrevocable easement.
Not only is there negligible impact on Ms. Gouveia, but in fact she benefits by virtue of the fact that the technical ownership by the municipality means that Ms. Gouveia would not have to tear down any structures on the property which would otherwise be illegal under the Village code if the property were titiled in the name of the true party in interest.
It is not clear why the Trustees believe that Croton should grant a tax exemption, and the Trustees have refrained from seeking a determination from Cortlandt.
When the Village Attorney was asked how Gouveia differed from a nearly identical situation in which the State Board of Equalization ruled against exemption, the Village Attorney got into a heated match with the citizen and would only say that it was his legal opinion and that he would not engage in "appellate argument."
In other words, the Trustees already know that this matter is likely to be litigated and that there is case law which would result in a finding of taxable status. And putative plaintiffs would number in the thousands: the taxpayers of Croton and Cortlandt could simply pay the $210 filing fee and this matter will end up in court, much to the delight of the Village Attorney who will finally have to disclose his top-secret legal reasoning while he bills the taxpayers of Croton for providing the information which the public was entitled to in the first place.
The Trustees were asked what would happen if Cortlandt does not agree with the Trustees. The Village Attorney said that responsibility for any taxes would depend on who Cortlandt sent the bill to.
This is simply incorrect. If the Trustees accept the Gouveia property on condition that the donor not be liable for any taxes, then the taxpayers of Croton will be on the hook for the taxes. The Trustees have no authority to bind Cortlandt, but they do have broad authority to bind the taxpayers of Croton.
Even the determination by the Trustees to exempt Ms. Gouveia from village taxes is dubious: this is essentially a determination by the Trustees which is contrary to existing law, and is for the sole benefit of a single village resident. There is no explanation as to what gives the Trustees the authority to make such a determination, particularly one which is to the detriment of all other citizens.
Merely by virtue of the Village granting an exemption, a precedent is being set. Trustee Raskob says he does not see this as a problem since most people have a mortgage and therefore cannot "donate" their residence to a non-profit and thereby become exempted from property taxes.
Leaving aside the matter of how many people might find it economically attractive to change their current status to take advantage of a permanent tax exemption, there is a fundamental issue ignored by Trustee Raskob: the Village refuses to provide a legal basis for Ms. Goveia's exemption, and Trustees are on record as stating that if the Village did not take the property, Ms. Gouveia would simply "donate" it to another charity and she would thenceforth live on the property exempt from taxation.
The statements of the Trustees are on the record, and create the prospect not only of immediate litigation, but future litigation. The refusal of the Trustees to engage taxpayers who have legitimate concerns--founded in case law, no less-- is but one example of the lack of transparency mentioned by the lone dissenting Trustee (Mr. Davis).
The Trustees refuse to explain the basis for the tax exemption, but apparently the reasoning is that public (village) property cannot be taxed. That is true, but then we get to the matter of the municipality giving up public land for the use of a private individual and that raises a whole other set of issues... and prospective litigation.
Kudos to Trustee Kevin Davis, who alone among the Board stated that entering into this acquisition was premature.
--Paul Steinberg
SEE WALTER PLOTCH'S LETTER HERE http://forum.ncnlocal.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=7451
To the editor:
Is Cortlandt Assessor Thomas Waitkins asleep? Croton Trustees are hoping he is.
At the recent village meeting to discuss the Gouveia property, the Board was asked about the tax exemption. The response of the Village Attorney was that Ms. Gouveia would be exempt from Croton taxes and that Cortlandt would almost certainly grant the same exemption.
But there is case law to the contrary, and the Trustees are aware of that fact and choose to ignore it. Nor have the Trustees obtained an opinion from Mr. Waitkins as to the position of Cortlandt.
In this instance, the taxpayer (Ms. Gouveia) would deed the property to the municipality but she would remain in residence on the property and maintain exclusive dominion and control over the residence and much of the surrounding property. In addition, use of the non-restricted property would be limited and have to take into account the continued residency of Ms. Gouveia and be subject to conditions set by Ms. Gouveia on the use of property which would be supposedly owned by the municipality.
As a matter of law, such an arrangement should not warrant a complete exemption.
In essence, the taxpayer is retaining a life estate in the "gift" and in the Gouveia case there is little difference in the use of the property by the taxpayer. Viewed in this light, the tax assessment might properly be similar to that where the property owner has granted an irrevocable easement.
Not only is there negligible impact on Ms. Gouveia, but in fact she benefits by virtue of the fact that the technical ownership by the municipality means that Ms. Gouveia would not have to tear down any structures on the property which would otherwise be illegal under the Village code if the property were titiled in the name of the true party in interest.
It is not clear why the Trustees believe that Croton should grant a tax exemption, and the Trustees have refrained from seeking a determination from Cortlandt.
When the Village Attorney was asked how Gouveia differed from a nearly identical situation in which the State Board of Equalization ruled against exemption, the Village Attorney got into a heated match with the citizen and would only say that it was his legal opinion and that he would not engage in "appellate argument."
In other words, the Trustees already know that this matter is likely to be litigated and that there is case law which would result in a finding of taxable status. And putative plaintiffs would number in the thousands: the taxpayers of Croton and Cortlandt could simply pay the $210 filing fee and this matter will end up in court, much to the delight of the Village Attorney who will finally have to disclose his top-secret legal reasoning while he bills the taxpayers of Croton for providing the information which the public was entitled to in the first place.
The Trustees were asked what would happen if Cortlandt does not agree with the Trustees. The Village Attorney said that responsibility for any taxes would depend on who Cortlandt sent the bill to.
This is simply incorrect. If the Trustees accept the Gouveia property on condition that the donor not be liable for any taxes, then the taxpayers of Croton will be on the hook for the taxes. The Trustees have no authority to bind Cortlandt, but they do have broad authority to bind the taxpayers of Croton.
Even the determination by the Trustees to exempt Ms. Gouveia from village taxes is dubious: this is essentially a determination by the Trustees which is contrary to existing law, and is for the sole benefit of a single village resident. There is no explanation as to what gives the Trustees the authority to make such a determination, particularly one which is to the detriment of all other citizens.
Merely by virtue of the Village granting an exemption, a precedent is being set. Trustee Raskob says he does not see this as a problem since most people have a mortgage and therefore cannot "donate" their residence to a non-profit and thereby become exempted from property taxes.
Leaving aside the matter of how many people might find it economically attractive to change their current status to take advantage of a permanent tax exemption, there is a fundamental issue ignored by Trustee Raskob: the Village refuses to provide a legal basis for Ms. Goveia's exemption, and Trustees are on record as stating that if the Village did not take the property, Ms. Gouveia would simply "donate" it to another charity and she would thenceforth live on the property exempt from taxation.
The statements of the Trustees are on the record, and create the prospect not only of immediate litigation, but future litigation. The refusal of the Trustees to engage taxpayers who have legitimate concerns--founded in case law, no less-- is but one example of the lack of transparency mentioned by the lone dissenting Trustee (Mr. Davis).
The Trustees refuse to explain the basis for the tax exemption, but apparently the reasoning is that public (village) property cannot be taxed. That is true, but then we get to the matter of the municipality giving up public land for the use of a private individual and that raises a whole other set of issues... and prospective litigation.
Kudos to Trustee Kevin Davis, who alone among the Board stated that entering into this acquisition was premature.
--Paul Steinberg
SEE WALTER PLOTCH'S LETTER HERE http://forum.ncnlocal.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=7451
0 comments:
Post a Comment