So she made up income in order to justify bigger depreciation amounts that save her money on her taxes? Is that the claim?
Depreciation? On a house? How does that even work?
It's part of the "It doesn't have a hitch on one end" tax rule.
Tantrums don't change outcomes
Losing is part of life. Sometimes the answer is simply NO.
Fair enough.
< insert I am not a smart man meme >
Ignorance of tax policy=\= dumb
I just have a hard time understanding depreciation on a (presumably) appreciating asset like a single family home. It might make sense for a multifamily rental property that's got a 30 year effective lifetime, but what do I know?
Fair enough.
< insert I am not a smart man meme >
Ignorance of tax policy=\= dumb
I just have a hard time understanding depreciation on a (presumably) appreciating asset like a single family home. It might make sense for a multifamily rental property that's got a 30 year effective lifetime, but what do I know?
A secondary home gets a lower interest rate than a rental. James listed it as a secondary home but rented it out to her niece. So James in theory would have received a lower interest rate on the home. Now, did the neice and J James have a rental agreement? Did the neice make payments? Did James claim income from the rental? Was this arranged before the closing?
Lots of questions that a GRAND JURY OF HER PEERS decided were worth a CRIMINAL investigation, not civil charges that were pursued by James against Trump. And those civil charges were tenuous at best.
Fair enough.
< insert I am not a smart man meme >
Ignorance of tax policy=\= dumb
I just have a hard time understanding depreciation on a (presumably) appreciating asset like a single family home. It might make sense for a multifamily rental property that's got a 30 year effective lifetime, but what do I know?
A secondary home gets a lower interest rate than a rental. James listed it as a secondary home but rented it out to her niece. So James in theory would have received a lower interest rate on the home. Now, did the neice and J James have a rental agreement? Did the neice make payments? Did James claim income from the rental? Was this arranged before the closing?
Lots of questions that a GRAND JURY OF HER PEERS decided were worth a CRIMINAL investigation, not civil charges that were pursued by James against Trump. And those civil charges were tenuous at best.
There's nothing that says the prosecution brought any of that up considering A: they don't have to bring any of that up if it won't help their case and B: the defense doesn't get to argue if that were the case.
This is such a waste of time, just like the Trump trial was. We don't have a serious government.
@boogie What do you mean it wasn't brought up? It's items 6, 7, and 8 of the indictment. That IS the case: she listed the property as a second home but used as a rental.
letitia_james_indictment_0_0.pdf https://share.google/S6ETkJTkUdof9oahX
I don't care about James as a person at all, but I bet she's never convicted. Her case against Trump was political from the start. In fact none of the state cases should have happened and at least appear political. As for this case, remember Grand Juries ONLY see the prosecution's side of the case, and only some of that. This is a complicated case and will be very difficult for the prosecution to win it. Good luck.
I wish I could read behind the paywall.I don't care about James as a person at all, but I bet she's never convicted. Her case against Trump was political from the start. In fact none of the state cases should have happened and at least appear political. As for this case, remember Grand Juries ONLY see the prosecution's side of the case, and only some of that. This is a complicated case and will be very difficult for the prosecution to win it. Good luck.
I did find this article interesting regarding how she filed ethics reports stating it was a rental for several years when she knew she signed the Second Home Rider.
NY AG Letitia James admitted Virginia home at center of bank fraud indictment was 'investment' property https://share.google/xTgAx2sPuGrFQ7XEu
I agree she won't be convicted but will likely plead to a lesser charge with fines and no time served.
Like in the Trump case, if the bank had no issues with the paperwork there should be no case. Besides, I understand that one document was different than all the others. I just bought a place in Flagstaff, and I didn't read every single line in that huge pile of documents. I mostly just initialed and signed where I was told to. Bank is happy, we're happy, everyone is happy. Hope I didn't break a law!I wish I could read behind the paywall.I don't care about James as a person at all, but I bet she's never convicted. Her case against Trump was political from the start. In fact none of the state cases should have happened and at least appear political. As for this case, remember Grand Juries ONLY see the prosecution's side of the case, and only some of that. This is a complicated case and will be very difficult for the prosecution to win it. Good luck.
I did find this article interesting regarding how she filed ethics reports stating it was a rental for several years when she knew she signed the Second Home Rider.
NY AG Letitia James admitted Virginia home at center of bank fraud indictment was 'investment' property https://share.google/xTgAx2sPuGrFQ7XEu
I agree she won't be convicted but will likely plead to a lesser charge with fines and no time served.
My bet is she won't even plead to anything. It'll probably get dismissed.
@aloha-hoosier No, your bank will not be happy if you screwed it out of money while increasing the risk of loss. There is a reason for a second home rider. Sorry, but ignorance is not an excuse.
Well, of course they wouldn't be. It's telling that her bank isn't unhappy at all. It'll be dismissed same as Trump's case should have been.@aloha-hoosier No, your bank will not be happy if you screwed it out of money while increasing the risk of loss. There is a reason for a second home rider. Sorry, but ignorance is not an excuse.
@aloha-hoosier I must have missed First Savings statement that they were happy to have a loan purchased under false pretenses that had increased risk.
But this is a criminal case, not a civil one, so what the bank thinks is irrelevant. If she broke the law, then she needs to suffer the consequences. If Trump criminally breaks the law, he too should suffer the consequences.
Here's a nice article on mortgage fraud. Notice that occupancy fraud had tripled since 2020. And the cost to all of us is 12.5B.
@aloha-hoosier No, your bank will not be happy if you screwed it out of money while increasing the risk of loss. There is a reason for a second home rider. Sorry, but ignorance is not an excuse.
This is hilarious.