adc - usually you are so good but here you are being discourteous. I am disapointed by your tone. It is spiteful and mean. This is a billing / math question. do you evenreally understand what is being asked? our building has been billing over and above the rebate amount/. IS IT IS STANDARD, that shareholders receive a windfall and should not be billed for hte rentire rebate amount that appears on their mntnce bill?

Obviously, you did not understand the replies you got last year and you question. Now let's go to the answer:

1. Whether you get a check or a reduction of your taxes to be distributed among qualifying shareholders, the answer is the same.

Let's walk through the numbers and through the concept of maintenance:

Premise:

(1) Maintenance is the necessary income required to pay your aggregate expenses with some minor cream added to it and then divided by the number of shares.

(2) Among your expenses are taxes.

(3) The maintenance per share is a constant number for all the shareholders including the sponsor.

Now, the math. I'm going to use a simple example so that I don't have to pull my calculator:

I have 9 shareholders entitled to the abatement and 1 sponsor, all of the shareholders have the same amount of shares. (REAL SIMPLE!) The building receives $36,000 (in abatement or a check) to be distributed only to qualifying shareholders.

Well, don't have the money and need to do an assessment if I paid a reduced amount of taxes to NYC because of the abatement. OR I have the check from the city and now I would like to assess to retain the check in my coffers, but try to comply with the city in providing the abatement:

Now:

$36,000 / 9 shareholders who qualify = $ 4,000
$36,000 / 10 shareholders total = $ 3,600
Difference $ 400

Thus, the $400 difference resulting from the inclusion of the sponsor represents the abated tax amount that the sponsor was not entitled to receive through a reduced tax paid to NYC, OR the amount that the sponsor needs to pay to NYC by virtue of not being qualified for the abatement.

Bottomline: It is not a windfall to anyone. It means that the taxes paid from the shares owned by the sponsor were not abated by $400.

Hope this is easier to digest.

AdC

funny - it is pretty clear what the quesiton is - you dont get it at all. it has to do with how much you assess people for. read again. also - dont be patronizing and nasty - it does not help. you used to be much better.

The fact that you are assessing equally (shareholder or sponsor)no matter the amount that you plan to raise, means that every one pays their fair share. The sponsor would subsidize the shareholders if you were to assess it $2.00 per share and the rest of the shareholders are assessed $1.50.

Obviously, I don't know how to ïnterpret anymore and this is why I miss the boat! OR, perhaps the person who raises the question does not know what is talking about.

AdC

OK you are just not thinking. The sponsor does not get the tax credit. The shareholders do. got it so far?

so, when all are assesed, (for the same amount), the sponsor pays more because he does not have a credit on that same bill. His bill is higher to start with.

still with us?
so, when you divide the amount of the abatement itself (, say 40k, among all shareholders (inc sponsor) - there will be a surplus on non-sponsor bills for that month BECAUSE - pay attention, because he is footing a portion of this abatement and not getting credit for it. stop and think here please so it sinks in.

THE QUESTION IS - IS IT STANDARD TO ASSESS SHAREHOLDERS ( a) FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE ABATMENT divided among all shares OR,

(b) PAY ATTENTION, to assess based on THE CREDIT THAT APPREAS ON NON-SPONSOR SHAREHOLDER'S BILLS - RESULTING IN AN AMOUNT OF $$ LARGER THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE ABATEMENT?

do you see the difference?

To make it more to the point Mr. Einstien(???):

1. You paid NYC taxes $100,000 for 10 apartments (9 individual shareholders, 1 sponsor)

2. You got a check in the mail for $36,000 for 9 individual shareholders who qualify for the apartment.

3. The amount total amount paid by the building less abatement is $64,000.

NOW...

a. Taking the premise that all 10 apartments have the same amount of shares, each shareholder including the sponsor should pay $10,000. (10,000 X 10 = 100,000) DO we agree so far?

b. The reduction comes and only 9 shareholder qualify for the tax abatement or credit. So, each gets $36,000 / 9 = $4,000 credit per qualifying shareholder.

c. What is the tax allotment that each shareholder pays to NYC and will ultimately be declared through the IRS / State return forms?

(1) Figure this one out and you will tell me if the sponsor paid its fair share of taxes to NYC through maintenance. Of course, by virtue of not qualifying to this abatement, it does not get it. Yet, it may get it through other incentives (that you and I don't know it) available for corporate entities.

(2) It's okay to assess the sponsor for the $36,000 since the amount reduced the total amount of taxes the building paid and the sponsor is an integral component of the building. The difference represents the fair taxes it should pay; it IS NOT SUBSIDIZING anyone of paying more than you. You just happen to be a beneficiary of a NYC tax reduction program.

Finally, I may sound patronizing through my oversimplified examples, but you are not asking for opinion, you are forcing an opinion which does not merit further discussion.

Hope those who follow this conversation, a bit patronizing, a bit insulting have a better idea of the issues.

"Einstien's mother"

that each non-sponsor shahrolder does end up with a little bit of a credit after the assessment ($400). also pls confirm it is standard to base the assessment on the amount of the total abatement and not the amount of the credit that apears on each non-sponsor bill?

(1) Does the building get a check back from NYC for the abatement?

(2) Does the building retain the check in its coffers?

(3) Does the building assess shareholder to pay back the abatement while retaining the total amount of the abatement?

(5) Does the co-op pay the abated portion of your NYC tax burden?

Eintien's mother

totally imbecilic. the questions is simple: which is the more standard method off billing? AdC - have you gone brain dead? we are worried about you.

either you dont want to understand what is a very basic question - or you are just totally incapable of understanding what is being asked OR you do not know the answer.

Let me tell you, sponsors and management representatives know their numbers and their privileges better that you and I. They will rather see all the sharaeholders (incl. the sponsor)being assessed for the difference before they agree to pay the little return shareholders get back from the assessment. Why? Probably because of good accounting and reporting to the IRS.

The method of calculation gets you the same results, but the correct way is through asessment of the entire amount. (Now don''t tell me I have answered your question!):

To demonstrate that all routes lead you to Rome, I am calculating it both ways:

$36,000 / 10 shareholders = $3,600
$36,000 / 9 shareholders = $4,000

Difference = $400

The sponsor gets to pay the $3,600

Now, your original question also had the component of windfall for shareholders and sponsors paying a bit more. THIS IS BOGUS! The sponsor PAYS its fair share of taxes and is not giving each shareholder $400 as a hand-me-down. Otherwise, they would VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE it.

NOW... I''ll try to explain it once more. PLEASE KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND DON'T RUN YOUR MOUTH. ALTHOUGH INSULTING, IT SHOWS YOUR INABILITY TO ARGUE:


1. Your city tax invoice is already reduced, i.e., if your total tax bill were $100,000 without the abatement program, your NYC bill states pay me $64,000 (which you pay to NYC assessor) and you have the commission by NYC to distribute amoung 9 qualifying shareholders $36,000, which is the size of the abatement.

2. Well, each shareholder through maintenance including the sponsor is paying to NYC by way of management: $64000 / 10 shareholders = $6,400 instead of the full tax of $100,000. (remember: $36000 + 64000 = 100,000)

3. So you have 9 qualified shareholder and for $36,000 or $4,000. But, you do not have $36,000 (due to your budgeting) and you need an assessment to distribute the $36,000.

4. So you now assess for the entire abatement to all the shareholders, i.e., $36,000 / 10 = $3,600.

5. You return $4,000 back, and each shareholder gets $400 net.

6. What does this tell you? (and excuse my repetition)

A. Through the building NYC tax bill each shareholder including the sponsor paid $64,000/10 = $6,400.
C. Through assessment all shareholders paid $3,600.
D. Total amount paid for taxes by each shareholder:
$6,400 + $3,600 = $10,000!!!
E. You are returned $4,000. Your total tax paid to the city is $6,000, because you qualified for the abatement.
Since you paid through maintenance $6,400 - 400 (returned to you) = $6,000.
F. The sponsor does not get the abatement, so he pays the alloted total NYC tax value of the building:

$6,400 + $3,600 = $10,000.

Now you sit down with the NYC tax invoice and go through the motions of figuring the arithmetic out.

You'll get my point!

In a separate mailing I will clarify my questions.

AdC

Why I asked my questions?

I do not live in New York and there is no abatement; however, the principle is the same as numbers never fail us. I will respond to each question.

(1) Does the building get a check back from NYC for the abatement? (Again referring to my ridiculous example as it is regarded)

Say the NYC tax is $100,000 and you paid this amount. The city sends you a check for $36,000 and tells you to distribute to the 9 shareholders that you have.

In this case, you take the check and divide it by the 9 individuals and case closed. Every one gets the $4,000 and the tax ends up being $6,000 per head. $10,000 for the sponsor because that is the amount he needs to pay for taxes since it has no allowance. No need for assessment, no nothing.


(2) Does the building retain the check in its coffers?


(3) Does the building assess shareholder to pay back the abatement while retaining the total amount of the abatement?

(2) and (3) is a two step question. Again based on the fact that you paid the full amount and a check is returned, similar to your federal/state taxes in which you pay, and if you pay in excess you get a check.

If he building were to retain the check in its coffers, then assess each shareholder for the check, then everyone wlll be paying above and beyond $3,600. In this case there will be a windfall because the sponsor will have to foot $3,600 extra to take care of shareholders. However... (I will not confuse you any more). This is the only time in which a windfall can be conceived.

So, no more insults, no more explanations.

Good bye, but... get your NYC tax invoice sit down and try to make light out of it. It's the only SMART way out!

Ëinstien's mother; Eintein's tutor, etc.
a/k/a AdC

it has to do with HOW you base the assessment. do you or do you not get this?

here is what you do - you assess for the maount of the abatement divided among all shareholders. because the sponsor doe snot get the credit, the other shrholders are left with a credit - despite the assessment. call it what you will but some might call this a little nice windfall. or a tax break or whatever. adc you have gone completely bats and are terrible at addressing this. you also keep spitting out some example with numbers that is redundtant and doe not address the bais for billing. Please STOP and think the future - you used to be so wise before you went nuts.

Collect from the sponsor it share.

AdC

we know that. what we dont know is: is it standard to have a slight windfall on regular shareholder bills AFTER the assesment because the sponsor, in effect, is subsidizing the assessment?
- which should, ideally be for the total amount of the abatement spread among ALL shareholders -?

and, thus, NOT an assesment amount that equals the total of the abatement credit on non-sponsor maintaience bills. comprendo?

ie the abatement credit and assessment amount on regular shareholder bills should NOT be the same amount.

yes yes, we know: the sponsor, however, will just get an assessment without the credit. BUT there should be a windfall for shareholder because of this!!! RIGHT??????

Your statement:

and, thus, NOT an assesment amount that equals the total of the abatement credit on non-sponsor maintaience bills. comprendo?

Going to my example that got you so upset:

If you were to raise $36,000

$36,000 / 9 worthy shareholders = $4,000 a piece each
$36,000 / 10 shareholders incl. sponsor = $3,600 a piece each.

Difference = $ 400.

Now, the 10 shareholders raised $36,000, but you will return to 9 sharholders $4,000. So, the amount raised or returned to you by way of an abatement are not equal.

Being "nasty" again, $4,000 (returned) > $3,600 (assessed).

In other words, every shareholder including the sponsor is assessed $3,600 to raise $36,000. Worthy shareholders get back $4,000. So, the abatement amounted to $4,000, but only got back $400.

On the other side, the sponsor pays $3,600 but gets nothing back, i.e., does not get like the other shareholders $400 because is not qualified.

The bottomline is as follows: the co-op was short $36,000 in their taxes or wanted to collect money above and beyond to match the check, every one pays the same.

I know it's a bit confusing, but it would be easier to let the shareholders know that no distribution and request the sponsor to pay the $3,600, which divided by the 9 shasreholders happen to be $400 a piece.

As I mentioned in my example, the $400 or the $3,600 is not a contribution or a windfall, but the fair share of NYC taxes that the sponsor needs to pay since it's not qualified under the program.

Now... don't ask the same question next year!

AdC

firstly, you present a barely comprehensible example. It is a mess. secondly, , i did not get upset by any example of yours. I just was amazed that you did not understadn what i was saying. also your example is totally unclear and you fail to answer the question.
WHAT IS THE STANDARD WAY OF BILLING??? SEE LAST POSTING AND JUST ANSWER PLEASE. NOTE: FDNYC MUCH SHARPER THAN YOU - THEY GOT IT RIGHT AWAY.

what you are saying here is what i have said already. you are saying each non-sponsor sharheolder ends up with an extra $400 after all is sadi and done. This is a windfall.

got it? That is what I said from the start - but, somehow you still do not address the core of the question. what do you think my question is:


If you were to raise $36,000

$36,000 / 9 worthy shareholders = $4,000 a piece each
$36,000 / 10 shareholders incl. sponsor = $3,600 a piece each.

Difference = $ 400.

Now, the 10 shareholders raised $36,000, but you will return to 9 sharholders $4,000. So, the amount raised or returned to you by way of an abatement are not equal.

Being "nasty" again, $4,000 (returned) > $3,600 (assessed).

In other words, every shareholder including the sponsor is assessed $3,600 to raise $36,000. Worthy shareholders get back $4,000. So, the abatement amounted to $4,000, but only got back $400.

On the other side, the sponsor pays $3,600 but gets nothing back, i.e., does not get like the other shareholders $400 because is not qualified.

The bottomline is as follows: the co-op was short $36,000 in their taxes WHAT DOES THIS MEAN ADC? HOW CAN THEY BE SHIRT IN TAXES IF THEY ARE GETITNG A REBATE? or wanted to collect money above and beyond to match the check, every one pays the same. EVERYONE DOES NOT PAY THE SAME - YOU JUST SAID SO ABOVE.