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.