Kurt Ullman wrote:
- quote -

I'd think structuring that agreement in the most advantageous way would
be at least one reason as well as simply having somebody on your payroll
thru the process. I've never known the entities in charge of the quarry
operations or similar to be particularly concerned over the rights or
benefits to the parties other than themselves.

The tax implications would be at least dependent if not controlled
largely on the structure of that agreement it would seem. Not to
mention, of course, the question of who is determining the value
previously alluded to and what will be future value of having
near-lakefront property, perhaps, etc., etc., ...

Of course, if it is really true that State law mandates a 300-ft
setback, it certainly isn't clear how a local City/homeowners group and
the regulated entity can simply set that aside, either. Not to mention
there's probably applicable EPA and maybe even Corps of Engineers
regulations coming into play w/ since there apparently is ground water
involved.

Seems like worrying about the taxes (while granted is potentially of
some value in considering) is premature yet from the data
presented...and certainly don't see how anybody could venture much w/o
much more detailed information. Of course, there could (and probably
is) much more to the story that we're not privy to.

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gf5pi2$882$1[at]registered.motzarella.org> ,
"jack" <jack[at]yahoo.org> wrote:

- quote -

I was wondering if when the new land is deeded to us, there would be
income tax concerns. I realize some changes in the property tax, I was
just wondering what the other tax implications might be (if there are
any).

- quote -

came to an agreement with the company. Until then the BZA said they were
quite happy with the status quo and wouldn't reopen the case
until/unless there was some kind of request from the adjacent property
owners.
Basically we wanted to make sure there wasn't enough land back
there to build on, which deeding the extra to us accomplishes.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gf7f6l$4he$1[at]reader1.panix.com> , sethb[at]panix.com (Seth)
wrote:

- quote -

Thanks. That is the kind of advice I was looking for even if the
only definitive statement is that I need to talk to a lawyer to get a
defnitive statement.

Kurt

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gf5pi2$882$1[at]registered.motzarella.org> ,
jack <jack[at]yahoo.org> wrote:
- quote -

OP is getting 75' of land. Is the value of that land taxable income?

(I'd insist on a legal opinion from a qualified attorney that it
isn't, and/or a contract providing compensation for the taxes owed if
it turns out to be.)

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-EB6621.12363008112008[at]70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
- quote -

taxed?
I have to think you are misunderstanding this; without bribes what you
describe isn't going to happen.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article
<08976dfb-889f-4205-8613-593d14d8904d[at]a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com> ,
Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:

- quote -

Everything is in place, including city okay. I am just wanting to
know about the tax implications. Actually the quarry will be 150 feet
from the line, we get 75 feet, the city gets 75 feet so nobody can spray
pesticides, etc., since they are going to (eventually) be using the lake
that results from the quarry for a reservior for the city.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gf55a3$ugi$2[at]aioe.org> , dpb <none[at]non.net> wrote:

- quote -

I am not sure why we would want to. This is going in and the only
question is how far back from the lotline. The new setback was
negotiated by us more to control what did (or more specifically did NOT)
go in back there after the mining was over.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Nov 8, 7:19*pm, dpb <n...[at]non.net> wrote:
- quote -


It is highly unlikely that the quarry operator and the adjacent land
owners can do this deal without city approval. Set backs from property
lines for a variety of uses are set by local or state law. What the OP
describes is the quarry being 75 feet from the new property line
instead of the 300 feet required set back. That's not likely to fly
before my planning commission.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Kurt Ullman wrote:
....
- quote -

Get the affected group together and hire a lawyer????

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

We back up to a gravel quarry that just opened up. Under local and
state law, they have to keep the berm that the dredging is behind at no
less than 300 feet from our lot lines. The company wants to bring it to
150 feet (that area alone across the entire length of the addition is
supposed to be worth > $2 million). In return for our not stopping it,
they are talking about splitting the difference and giving (deeding) the
adjacent homeowners 75 feet from current lot lines.
The city has already laid claim to the lake that will be generated
and 75 along the shore to use as reservior for the water company.
Is this going to be taxed? Is there away around the tax, like saying
it is compensation for reduced property values related to the nuisance
of the quarry for the 10-15 year life expectance? Any other suggestions?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >