InnoVest Resource Management's Foreclosure Forum

Home Discussion Board "Hands-On" Training Title Holding Trust Annual Reunion Speaking Schedule Store Foreclosure Fundamentals Code References 50 State Foreclosure Basics Foreclosure Glossary Foreclosure Statistics 70+ Yrs Interest Rates Fillable Forms Archived Articles Dingbat Retirement Plan Links Contact / Map About Us Home

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] Re: Good news... Posted by Kristine-CA on June 09, 2009 at 10:01 PM In Reply to: Re: Good news... posted by hard money lender on June 09, 2009 at 9:37 PM Oh, I have lots of complaints, mostly with state government policies that impact my business. Try Dept. of Health Services which is allowed secret liens--no recording, no statue of limitations and doesn't have to make anything public. The difference in your complaint is that IRS policy is well known, well published and has been the same for years. All foreclosure purchases have IRS risks. That's a known quantity. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter that you are lender taking property at forelosure sale....it's still a foreclosure sale and IRS policy still applies. So, putting money into a property that one gets at foreclosure sale with an IRS lien is a risk. I've done it a few times with tax sale properties before the 120 days was up. But I knew it was a risk, and I knew that I wouldn't be able to "bill" the IRS for the money I spent. : if they had wanted to take over the property, i would have told them that in order to get the property in the position that it is today, we have had to put "x" dollars into it. : and would have asked for that "x" dollars back, on top of what the original amount was. : i might have been willing to start some sort of class action suit against this ridiculous policy, if they refused - which i would expect them to do. : the lender is forced to start right away, to keep the property safe and secure, etc. : there is no way that the govt should be able to come in later, and take the property without reimbursing the lender for his trouble. : as i said earlier, i am sick of the intrusiveness of our govt. : i no longer lend on owner occupied sfrs. the govt seems to think nothing of coming in, and changing a legal agreement between 2 parties. : if i ever get that bs on a non-owner occupied sfr, i wont lend on those, either. : many lenders are following my suit. : i am sure that you have some complaints about the govt concerning your business. : btw, this is the first time i have had an irs lien on a property that i took over. : as i told you in the past, these are the first groups of properties that i have ever had to actually own. Follow Ups: Re: Good news... hard money lender 10:18 PM, 06/09/09 (6) My Broken record speech to you... Rick, the Probate Guy 7:15 AM, 06/10/09 (4) Re: My Broken record speech to you... hard money lender 8:55 AM, 06/10/09 (2) For inspiration... CC in OC 8:09 PM, 06/10/09 (1) Re: For inspiration... hard money lender 8:28 PM, 06/10/09 (0) Rick & Kristine you've done it again! Tom 8:31 AM, 06/10/09 (0) Vote Libertarian (NT) CC in OC 10:38 PM, 06/09/09 (0) Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : Oh, I have lots of complaints, mostly with state government policies that impact my business. Try Dept. of Health Services which is allowed secret liens--no recording, no statue of limitations and doesn't have to make anything public. : The difference in your complaint is that IRS policy is well known, well published and has been the same for years. All foreclosure purchases have IRS risks. That's a known quantity. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter that you are lender taking property at forelosure sale....it's still a foreclosure sale and IRS policy still applies. So, putting money into a property that one gets at foreclosure sale with an IRS lien is a risk. I've done it a few times with tax sale properties before the 120 days was up. But I knew it was a risk, and I knew that I wouldn't be able to "bill" the IRS for the money I spent. : : : if they had wanted to take over the property, i would have told them that in order to get the property in the position that it is today, we have had to put "x" dollars into it. : : and would have asked for that "x" dollars back, on top of what the original amount was. : : i might have been willing to start some sort of class action suit against this ridiculous policy, if they refused - which i would expect them to do. : : the lender is forced to start right away, to keep the property safe and secure, etc. : : there is no way that the govt should be able to come in later, and take the property without reimbursing the lender for his trouble. : : as i said earlier, i am sick of the intrusiveness of our govt. : : i no longer lend on owner occupied sfrs. the govt seems to think nothing of coming in, and changing a legal agreement between 2 parties. : : if i ever get that bs on a non-owner occupied sfr, i wont lend on those, either. : : many lenders are following my suit. : : i am sure that you have some complaints about the govt concerning your business. : : btw, this is the first time i have had an irs lien on a property that i took over. : : as i told you in the past, these are the first groups of properties that i have ever had to actually own. [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] WWWAdmin 2.0a © 1997 Matt Wright and DBasics Software Company, All Rights Reserved

Information provided by this website is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional advice. Please consult your investment advisor and/or attorney before entering into any transaction. Read our privacy policy.

Copyright © 1997-date("Y"), InnoVest Resource Management
http://www.foreclosureforum.com

InnoVest Resource Management, 4569-A Mission Gorge Place, San Diego CA 92120-4112
(619) 283-5444, Fax (619) 283-5455