Paying off Mello Roos

User Forum Topic
Submitted by paranoid on February 27, 2012 - 7:39pm

Interest rate is historic low now. MR in places like 4S ranch has a 40-year life, and has a rate close to 10% (my rough guestimate). MR can be increased by 2% every year. So my question is: is it worth it to pay off completely your MR now? This saves alot of money if you intend to stay for a long time. What do you guys think?

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 24, 2013 - 7:32am.

ocrenter wrote:

agree with ER.

"potential extension into 2043" = we got you until 2043.

no question about it.

the blocking of prepayment may be because they are already counting on the 2033-2043 payments, if you prepay, they don't get "their" money.

Ha, ha. Yep OCR. Even when I was paying mine off, I inquired with them regarding the possibility of getting extended (CFD #4 PUSD). It went until 2041 but he also was very clear to mention, "it could also get extended". I asked him to explain under which circumstances it could get extended.

His response was something like, "It's a bit complicated to go into". LOL.

No thanks! Guys, you have to realize that these entities will do WHATEVER they need to do to try to extend out these CFD's. They take comfort in the fact that the vast majority of taxpayers have NO CLUE nor seem to care about this. They just pay the figure on the tax bill each year like dolts.

That's why you saw a situation of taxpayers paying up to double of what they were supposed to pay under that KPBS investigative report. It's a good example that people are clueless and they don't have any idea what is going on.

The vast majority of people out there are NOT like us wise Piggs. The masses are clueless and where these CFD's (and their administrators) thrive and have job security is the fact that no one knows anything about these things.

If you have followed this closely you will see that the CFD's and administrators are waking up to the fact that we're sharing information now on prepaying off CFD's. They never imagined people would be doing these to the levels they are. They don't like it.

I don't have the paperwork in front of me but when I was doing the due diligence to pay it off, there was all kinds of technical legal jargon and verbiage in the legal documents that I do believe the CFD's will use to try to claim that allowing more people to pre-pay off their CFD's ahead of time will be a detriment to the future budget and they will ban it.

The only people that will be off the hook are those of us that saw the writing on the wall and pre-paid it off ahead of time. And it's kind of a catch 22 because the more people that pre-pay it off ahead of time means their budgets in the future will probably be light.

After all, I don't expect these CFD's to be doing wise things with my $61,000+ that I prepaid ahead of time. That money is in their coffers now and it doesn't seem like there is any oversight anyway administering and spending these funds. So you MUST imagine by the time these CFD's were originally set to expire....they probably will be short..... and how will they cover that shortfall?????

Probably being "forced" and extending the CFD's out further....

Submitted by joec on September 24, 2013 - 7:07pm.

A lot of interesting info in this thread and enjoyed all the info on CFD bonds.

I think a lot of people don't pay them off because, for 1, they don't have the cash, 2) they rather just keep the cash themselves since no one knows what will happen and if they will stay in the home long term.

If you are very wealthy, it's worth considering, but some downsides I see is that you would lose the tax break that everyone is taking when paying these yearly. The tax break is pretty big for high income folks (45%?) Another thing is the time value of money. $5000 30 years from now even if increased 2% a year is not the same as $5000 today which is worth a lot more.

There's little to no inflation now (according to the fed, but tons of inflation in things like education/healthcare, etc...)...

That said, similar to a mortgage, the CFD could be worth a lot in saving high income people a lot of taxes and if inflation were to come back, the mortgage and the CFDs won't be as bad in 20-40 years neither.

All that said, you really have to just do the math to see if it makes sense for your situation.

No plans to pay here since we don't have the money and could use more funds for business instead.

Submitted by ltsdd on September 24, 2013 - 9:23pm.

ocrenter wrote:
When I paid the MR off, we still had 22 years to go on the MR. Total cost over the 22 years would have been $150k. With the payoff at $58k, and one of the MR at 7.5% the calculation came out in favor of payoff as we essentially "earn" $92k by paying the $58k upfront.

Excellent thread.

OCR,
Did you take into account the tax deductibility of the MR (let's put aside the debate on whether or not it's allowed or legal for now) - I assume you didn't? Would your conclusion be any different as to whether or not it's advantageous to pay off MR? Using your example above and let's assume you're in the 30% tax bracket, by paying off your MR you earned roughly $45K instead of $92K. I am pretty sure that even with the most conservative investment vehicle, you should not have any problem doubling your money in that 22 years period. Personally, I would have hung on to that cash.

Submitted by ocrenter on September 24, 2013 - 9:28pm.

joec wrote:

If you are very wealthy, it's worth considering, but some downsides I see is that you would lose the tax break that everyone is taking when paying these yearly. The tax break is pretty big for high income folks (45%?) Another thing is the time value of money. $5000 30 years from now even if increased 2% a year is not the same as $5000 today which is worth a lot more.

People hitting that AMT yearly would not be able to deduct their property tax, including the MR. Judging by the income survey, that includes a lot of piggs.

Submitted by ocrenter on September 24, 2013 - 9:44pm.

ltsdd wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
When I paid the MR off, we still had 22 years to go on the MR. Total cost over the 22 years would have been $150k. With the payoff at $58k, and one of the MR at 7.5% the calculation came out in favor of payoff as we essentially "earn" $92k by paying the $58k upfront.

Excellent thread.

OCR,
Did you take into account the tax deductibility of the MR (let's put aside the debate on whether or not it's allowed or legal for now) - I assume you didn't? Would your conclusion be any different as to whether or not it's advantageous to pay off MR? Using your example above and let's assume you're in the 30% tax bracket, by paying off your MR you earned roughly $45K instead of $92K. I am pretty sure that even with the most conservative investment vehicle, you should not have any problem doubling your money in that 22 years period. Personally, I would have hung on to that cash.

This would all be exactly right and accurate if the government didn't devise a way to allow for double taxation known as the AMT.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 24, 2013 - 10:56pm.

ocrenter wrote:
joec wrote:

If you are very wealthy, it's worth considering, but some downsides I see is that you would lose the tax break that everyone is taking when paying these yearly. The tax break is pretty big for high income folks (45%?) Another thing is the time value of money. $5000 30 years from now even if increased 2% a year is not the same as $5000 today which is worth a lot more.

People hitting that AMT yearly would not be able to deduct their property tax, including the MR. Judging by the income survey, that includes a lot of piggs.

This would all be exactly right and accurate if the government didn't devise a way to allow for double taxation known as the AMT.

LOL. Exactly. Darn AMT will get you every time! Your accountant can be skillful but no way some of us can find loopholes to avoid AMT!

Death and taxes and all....

A depressing read:

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T...

joec wrote:

I think a lot of people don't pay them off because, for 1, they don't have the cash, 2) they rather just keep the cash themselves since no one knows what will happen and if they will stay in the home long term.

If you are very wealthy, it's worth considering, but some downsides I see is that you would lose the tax break that everyone is taking when paying these yearly. The tax break is pretty big for high income folks (45%?) Another thing is the time value of money. $5000 30 years from now even if increased 2% a year is not the same as $5000 today which is worth a lot more.

There's little to no inflation now (according to the fed, but tons of inflation in things like education/healthcare, etc...)...

That said, similar to a mortgage, the CFD could be worth a lot in saving high income people a lot of taxes and if inflation were to come back, the mortgage and the CFDs won't be as bad in 20-40 years neither.

All that said, you really have to just do the math to see if it makes sense for your situation.

No plans to pay here since we don't have the money and could use more funds for business instead.

Joe,

Yep. Lots of people don't pay them off because they don't have the cash. True. But even if they have the cash, most people VASTLY over estimate their investment abilities. Most people I know think they are stock gurus and in an upmarket like now they think they are Warren Buffett Jr.! (A few years ago....um not so much).

I saw grown men need some Depends adult diapers during the financial collapse! LOL. I saw grown men weeping and scared at the amount of paper losses they had. So I'd say spare me the details of "I can easily GUARANTEE to double my money in X years". Sorry but there is no such thing as guaranteed ROI with NO RISK for the most part.

As you mentioned, no it doesn't make sense for everyone. You just have to look at your personal situation, how long you will stay in the property, etc.

Well, we already covered the AMT lesson so scratch your idea on that for a large % of the people that probably have the cash to pay it off to begin with. As OCrenter mentioned....we get raped in AMT.

But to be sure, paying it off isn't for everyone. You just have to look at your individual situation. But in my experience, people will always find excuses why they shouldn't pay them off. Typically mostly related to them thinking (or explaining to me) how they will make much better returns somewhere else. When I ask them if it's GUARANTEED with NO risk.... well the answer is always no.

Submitted by ocrenter on September 24, 2013 - 10:58pm.

ER, a depressing read indeed!

Line 1 recommended taking standard deduction?! Just to avoid the AMT? For real??? Talk about the medicine being worse than the disease itself.

The best part was line 25: Intangible Drilling Costs!!! My CPA didn't tell me about that loophole!!! I'm on the phone so he can submit that amendment STAT! :-)

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 24, 2013 - 11:25pm.

ocrenter wrote:
ER, a depressing read indeed!

Line 1 recommended taking standard deduction?! Just to avoid the AMT? For real??? Talk about the medicine being worse than the disease itself.

The best part was line 25: Intangible Drilling Costs!!! My CPA didn't tell me about that loophole!!! I'm on the phone so he can submit that amendment STAT! :-)

Yeah, it's sad isn't it ocr? Talk about a "parallel" universe! LOL. Yes, very very depressing.

Yes, the medicine is definitely worse than the disease itself but at least with the ATRA (American Taxpayer Relief Act) from 2012 there were some great changes including the index for inflation.

This AMT was intended for wealthy people but it was starting to affect people that clearly were NOT wealthy. So at least some changes were made last year with the indexing and also raising the exemptions. (Hey every little bit helps!).

In 2013 about 4 million people I believe will be estimated to pay about $26 BILLION in AMT. Without the modification of ATRA it would be something like 25 million Americans having to pay AMT! And over 50 million by 2025 or so.

So I guess things could be worse! You know the old saying.... "I could complain about my taxes but who would listen?". LOL.

More positive read: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/d...

PS. ocr - there is usually drilling going on but it's usually the IRS doing the "drilling" and I guess it's not so "intangible". It hurts me every time! LOL.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 24, 2013 - 11:31pm.

Also, I believe I posted this earlier in this epic thread but I'll repost it as clueless included it in part of a message to me and I hope he/she posts more details about their CFD #99-1 experience.

This is what I think is in most CFD's and probably how they will justify stopping to end CFD pre-pay offs in the future.

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, no prepayment will be allowed for Assessor's Parcels eligible for prepayment pursuant to the first paragraph of this Section G (the above paragraph) or pursuant to the paragraph immediately above unless the amount of Annual Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property, net of Administrative Expenses, shall be at least 1.1 times the regularly scheduled annual interest and principal payments on all currently outstanding Bonds in each future Fiscal Year and such prepayment will not impair the security of all currently outstanding Bonds, as reasonably determined by the Board."

The key phrase I believe they will use is, "and such prepayment will not impair the security of all currently outstanding Bonds, as reasonably determined by the Board".

Submitted by CA renter on September 25, 2013 - 1:41am.

earlyretirement wrote:
Also, I believe I posted this earlier in this epic thread but I'll repost it as clueless included it in part of a message to me and I hope he/she posts more details about their CFD #99-1 experience.

This is what I think is in most CFD's and probably how they will justify stopping to end CFD pre-pay offs in the future.

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, no prepayment will be allowed for Assessor's Parcels eligible for prepayment pursuant to the first paragraph of this Section G (the above paragraph) or pursuant to the paragraph immediately above unless the amount of Annual Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property, net of Administrative Expenses, shall be at least 1.1 times the regularly scheduled annual interest and principal payments on all currently outstanding Bonds in each future Fiscal Year and such prepayment will not impair the security of all currently outstanding Bonds, as reasonably determined by the Board."

The key phrase I believe they will use is, "and such prepayment will not impair the security of all currently outstanding Bonds, as reasonably determined by the Board".

Last one out's a rotten egg!

In other words, if you have the money to pay them off, and plan to live in your house "indefinitely," it's probably wise to pay them now rather than later. Again, in some cases (like yours, ER), paying these bonds off is a complete no-brainer.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 25, 2013 - 6:55am.

CA renter wrote:

Last one out's a rotten egg!

In other words, if you have the money to pay them off, and plan to live in your house "indefinitely," it's probably wise to pay them now rather than later. Again, in some cases (like yours, ER), paying these bonds off is a complete no-brainer.

Ha, ha. Bingo. Exactly CA renter. You guys don't have MR up there...no? Nice not to have to think about? We'll have to get together for a coffee or lunch again soon. Enjoyed our last visit.

Submitted by ltsdd on September 25, 2013 - 7:12am.

earlyretirement wrote:

...most people VASTLY over estimate their investment abilities. Most people I know think they are stock gurus and in an upmarket like now they think they are Warren Buffett Jr.! (A few years ago....um not so much).

ER,
Most people on this board should be savvy enough to be able to get a return of 3% annually on their investments, no?

Submitted by ocrenter on September 25, 2013 - 7:23am.

earlyretirement wrote:
Also, I believe I posted this earlier in this epic thread but I'll repost it as clueless included it in part of a message to me and I hope he/she posts more details about their CFD #99-1 experience.

This is what I think is in most CFD's and probably how they will justify stopping to end CFD pre-pay offs in the future.

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, no prepayment will be allowed for Assessor's Parcels eligible for prepayment pursuant to the first paragraph of this Section G (the above paragraph) or pursuant to the paragraph immediately above unless the amount of Annual Special Taxes that may be levied on Taxable Property, net of Administrative Expenses, shall be at least 1.1 times the regularly scheduled annual interest and principal payments on all currently outstanding Bonds in each future Fiscal Year and such prepayment will not impair the security of all currently outstanding Bonds, as reasonably determined by the Board."

The key phrase I believe they will use is, "and such prepayment will not impair the security of all currently outstanding Bonds, as reasonably determined by the Board".

Faced with the very likely event of extension to 2043, I would still try to see if the Board is willing to allow prepayment. As CAR pointed out, last one out is the rotten egg. The board will likely approve on first of the few requests. Then realize they can't afford to grant prepayments any more and deny away in the future. Very well worth a try at least.

Submitted by ocrenter on September 25, 2013 - 7:26am.

ltsdd wrote:
earlyretirement wrote:

...most people VASTLY over estimate their investment abilities. Most people I know think they are stock gurus and in an upmarket like now they think they are Warren Buffett Jr.! (A few years ago....um not so much).

ER,
Most people on this board should be savvy enough to be able to get a return of 3% annually on their investments, no?

Where are you getting the 3%? Yes, if the MR is at 3% i would not prepay. If I'm not subject to AMT yearly I would likely not repay.

Neither is the reality. Thus the prepayment.

Submitted by ltsdd on September 25, 2013 - 7:33am.

ocrenter wrote:
ltsdd wrote:
earlyretirement wrote:

...most people VASTLY over estimate their investment abilities. Most people I know think they are stock gurus and in an upmarket like now they think they are Warren Buffett Jr.! (A few years ago....um not so much).

ER,
Most people on this board should be savvy enough to be able to get a return of 3% annually on their investments, no?

Where are you getting the 3%? Yes, if the MR is at 3% i would not prepay. If I'm not subject to AMT yearly I would likely not repay.

Neither is the reality. Thus the prepayment.

Using your example. A return of 3%/year (or there about) should double your pay-off amount in the 22-year period that you mentioned.

Submitted by ocrenter on September 25, 2013 - 7:47am.

ltsdd wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
ltsdd wrote:
earlyretirement wrote:

...most people VASTLY over estimate their investment abilities. Most people I know think they are stock gurus and in an upmarket like now they think they are Warren Buffett Jr.! (A few years ago....um not so much).

ER,
Most people on this board should be savvy enough to be able to get a return of 3% annually on their investments, no?

Where are you getting the 3%? Yes, if the MR is at 3% i would not prepay. If I'm not subject to AMT yearly I would likely not repay.

Neither is the reality. Thus the prepayment.

Using your example. A return of 3%/year (or there about) should double your pay-off amount in the 22-year period that you mentioned.

The doubling would still be subject to 40% taxation. So I'm still looking at $80k vs $150k.

The money saved by prepayment is not subject to the 40% tax rate.

Prepayment still wins.

Trust me, deciding to prepay was major decision, all potential scenarios were evaluated.

Submitted by ocrenter on September 25, 2013 - 7:51am.

earlyretirement wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
ER, a depressing read indeed!

Line 1 recommended taking standard deduction?! Just to avoid the AMT? For real??? Talk about the medicine being worse than the disease itself.

The best part was line 25: Intangible Drilling Costs!!! My CPA didn't tell me about that loophole!!! I'm on the phone so he can submit that amendment STAT! :-)

Yeah, it's sad isn't it ocr? Talk about a "parallel" universe! LOL. Yes, very very depressing.

Yes, the medicine is definitely worse than the disease itself but at least with the ATRA (American Taxpayer Relief Act) from 2012 there were some great changes including the index for inflation.

This AMT was intended for wealthy people but it was starting to affect people that clearly were NOT wealthy. So at least some changes were made last year with the indexing and also raising the exemptions. (Hey every little bit helps!).

In 2013 about 4 million people I believe will be estimated to pay about $26 BILLION in AMT. Without the modification of ATRA it would be something like 25 million Americans having to pay AMT! And over 50 million by 2025 or so.

So I guess things could be worse! You know the old saying.... "I could complain about my taxes but who would listen?". LOL.

More positive read: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/d...

PS. ocr - there is usually drilling going on but it's usually the IRS doing the "drilling" and I guess it's not so "intangible". It hurts me every time! LOL.

The quarterly drilling does ultimately factor into my willingness to work. It really is the case of deminishing returns. Which actually works out for the family. :-)

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 25, 2013 - 8:07am.

ltsdd wrote:

ER,
Most people on this board should be savvy enough to be able to get a return of 3% annually on their investments, no?

ltsdd,

Most people should be savvy enough not to over leverage, spend above their means, or lose incredible amounts of money on speculative investments. But it still happens every day in San Diego from people that I would deem to be intelligent.

Like I said before, people think they are more savvy than they are. It's just plain human nature. It's not just in investments. It's in real life as well. People think they are thinner than they are, more beautiful, nicer, polite, funnier. The problem is those other traits don't affect you as much as people that mistakenly thing they are more savvy with finances.

Yes, any reasonable person would be able to make more than 3% a year but no guarantees in life. Again, this isn't for everyone. You just have to crunch all the numbers and look at your personal situation and tax rate and any applicable exemptions and see what is right for you.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on September 25, 2013 - 8:09am.

i am less beautiful than average, but more lean and muscled. I am also funnier than the average person.

I am not confident i could make 3% returns on a pile of money over the next 3 years. i am pretty sure i could lose 30% or gain 30%, but i can't promise which.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 25, 2013 - 8:17am.

6packscaredy wrote:
i am less beautiful than average, but more lean and muscled. I am also funnier than the average person.

I am not confident i could make 3% returns on a pile of money over the next 3 years. i am pretty sure i could lose 30% or gain 30%, but i can't promise which.

Ha, ha. Funny. Hey, a good sense of humor is priceless I always say. That's the problem as scaredy mentioned.... it would be fine and dandy if people were just aiming for that mythical 3%. The problem is most people don't want that 3%. They want that 30%. Instead of just a move to first base, lots of people are going for grand slam home runs each time at the bat.

Or people do make home runs but then they lose it ALL. Lots of people like that as well. Watch this movie on Netflix. Fascinating.

http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Revenge-...

Guys like Elon are risk takers. See how close he came to his entire world crumbling...he lost almost his entire hundreds of millions of dollars of his Paypal fortune to start another. Watch the movie and see how close he came to losing it ALL. He was down to his last $2 million.

ocrenter wrote:

The quarterly drilling does ultimately factor into my willingness to work. It really is the case of deminishing returns. Which actually works out for the family. :-)

You nailed it OC. That's why since moving to California I don't have any big desire or motivation to take on any of these positions. I'd rather do consulting when I pick and choose vs. taking a big salary and getting the bulk of it paid in taxes. As you say, it sure works out for the family! More free time for them.

Submitted by ltsdd on September 25, 2013 - 8:56am.

earlyretirement wrote:

Yes, any reasonable person would be able to make more than 3% a year but no guarantees in life. Again, this isn't for everyone. You just have to crunch all the numbers and look at your personal situation and tax rate and any applicable exemptions and see what is right for you.

This, I agree with you 100%. It is not a clear-cut no-brainer as some have claimed. The more variables you introduce into the equation the less apparent of a no-brainer it is. That is essentially the point I was trying make.

Submitted by CA renter on September 25, 2013 - 11:59pm.

earlyretirement wrote:
CA renter wrote:

Last one out's a rotten egg!

In other words, if you have the money to pay them off, and plan to live in your house "indefinitely," it's probably wise to pay them now rather than later. Again, in some cases (like yours, ER), paying these bonds off is a complete no-brainer.

Ha, ha. Bingo. Exactly CA renter. You guys don't have MR up there...no? Nice not to have to think about? We'll have to get together for a coffee or lunch again soon. Enjoyed our last visit.

Correct, no Mello-Roos (or HOAs) for us. It was a very deliberate decision on our part to buy into a neighborhood with no MR or HOA fees.

Would love to catch up whenever you get a chance. Let me know when you get some free time.

Will you be driving the Tesla? :)

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 26, 2013 - 6:40pm.

CA renter wrote:

Correct, no Mello-Roos (or HOAs) for us. It was a very deliberate decision on our part to buy into a neighborhood with no MR or HOA fees.

Would love to catch up whenever you get a chance. Let me know when you get some free time.

Will you be driving the Tesla? :)

Ah. Got it. Yes, I recall now that you mentioned that. I do think that can be wise for some people. For others, I don't think it's all bad. I guess it just depends on each community. I was NEVER a big fan of HOA's until I bought in Santaluz and I find them well worth it here and the fees reasonable for everything you get.

DEFINITELY I'd love to catch up again. It's been way too long since I last saw you. I so enjoyed meeting you. Yep. I'll be driving the Tesla. You can even drive it if you want! I so enjoy seeing people's faces that drive it for the first time.

I can't wait to get the Model X as well but it will be a while. So funny, I bought a vanity plate for it. There was a thread on the Tesla forum asking about best vanity plate names. I posted about mine. MOD X and a guy offered me $5,000 for it! I didn't know you could sell license plates but I guess it involves a transfer. Anyway, I refused as I think it would be too cool to have MOD X on it. I tried for MODEL X but Elon Musk owns that himself.

I'll look for your email and reach out to you. Look forward to seeing you again!

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 26, 2013 - 6:39pm.

Duplicate.

Submitted by plm on June 19, 2014 - 10:59am.

From the comments in this thread, it seems like the payoff of mello roos can be used as a property tax deduction but it doesn't matter since AMT kicks in. But if AMT can be avoided by having too much income then does it make sense to pay off the mello roos for tax reasons?

Usually I do have to pay AMT like most people but this year cashing in my expiring stock options will push me in the highest 39.6 percent tax bracket so I may not be paying AMT. So if I pay off the mello roos this same year, can I really get the big deduction?

Seems to good to be true. So if anyone sees any holes to this tax strategy, please let me know.

Submitted by Del Sur 14 on June 19, 2014 - 12:47pm.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the general thought is.

Paying off the scheduled amount each year is tax deductible unless you are in the AMT.

But if you are talking about paying the whole thing off early I don't think you could count any of the future obligation as a tax benefit, probably just what was due that year.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 19, 2014 - 1:20pm.

I think technically Mello Roos is not tax deductible. But people do it anyway.

Submitted by plm on June 19, 2014 - 1:35pm.

Interesting point. If you are right, then the payoff is not deductible but since it is paid off, the mello roos tax would not be there on the tax bill, so I don't think I could even write off the mello roos that were supposed to be due that year.

I was looking at the mello roos payoff as paying taxes early. More like paying the both 1st and 2nd tax installment in December so that both payments can be deducted that tax year. In which case the mello roos payoff would be deductible.

I really don't know who is right.

Submitted by plm on June 19, 2014 - 1:38pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I think technically Mello Roos is not tax deductible. But people do it anyway.

I think there was come clarification by the IRS that the mello roos are tax deductible in response to something CA tried to do.

Submitted by djc on December 14, 2016 - 12:14am.

plm wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
I think technically Mello Roos is not tax deductible. But people do it anyway.

I think there was come clarification by the IRS that the mello roos are tax deductible in response to something CA tried to do.

Reviving this old thread.

Anyone have further info on the above? This impacts me this tax year. :)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.