Thanks to the "nayboobs" who have the intelligence to find these rip-offs and persist in making sure these secrets are brought out into the open, and thanks to the Times Union for reporting this, since the Gazette wouldn't make this public.

The dems and their LONE cheerleader have lost yet another round, and of course there will be no comment from the dems and their lone cheerleader.

This audit was released last week

Quoted from mikechristine1

Thanks to the "nayboobs" who have the intelligence to find these rip-offs and persist in making sure these secrets are brought out into the open, and thanks to the Times Union for reporting this, since the Gazette wouldn't make this public.

The dems and their LONE cheerleader have lost yet another round, and of course there will be no comment from the dems and their lone cheerleader.

This audit was released last week




10 had more than 1 impoper exemption.  This tells me that it isnt just the filers negligence.  The people in the assessment office werent doing there jobs.  There is no verification done with the city.  Basic questions werent asked.

NICE JOB!!!!

Now we need to contact the comptroller's office and fill them in on the fact that it was the taxpayers who brought this to light a very long time ago and that the 'powers that be' knew about the abuse a 'very long time ago'!!!
And this should include rotterdam's ASSessor!!!
cause he knew too!!

Blatant corruption!!

Ouch...that's going to leave a mark!!!

There had been a report a while back that the governor wanted to look into the excessive salaries of CEO's of not-for-profits, I think especially if the NFP's were getting money (directly or indirectly I think) from the government.   Now I have no problem with paying an M.D. a good salary as CEO or medical director of a hospital that loses money on people who don't have insurance, or that get paid maybe $10 for a service that private insurance might pay $100 for.

So when is the comptroller going to look into that as it relates to Proctors.   Oh wait, King Phillip is paid via a line item in the county budget, guess that doesn't qualify as a "salary of a CEO of an non-for-profit" so it probably won't be looked at.

mikechristine1 amazing how you find this stuff    Do you have the link for the audit?  Good job !!!!!!

Quoted from rpforpres

mikechristine1 amazing how you find this stuff    Do you have the link for the audit?  Good job !!!!!!

Of course I do!   You don't think I'm like the cheerleader (who makes up stuff, such as saying the city is a renaissance but won't produce any evidence, and then refuses to address the issues of his alleged renaissance such as the drastically reduced tax base proven by the assessment roll, the drastically higher taxes, the drastically plummeting home values and the inability of homes to sell, etc)  

The audit is at the end of the press release


http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/feb13/022813.htm

Of course I knew you had the link (proof) : )  just wanted to read the whole thing  

Quoted from rpforpres

Of course I knew you had the link (proof) : )  just wanted to read the whole thing  

And I intended to provide the link after a short time anyway.   Wanted to see what comments came out.


Of course, the cheerleader is running around in vain finding other things to comment on, just for the sake of commenting, but carefully avoiding any talk about Schenectady, because he knows he is always wrong and he's knows we can prove his lying

Quoted Text

The Law states that assessors should discontinue any STAR
exemption if it appears that any of the following circumstances
exist: the property may not be the primary residence of the
owner(s) who applied for the exemption; the title to the property
has been transferred to a new owner(s); or the property otherwise
may no longer be eligible for the exemption, as required by Law.
Under certain circumstances, the Law allows the assessor to
impose a penalty tax against the property of $100, and to require
repayment of the three most recent years’ school tax savings to the
municipality. In addition, the assessor can disqualify individuals
from obtaining another STAR exemption for five years if they are
found to have made a material misstatement on their application.

http://tax.neric.org/Print4.as.....&sort=&sel=9

PM still has the STAR in Sch'dy    Information as of 3/4/13
******************************************************************************************************* 39.55-1-52 *****************
109 Front St
39.55-1-52 210 1 Family Res BASIC 41854 0 0 30,000
Morris Philip Schenectady 421500 24,200 COUNTY TAXABLE VALUE 161,500
Morris Kathleen H FRNT 29.00 DPTH 155.00 161,500 CITY TAXABLE VALUE 161,500
109 Front St BANK 00000 SCHOOL TAXABLE VALUE 131,500
Schenectady, NY 12305 EAST-0640874 NRTH-1452395 GF001 TRASH COLLECTION FEE 1.00 UN
DEED BOOK 1625 PG-562
FULL MARKET VALUE 155,288

And also the one in Rotterdam.

Quoted from rpforpres

...



PM still has the STAR in Sch'dy    Information as of 3/4/13
******************************************************************************************************* 39.5
And also the one in Rotterdam....

My take on that.  An exemption remains for the full year after an assessment roll is finalized which is July 1 which is based on the taxable status date of March 1 (prior to July 1)

Actually, here's a better way of explaining it.  I buy a house and I close on it on March 5, 2013, the house does not have the STAR exemption on it.  For the 2013-2014 school tax year, when I get the bill, it will NOT have the STAR exemption on it because the deadline for applying for the STAR exemption for the 2013-14 school tax year was March 1, 2013.  So I apply for STAR on March 1, 2014 and I get the benefit for the 2014-15 school tax year as the first year of the benefit.

To expand on that a bit.  Using the same dates, let's say a house has STAR Basic on it.  If I am a senior with an income of $40,000 and buy the house and close on it on March 5, 2013, then when the the school tax bill comes for 13-14 it can only be STAR Basic.  I missed the March 1 2013 taxable status date to apply for STAR Enhanced because I did not own the house.  But I can apply on March 1 2014 for the STAR enhanced and I'll get it for 14-15 school tax year.

But let's look at the reverse situation.  A senior citizen owns a house and has the STAR enhanced on it.   I buy the house and close on March 5, 2013.   I am not eligible for STAR enhanced, only STAR basic.   However when the school tax bill comes for 2013-14 school tax year, I will have the STAR Enhanced "benefit."   Why?   Because on the taxable status date of March 1, 2013, the house had the STAR Enhanced exemption.   So it is my duty to notify my municipality by March 1, 2014 that I own the house and the Enhanced exemption needs to be removed and I still have to go through the process of applying for the Basic.

Something to keep in mind, probably needs some clarification.  Remember how the news broke of King Philip's multiple STAR exemptions back in December or so.  In the absence of a penalty that could preclude the STAR exemption for a period of time (I think that is part of the law), he is entitled to the STAR basic in Rotterdam.  In Rotterdam, we would get the school tax bill at the end of August 2012 and we are required to pay the full amount in one shot, so we paid by September 30, 2012.  So PM would have paid (in theory) is full school tax bill in the town.   Now, on his city house, because taxes are paid quarterly, and the school tax bill arrives the end of June and would contain 4 "coupons" of sorts with 4 equal installments, due to be paid on July 15, Oct 15, Jan 15 2013 and Apr 15, 2013, you would think that the city would issue a revised bill, let's say, in time for the Jan 15, 2013.  However, nothing relating to the assessment status can be changed after July 1 (in this case, nothing can be changed after July 1, 2012) EXCEPT things relating to SCAR or certorari actions that are initiated (filed) BEFORE July 1, 2012 but may not be settled til sometime later.   If you watch the council meetings, you might hear that the council has on the agenda a vote to approve the settlement of a tax certorari for such and such address.  If such a vote was taken at meeting next Monday, Mar 10, then the school district has to refund the property owner for excess taxes paid from the school tax bill which had the first installment due on July 15, 2012, and the city itself has to refund excess taxes paid for the city/county tax bill for tax year 2013 which owners made the first installment payment on Jan 15.

AFTER all that, now we can address King Phillip.  Since he bought his Rotterdam house in 2010, he was not eligible for the benefit on his city house effective with the school tax year 2011-2012 and of course ineligible for the STAR for 2012-13 school tax year which the city school district is currently in the midst of payment, 3rd payment would have been Jan 15, 2013.   So I would think that PM would have had to pay the STAR value amount (i.e., underpayment amount) in total for 11-12.  I would think for the 12-13 school tax, the easiest would be to immediately pay the STAR value amount and then his remaning quarterly payments need not be adjusted (i.e., the Jan 15 and Apr 15 payments).   Then his ROtterdam, i.e., Schalmont I think, school taxes are not affected, he has STAR and is eligible for it.

Next question however, is, will he be penalized for it?  The law does say that that a homeowner who illegally has a STAR exemption is to lose the ability to have the exemption for 5 years AND pay penalties (which I think means paying back the "underpayment") which probably should be on on all houses, both the house the owner legally is entitled to the STAR as well as any to which they were not eligible, and some fine on top of that.

I think because the state has not cracked down thus far, the locals (with "agreement" from the state) will not penalize/fine the owners but just merely require them to pay the difference between what they actually paid and what should have been paid.   Personally, if that's the case, I think it's wrong, because in many cases, as is the case with King Phillip, the owner KNEW, they signed a legal document, saying that they did not have the STAR on any other house, clearly, King Philip (and others) lied upon signing their application forms.



  

I should also add, that when the tentative roll is published on May 1, I would expect that there would be no STAR on PM's city house

Aren't these boards, the city and town anyway, much more pleasant however, now that the cheerleader for the dems has largely left---because he knows dang well that anything he says WILL be proven wrong and evidence will most likely be provided.

That's priceless....the county and city subsidizes those in the 'rich' while they have $200/plate fundraisers for their 'poor plebs'
and continue to have the taxpayers subsidize their poor wage scale for the service jobs they created for themselves...

$9/hour gets you no where without government subsidies

then we have the corporate welfare the IDAs and all those.....

what a circle jerk....and a bunch of arrogant self serving status quo keepers.......

Bravo MC1. Nice to see tax cheat Fat Morris back in the headlines here. Did you hear? This ego manic is looking to decamp to Saratoga. Has the City assessor started collecting back taxes due-YET?
Pay to play Schenectady Style-you pay/they play. The town assessor knew and looked the other way.