Yes, and the property taxes on it would be higher, because it would no longer get a homestead rebate.
No, because a corporation can write them off and make them revenue neutral as a business.
Property transfers need to be registered with the city. There is a property transfer tax in NYC, and in many other places. If you do not register the property transfer with the city, it did not happen.
That's what escrow firms do. The paperwork is about 10 pages and some signatures. The cost is usually a few hundred dollars.
The real estate agent is not the issue here. The taxes are the issue.
Ownership is the issue. An additional tax on a "second home" versus not having to pay that additional tax on a "rental property." Vancouver is often brought up as a city that has already done what Mamdani is about to do, the exact same thing. High income people with second homes in Vancouver immediately found ways to avoid the tax and it took in a fraction, about 10 to 20% of what was expected by the Leftist run government.
You are mixing capital gains taxes with property transfer taxes.
When I sell a property for more than I purchased it for, that profit is subject to capital gains tax unless I reinvest it, along with the principle, in a new property. Like for like is the rule. There are no "property transfer taxes involved" since the government isn't involved in the transaction.
By definition, property taxes are a type of wealth taxes. You have lost your homestead rebate, just like with the second home loss of homestead rebate, so have made no gain.
Property taxes are generally meant to pay for local government infrastructure that is provided that impacts that property. That is, roads, utilities, schools, and the like.
OUCH!!! Never say that. There needs to be a business justification, not just a tax justification.
No there doesn't. Businesses don't have to justify in detail why they doing some business transaction. With real estate, taxes are a justification. 'I sold the property because I couldn't afford the taxes on it...'
That would require advertising at the price you pay. Let's say you are paying $100 a month rent on a property that would normally be $100,000. Your corporation would be required to try to rent it to anyone for $100 a month. There would be a taker.
"Advertising" on a $5 million property as a rental is to a very specific clientele. I don't have to run want ads at some local apartment finding business.
Do you see how that fails? The main way it is failing is there is no attempt to obfuscate the tax evasion. You are staying in the same property, just doing a bunch of paperwork changes for no other reason but for tax evasion.
You fail to see that Rich people didn't get rich and stay rich by being passive and stupid. When government does something by simple fiat and expects everything else not to react to that, government is the one being stupid. The Rich
will react to government wanting to massively hike taxes on them and will do something to avoid it.
The Bidens and the Clintons released decades of their taxes. The Clintons, in particular, released all their taxes from 1976 to 2015. The taxes really are not that interesting.
So? The Bidens and Clintons ran all sorts of very dubious and often obvious scams to avoid taxes, collect huge piles of money in quid pro quo arrangements, and other nefarious stuff. Notice how Hunter 'Bagman' Biden is no longer some corporate darling who can get million dollar plus seats on boards? That's because his political juice is now ZERO that dear old daddy is a vegetable and no longer in politics.
The Clinton Foundation closed after the Hildabeast stopped running for President. The Clintons can't get huge piles of cash for anything now that they're out of politics.
nypost.com
www.cnbc.com
www.businessinsider.com
