On 2012-05-07, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 5/6/2012 10:27 PM, Ignoramus11847 wrote:
On 2012-05-07, Joseph wrote:
In articleL56dna5BaZzPIjvSnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
Of course, I had to pay 1/3 of the first year's reduction to the
lawyers that I retained.

This may be the key. Bob may have been unwilling to hire a mean-enough
lawyer: 49000/3= $16,333. It sounds like a lot of money, but was repaid
in the first year. But, this should not have been necessary.

By the way, this math does not quite work like this.

1. The fee is 1/3 of the first year's reduction, in this case,

1/3 * (49000-21000).

This is about 9k in my case, which is the amount on the check that I
mailed yesterday.

2. The fee is contingent upon reduction, you owe lawyers nothing
unless they reduce taxes.

So, in other words, there is not much risk in retaining a lawyer.

i

Robert Heinlein had an interesting idea, he proposed that the owner
would set the property value upon which he was assessed, however, that
value was also considered a listing price, and if somebody arrived with
that much cash, you either sold, or raised the value until they dropped
their bid. If you did that, you owed 3 years back taxes at the new value...

I can see the flaws, but also has some merit.


I believe that it is a few thousand year old idea, this is how
property taxes were assessed in Judea or some such.

It is not a bad idea, though, as you say, it has flaws. Such as, say,
oil being discovered under someone's field.

i