On Mon, 06 Jul 2020 23:23:32 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 18:54:57 -0400 typed in
rec.woodworking the following:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2020 19:03:16 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

on Sun, 05 Jul 2020 18:38:00 -0400 typed in
rec.woodworking the following:

It is called "working with the rules". Friend retired to Greece,
got a house built there. Because of the way the code was written, he
got "final inspection" once the walls were up. Before power and
water, and windows, doors, and possibly the roof were installed. And
his house was appraised as such, which set his property taxes. Then
he went and did such finishing touched as putting in the windows,
putting down flooring, adding lights and electricity . ..
I also recall seeing houses with rebar sticking up out of the top
wall. Because that way the house was "unfinished" and thus taxed at a
lower rate. Lots of design features which have their roots in
avoiding tax.

That's not "avoiding" tax. That's called "evading" tax and is
generally illegal, often criminal.

I do believe that it was Justice Holmes who did point out that no
man is obligated to arraign his affairs for the benefit of the tax
man. I forget who said that the avoidance of tax is possible the
only intellectual exercise which has a real return. As I said stated
above:"It is called "working with the rules".".

No, what you describe above is not "working within the rules". It's
busting them all to hell.

The Rules do not allow A, but do allow X. And how is X defined?

Laws clearly define such things. If the building was inspected when
it was incomplete, it needs to be inspected when it is complete,

Did you notice that his building was in GREECE? And that he had
his building inspected _according to the law of the land_? And that
was the Practice of the Country in which his residence was being
built?


if for no other reason that you've improved it (increased its value). Try
this and, at a minimum, you may have to take out another building
permit.

If you do this in California, I'm sure. But if you haven't
noticed, Greece is not California.


You may not get a CO, either, since the building is
incomplete. If you're working with the building inspector on this,
it's plain out and out fraud, probably conspiracy too.

Then that is how you present the situation so as to count as an X, and
not an A. It is not a forbidden "dock". It is a "wildlife
observation platform." It is not a Second floor, but an attic. An
incomplete house is not subject to the same taxes as a completed
house.

But you can't generally move into an incomplete house.

Define "incomplete"!

These buildings are considered incomplete by the law of the land.
Take it up with the Romans if you don't like it.
By law, if a house was constructed overnight, it was illegal to
remove it. And lo, one morning on my way to school, I saw a "new"
house where there had been a corner in the wall the day before. Now,
I realize it did not meet the US Housing code, but so what? Under
Turkish law going back to the Ottomans (or earlier) it was legit.


Most jurisdictions have a concept of a "certificate of occupancy" that
means all health and safety stuff is in there (and it's been recorded
at the tax assessor's office).

And most jurisdictions are not the United States. Pay attention.

I have been told that Hughes Aircraft has small truck farm on
one of their properties. That makes the property "agricultural" and
not "Commercial" for tax purposes.

Hobby farms do that all the time but on a scale like that, I doubt it
highly. Zoning, alone, would probably make that impossible.

Try again. When Hughes bought the property, he was allowed to
build buildings on it, but at least between 1 and 5 acres had to
remain cultivated for it to qualify as a "farm". That was the law,
that was what he did, he had a five acre farm with some outbuildings.

Ask any accountant about the
_legal_ ways to not show a profit. (Did you know that Star Wars has
yet to show a profit, on paper?

Of course. It's rare that a movie makes a "profit". Bill and Hill's
foundation doesn't make a "profit" either.

And yet you ramble on about how the law must be followed, or else.

So those actors who got a percent of
the net profits are out of luck. You want a percent of the gross.)

Their agents aren't that stupid anymore.

And so on and so forth. You are not obligated to conduct your
business for the benefit of the tax man.

Certainly but you can't break the law while doing it, either. There
is a difference between "avoidance" (perfectly legitimate, and some
would say it's an obligation) and "evasion" (a criminal offence and
highly frowned upon). What you describe is clearly the latter.

So complying with the letter of the law is violating the law????

But be that as it may, I take it then that you are not one to
evade your taxes by taking any deductions?

Oh, good grief! Do you really not know the difference?

Yes I do. But you do seem to be the one who will conduct your
business so as to benefit the tax man. granted it is your money, so it
is your choice. Do you pay MSRP? (Manufacturers Suggest Retail
Price)

What you seem to be unable to grasp is that conforming to the
letter of the law is an old practice And the customs of your town are
not universal laws.

So have a nice day, and don't break any of the federal or state
tax laws. Or violate code, either. You better check in and make sure
that everything you do doesn't violate a law, regulation, or
departmental rule.

And good luck with that. I doubt that a Supreme Court justice can be
_certain_ that he isn't violating some law, regulation, or rule when
he goes about his daily affairs. Of course if it comes to be a real
issue he can get his buddies together and change the law (my father
had a probably apocryphal story about Harvey Firestone and five
Justices getting stopped in a speed trap by some local yokel cop,
which did not go well for the cop).