Christopher Green <cj.green@att.net> wrote in message news:<67p6f0ltmc4fskdjqd7e6ji9osfeihuk34@4ax.com>...
On 12 Jul 2004 18:23:09 -0700, sowport@hotmail.com (Sowport) wrote:
I believe the state's argument is that consideration for a deed to
real property can be in things other than money; for example, the
discharge of an obligation is consideration, and a mortgage is
consideration.
Thus, if your mother is taking the properties subject to the existing
mortgages, the consideration she paid is not one dollar, but the
balance of the mortgages she (instead of the scamster) will have to
pay off.
I suspect a good Department of Revenue auditor could come up with
still more reasons why one dollar is not any kind of reasonable value
of either the properties or the consideration (for example,
forbearance from suing the scamster) given for them. They would
probably be able to make just as good a case for assessing stamp tax
on a free-and-clear property being quitclaimed for a dollar.
From the state's point of view, it adds up perfectly well: the state's
treasury has an important interest in not allowing people to game the
stamp tax by transferring properties for nominal consideration, while
concealing the true consideration given.
Thanks Chris!
I finally got some info from the State today. If the property had
been paid off then she would only have to pay the .70 minimum (no
matter what the value of the property). Any property, however, that
has a mortgage balance is assessed a stamp tax of .70 per $100 on half
of the remaining mortgage. So if the property were worth several
million dollars but were paid off, she would only have to pay .70.
But since there is a mortgage balance then she pays through the nose.
:)
While I understand the state's desire for revenue generation,
something just isn't right about having a stamp tax on mortgaged
property but not on clear property. Something like "assessed value" I
could understand.
Thanks again,
Sowport