oh, yes, tybur6, writing a check for $145K without a fight sounds like a great idea.

Posted by: AEPE at November 4, 2009 2:08 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

Sorry - we just went through painstaking years of self-reno and aren't quite ready for pets yet.

Posted by: AEPE at November 4, 2009 2:06 PM in response to Looking for North Slope rental?

Wow, that sounds terrible. The best thing you can do is arm yourself with an attorney who is well-versed in negotiating with the IRS. Often the interest can be negotiated, and you can ask for penalties to be waived (although that is rare). Has NYS also jumped into the fray? An audit by the IRS (and thus an amendment to your return) is a red flag to the NYS Department of Taxation to get involved.

Posted by: AEPE at November 4, 2009 11:44 AM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

joe - I often see a parked car in the semi-garage where the gallery stands. the question is whether you want to risk having your vehicle towed (even at the gallery owner's expense).

Posted by: AEPE at October 27, 2009 10:22 AM in response to 97 St. Marks Avenue Update

It's been an interesting discussion. This would be the 3rd floor of a brownstone, so i'm really also wondering if/how the grand piano is going to take those narrow turns/sharp corners. With a 2nd floor tenant who works from home on some days, I have to be especially vigilant about who's going to live above.

Thanks all.

Posted by: AEPE at October 26, 2009 5:21 PM in response to Rent to a Pianist - Crazy?

haha, rob. actually, i met the tenant and she doesn't *seem* like a drama queen at all. and we are only talking 3 units here.

Posted by: AEPE at October 26, 2009 10:52 AM in response to Rent to a Pianist - Crazy?

thanks

Posted by: AEPE at October 20, 2009 6:04 PM in response to Security Deposits

Zeebee - hot water. Thanks.

Posted by: AEPE at October 5, 2009 5:13 PM in response to ISO entry way radiator

I will check tonight and post answer whether hot water or steam. Thanks.

Posted by: AEPE at October 5, 2009 4:38 PM in response to ISO entry way radiator

Need a little more info here, do plumbing lines need to be moved or installed? What kind of kitchen flooring and counters?

Posted by: AEPE at October 5, 2009 11:18 AM in response to Contractor Estimates

$80, 2x a month.

Do you wnat laundry done? If not, I'd subtract $10.

Posted by: AEPE at September 22, 2009 3:13 PM in response to Cleaning Person Rates

It's a beauty.

Here's what I suggest: when trying to rid yourself of something of value, you'll get better and more definite responses (and people likely to follow through) if you assign a nominal value to it, say $25, rather than saying it's free. Seems illogical, but it's true.

Posted by: AEPE at September 21, 2009 4:56 PM in response to FREE! ANTIQUE! ENAMEL! STOVE!

Oh, geez, now I need a tie breaker.

We don't have much original detail but the original window casings and new door casings will be painted semi-gloss. The ceiling height is at least 11.5 feet.

Posted by: AEPE at September 21, 2009 4:50 PM in response to Paint for Crown Molding?

Yes, they are painted.

Posted by: AEPE at July 29, 2009 7:11 PM in response to Doors, Doors, Doors!

Thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, we would require at least a 5 inch door stop that would screw into the baseboard, after taking into consideration the distance of the door knob that hits the mailbox.

I will have to google the door closer, Pintchik has something that sounds like this, but it was white and large and wouldr eally take away from the look of the doors.

Posted by: AEPE at July 13, 2009 9:57 PM in response to High Doorstop Suggestion?

Uh, CMU, first of all the hallway is not even an option as I live on the garden level so there is no "public" hallway to speak of. If you re-read my question, I'm asking whether landlords permit their tenants to chain bikes to gates or stair rails. The hallway bit just intrigued me, as I have never seen bikes stored there.

Posted by: AEPE at June 24, 2009 10:10 AM in response to Allowing Tenant's Bikes?

park slope mom: is the lower hallway part of your apartment, or a public hallway? the bikes don't impede access at all?

Posted by: AEPE at June 23, 2009 6:17 PM in response to Allowing Tenant's Bikes?

Vinca - I will take a pic of it and send it to you. It is multi-colored terra cotta circa 1925. I actually think the house is a bit older than that.

I am not actually looking for period tile, just a tile that is appropriate for vestibule entryways. Marble seems like it would be a bit slick and I'm not interested in the pennytile b/c I doubt my contractor will agree to lay that down. other than that, I'm open.

Thanks all.

Posted by: AEPE at June 4, 2009 10:31 PM in response to tile on entry way floor?

we've purchased outdoor sconces as well as interior pendants from lightingbygregory.com

fast service. competitive prices.

Posted by: AEPE at May 20, 2009 3:08 PM in response to Lighting

each piece would be about 10 feet long and about 9.5 feet high. haven't seen anything close to $3,000, but I want some cabinetry on the bottom as well. and, yes, paint grade wood.

Posted by: AEPE at May 19, 2009 8:22 PM in response to Layout Q regarding built-ins

wow, mopar, this is one project i wouldn't dream of as a DYI. i'm very impressed that you're even considering it.

have only gotten a couple of quotes, but they average 10,000 for both built-ins.

Posted by: AEPE at May 19, 2009 6:52 PM in response to Layout Q regarding built-ins

BM's flat ceiling white for the ceiling and white dove (grayish undertone) for your trim.

Posted by: AEPE at May 18, 2009 11:31 AM in response to Help chose a white for my bath

you seem like a nice person. not one of neighbors who installed wood fences put the "nice" side facing our backyard. didn't even ask if we'd like to chip in for the double-sided kind. oh well.

Posted by: AEPE at December 11, 2008 11:53 AM in response to Garden of the Day: King of Dirt in Bburg

Bessie - don't ever assume anything with the USPS, especially in Brooklyn. I suggest we team up and try and locate this form.

Posted by: AEPE at December 4, 2008 3:42 PM in response to USPS policy on interior mailbox installation

@northridger: thanks for correcting my math - was having trouble multiplying by three this morning. I'm assuming the property in question is a landmark (most private residences that use deduction are), but I don't know. Still, landmark or not, if the numbers are correct that is a very high valuation for the exterior of the building.

Posted by: WBer at November 4, 2009 2:24 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

@WBer...yeah. The problem the IRS is seeing is a $270,000 claim on a house appraised at $1.2MM. It seems a long stretch to prove to the IRS that the OP expected a $270K loss from the easement. A really, really long stretch.

It's impossible to say what the IRS valued the easement at without all the details, but if you apply some common sense SWAGs to what the penalties and interest might be, then a $145K bill implies that the IRS thought the loss in sale value of the home was pretty small, if not just plain zero. To do it right you'd have to figure out the taxes owed on $270K for that home owner....

Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 2:36 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

"a program offered by an historic preservation organization"...ie not LPC? who?

Why does this sound unkosher to me...ie a dubious tax-shelter scheme?

Posted by: cmu at November 4, 2009 2:38 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

It sounds unkosher because very few people would knowingly lower the real value of their home by $200,000 in order to take $200,000 in tax deductions (of which you would only get back maybe 30% or $60,000 on your taxes). Why give away $200k to get back $60k at tax time?

You would only "donate" $200,000 and take the deduction, if you knew it didn't actually lower the value of your home by as much as you are claiming it does. That's why the IRS is looking so hard at this, generally speaking, they know the donation probably didn't change the value of the house as much as is being claimed. Not that many people are preservation-minded enough to honestly donate away hundreds of thousands of dollars in real equity.

Posted by: setancre at November 4, 2009 2:52 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

I attended a seminar on this topic a few years ago as well. I remember sitting in the room, listening to some guy in a bow tie describe the scheme, which basically goes like this-- you claim an easement agreeing not to change the facade of your building which, hello?, you know you would never do anyway. WHat? You were going to be vinyl siding on it but now you aren't?? Dress it up how you like with a lot of palaver about historic preservation, but I thought it was unethical then and I still do. Audits are awful. My sympathies. But this is a little like the Madoff victims who kept getting 12 % when everyone else was down and didn't want to inquire too closely.

Posted by: Cobblekrill at November 4, 2009 2:54 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

@cmu - it is not a dubious tax-shelter scheme, it is a legitimate tax deduction. You are donating something of value to a non-for-profit (LPC is a government agency, not an historic preservation organization). There are some non-profits that have been established pretty much solely for accepting easements, and these organizations have raised red flags, but there are a lot of legitimate preservation organizations that hold easements as part of their larger preservation program (and by the way, I don't think HDC is one of them).

Posted by: WBer at November 4, 2009 3:00 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

The HDC presentation did not sit well with me, but as you can see from their brochure, they claim to be qualified. Caveat emptor.

Posted by: vinca at November 4, 2009 3:12 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

It's sorta like donating your junker car to a charitable organization and taking a tax deduction for the 5k blue book value of the car, even though the charity contracts with a company that tows away and sells the junker for $100 and gets 50 bucks out of the deal. I did that once before the IRS tightened up on that game. Now you can deduct the fair value of the donated car.

If you take a 270k deduction and when the change in value for adding the easement to the property in a landmarked district is de minimus, then I'd say a fair outcome is to argue you were not negligent, made some reasonable attempt to do the legal thing, and pay the tax you should have paid when you took the questionable deduction and try to negotiate the interest and penalties.

Posted by: Bklnite at November 4, 2009 3:18 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

I just read the links that vinca provided, and the IRS one is chilling as it relates to this sort of case. The bulletin is:

"Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2004-28
July 12, 2004

Notice 2004-41
Charitable Contributions and Conservation Easements ".

Note that the bulletin is from 2004.

There's lots of talk about the intent behind the easements, and lots of technical terms, but near the end has the chilling paragraph:

"If the donor (or a related person) reasonably can expect to receive financial or economic benefits greater than those that will inure to the general public as a result of the donation of a conservation easement, no deduction is allowable. Section 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i). If the donation of a conservation easement has no material effect on the value of real property, or enhances rather than reduces the value of real property, no deduction is allowable. Section 1.170A-14(h)(3)(ii)."

Reading the whole document, it's pretty clear the intent of the deduction is to allow someone to deduct when they're making clear donations for conservation purposes that in some way contribute to the public good. For example, if the a rich family gave 20,000 acres of land to the NY/NJ trail conference for public use, they'd probably get a tax deduction for the full value of that land.

In the case of facades....the IRS wants you to show that what you're doing is in the public good, and that you're taking a material financial hit in doing so, and that the organization taking the easement is a true non-profit. If this is an LPC area than I'd say based on those rules you are SOL. If it's not LPC, then there's some wiggle room. But $270K still seems very, very excessive.

A question for vcthomas...did a tax attorney go over this deduction with you when you took it? Or did only the "historic preservation organization" help you out? Hopefully not just the latter. If you're taking any single deductions more than 10K or so it makes sense to have a tax attorney take a look at it. Not doing so just leaves you totally open to scammers and people's skirting the fringes of the IRS tolerance.

Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 3:30 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

Ouch, it gets worse if you google it. Take a look here:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=136337,00.html

The document, from 2005, shows that the IRS explicitly considers an easement on a home's facade in an area with a local historic preservation organization to be an invalid deduction. In fact, the article implicitly calls it a notorious tax scam. Here's the relevant bits...it's #9 on the "dirty dozen" scam list from 2005.

"IRS Announces the 2005 Dirty Dozen

IR-2005-19, Feb. 28, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today unveiled its annual listing of notorious tax scams, the “Dirty Dozen,” reminding taxpayers to be wary of schemes that promise to eliminate taxes or otherwise sound too good to be true.

Abuse of Charitable Organizations and Deductions. The IRS has observed an increase in the use of tax-exempt organizations to improperly shield income or assets from taxation. This can occur, for example, when a taxpayer moves assets or income to a tax-exempt supporting organization or donor-advised fund but maintains control over the assets or income, thereby obtaining a tax deduction without transferring a commensurate benefit to charity. A “contribution” of a historic facade easement to a tax-exempt conservation organization is another example. In many cases, local historic preservation laws already prohibit alteration of the home’s facade, making the contributed easement superfluous. Even if the facade could be altered, the deduction claimed for the easement contribution may far exceed the easement’s impact on the value of the property."

Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 3:40 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare