Interesting. I will be voting against this.
Thanks,
XXXX
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission has been sent by
a law firm. It may contain information that is confidential, privileged,
proprietary, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are not authorized
to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message, or any part of it,
or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please
delete this message and any attachments from your system without reading the
content and notify the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission.
There is no intent on the part of the sender to waive any privilege,
including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this
communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
Treasury Circular 230 Disclosure - To comply with requirements imposed by
the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any tax advice contained in
this written communication (including any attachment) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of
avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the person. If this written
communication contains any tax advice that is used or referred to in
connection with the promoting, marketing or recommending of any
transaction(s) or matter(s), this written communication should be construed
as written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of the
transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by this written communication, and the
taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances
from an independent tax advisor. No limitation has been imposed by
Bellinger & DeWolf, L.L.P. on disclosure of the tax treatment or tax
structure of the transaction(s) or matter(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone had sent this to me earlier.
I then posted a comment on this propsed law on the internet. Someone
responded claiming that the purpose is to prevent the tax being paid based
on the property's commercial value. If that is the intent, the proposal
should be re-worded to state that the property will be ASSESSED (not taxed)
at its residential value.
There is NO difference in the tax rate for property as far as I know, only
the appraised values and certain exemptions affect the ad valorem tax.
Years ago there was a 42� per $ 100 state ad valorem tax which was
eliminated by the legislature. This proposal might be a way to sneak it
back in through the back door.
Igor
----- Original Message -----
Subject: FW: Texans-We Need to Vote on Nov. 3rd...
Please pay attention to these propositions before voting on Nov. 3 - refer
to the link at the bottom.
We Need to Vote on Nov. 3rd
Vote NO on State Property Tax.
Please pass onto your home owner friends......
On November 3rd, there will be Propositions 1, 2, and 3
allowing the State of Texas to start taxing Residential Homeowners. So if
you own a home, and these laws are passed, you will be taxed by the State.
I received a flyer from the Secretary of State, Hope Andrade,
listing the Propositions that are up for election in November. I called to
question them before sending this message out to my homeowner friends.
PLEASE VOTE "NO" to Prop. 2 and 3 (HJR 36) unless you want to
pay taxes to the State also for owning a home.
Proposition 2: The proposed amendment would appear on the
ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the
legislature to provide for the ad valor em taxation of a residence homestead
solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead".
Proposition 3: The proposed amendment would appear on the
ballot as follows: The constitutional amendment providing the uniform
standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valor em tax
purposes".
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2009novballotexp.shtml
Thank you.