Lease holder improvements, expensible by the tenant, will cover maintenance. New tax bill shortens time required to depreciate for taxes. I own commercial property and I am depreciating three roof jobs on the same piece of property because the old rules required 49 years of depreciation despite a roof only lasting 25 years (hence 3 going at one time on 1 building).
I have never heard of a tenant paying the full long term lease up front (no sound reason comes to mind) unless the money is getting laundered.
ETA: No matter which accounting method used, you wouldnât want your cash in a lump because it would be taxable. Spreading the income over a longer period of time would spread out the tax liability. I donât play in Kushnerâs sand box, but unless there is an expected tax rate hike in the future, you would rather wait for your money. One thought about this scenario, Kushner gets to carry the value of the building plus improvements on his financial statement, though he will not be receiving any more revenue on it. That will make it easier to borrow for future projects. He likely wonât have expenses, either, since he will take the cash to retire the mortgage. Usually, leaseholder pays taxes and insurance as CAM fees. I suspect Kushey will sign over the building to the leaseholder when it can be done without attracting attention, thus completing the money laundering.
Thatâs a myth. Clintonâs impeachment helped the Republicans; it helped them secure the White House two years later.
We have to proceed with the a priori the Republicans will get 45% if not more. That magic R behind a name will do that.
But to add to your list: how Trump will grow out that 46.09% he received in '16. He stands to lose some of those; who would replace that pool? (I do wonder where the Gary Johnson voters will go.)
We also wonât have to contend with Putin stooge Jill Stein. (There are trolls here who still defend people voting for that Putin stooge; feel the narcissism.)
Youâre right on disaffected farmers. Having grown up in Republican farm country (ok, a bit of a tautology), they vote R. Do they ever vote R. Thatâs why they voted for Trump; they have always voted R. (We seem to keep forgetting those who voted for Trump had always voted R.) Getting farmers to move from R to D is one heavy lift, this habit is just so ingrained. OTOH, itâs not unlikely at this point many will simply stay home on Election Day.
Donât disagree with anything you said. The rug underlayment is the new tax bill. It gives real estate developers whose businesses arenât C corps incredible leverage. Income in S corps, LLCs, etc. flows to the owners personal return, not the Corp return. 10% is tax free right off the top (new) plus depreciation is sped up. Of course, since S corps and LLCs are pass through, income is not subject to payroll taxes (saves 15.3%) but thatâs not new.
Regardless if they voted for Stein or stayed home, she was not a serious factor in Hillaryâs loss.
If Stein was not an option, the people who voted for her would have stayed home. If you feel that strongly against a candidate to literally throw your vote away by going third party, that vote wouldâve went for Trump or they wouldâve sat home if they had no other option⊠Iâm not defending Stein. Iâm merely pointing out you canât count a Stein vote as one that otherwise would have went for Hillary. Common sense will tell you it wouldnât have.
" if he successfully secured funding, including a $5 billion Department of Energy loan, for the project."
god forbid these âjob creatorsâ invest in green energy, green manufacturing and construction jobs - or even did their foreign investing with private capital, instead of precious precious tax dollars that they so highly revere.
Murdoch, Limbaugh and Hannity canât live much longer. Once Faux News and talk radio doesnât have the faces and voices, their electoral impact will minimize. Hopefully, common sense will return and the ship of state will be back on a proper course.
Moron has hit his voter high water mark. He gets no new votes even if Hillary is his opponent in 2020. There are enough people regretting giving him their votes in 2016 to make Hillary the winner.
Of course, all bets are off if Russia can hack the vote counting system, which I think is possible.
Younger ones will simply take their place. remember âdiamond and silkâ and 1,000 incels etc. - greed and hate seem to exist in every demographic, sadly.
I can think of two good reasons.
One.
Kushners had a 1.4 billion dollar balloon payment coming up. Monthly, or yearly payments would not have totaled 1,4 billion before February, 2019 when it was due.
From the article:
The deal would enable the Kushners to pay off at least a large portion of what they owe lenders and retain ownership of the land beneath the tower. But they may not make any money from it.
Two.
Brookfield had the money and whoever is ultimately responsible for the payment will be repaid in political favors by Trump. They will get repaid somehow for the losses they will take.
Ultimately, I have a feeling we the taxpayers will be making good on the chit.
President Trumpâs former attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, provided federal prosecutors with information on Franklin Haney, a real estate mogul who gave Trumpâs inaugural committee $1 million, the Associated Press reported Monday.
â« Green Acres is the place to be
Fa-ARM living is the life for me â«
but would add thatâŠ
as long as there is profit in hate, there will always be murdochs, limbaughs, etc.
and I wouldnât count on conservatives dying out either. Remember the âpeace and loveâ generation? Theyâre all collecting social security now, and as a âgenerationâ think Trump is doing a good job. (51% of 65+ voters approve of trump vs 42% overall, Over 55 is about 50%, while under 55 is about 31%. source morning consult poll) In other words, these people arenât dying off en masse anytime soon.
I think a large part of that problem has to do with Democrats representing change â and the older you get, the more alien change seems.
So for progressives, complacency is not an option. Effective change will only happen if its forced to happen, and if that means taking risks, then risks will have to be taken.
with all due respect, that is a net 20K votes for Clinton.
And the âvoters shouldnât waste their voteâ thing works both waysâŠ
Thus when you consider that the Libertarian (GOP lite) candidate polled 106K votes, and Stein got only 31K, the odds that Hillary would benefit from a âno third party optionâ scenario are vanishing small.
Everyone must read the details of PP introducing Cohen and Qataris to Haney. PP walked over to Haneyâs table at Marlago and personally set the scheme in motion.
