Rent Deficiency Notice: Fill & Download for Free

30 yrs ago (yah boomer!) I had lived in a property for 3 years with no problems. 1 yr, renewing lease. Went to the manager’s office to pay my rent one day, and the staff person tells me that within the next six months, I’ll need to move out temporarily. They’re planning to renovate each unit, and it’ll take a month or two for each unit but they’ll be soooo much nicer, and we’ve set aside some extra apartments over there on the other side of the complex for people to use while their place is renovated.I asked if they were giving me a break on the rent for this inconvenience. Well, no, but funny you should mention, the new renovations will raise the rent about 40%. Starting the day I move back in.I asked if they had a problem with me? Nooo, you’re great! Then why are you driving me away? Why, we’re doing no such thing!I suggested that as a continuing resident, and to compensate me for the inconvenience, I get one year in the new apartment at the old rate. After that, market rates. They looked shocked, and said no, the owner would never agree to that. It wasn’t really negotiable.So you want me to pack up all my belongings, move 100 yards, live out of boxes for 2 months, then move again and pay more? Yes, the units were older and the rent was cheaper, I said, but if I were going to pay what they were asking, I could find a different apartment with newer accommodations and only move once.They didn’t see the reasoning in that, so I said “good luck with your new tenant. Hope they pay promptly and keep the apartment up as well as I do. I’ll let you know when you’ve successfully driven me away.” They tactfully reminded me I needed to give 30 days notice and I said I would.And I did. For $35/month less than they were going to ask for, I moved to a place with better units, more features, and a real fireplace. They got my money regularly for the next three years.Money. Possibly combined with deficient logic. That’s the reason.

What do I do when my landlord lets the house I’m renting go into foreclosure?There’s very little you can do . . . except make plans to move.You should continue paying rent because you’re receiving housing. That contract—the lease—is between you and the landlord. If you don’t pay your rent, you can be evicted.The situation with the landlord and the lender is between those two. You don’t have a role in it. Depending on the location of the property and how the lender decides to proceed, foreclosure could come within a month or two, or it could stretch out a year or more.However, you should check with whatever agency or department exists in your county or city to find out what protections you may have. They’re not likely to be much, but you should check that out.If the owner decides to sell the property before the foreclosure is completed, then the lease you have with the owner applies to the new purchaser. For example, if the owner sells and there’s still five months left on your lease, the new buyer is bound by the terms of the existing lease. On the other hand, if you’re on a month-to-month basis, then the new owner can give you 30 days’ notice.If the owner has a lot of equity in the property (not likely if he/she is willing to let the house go into foreclosure, but it’s possible) and you’re in a position to buy, you could make an offer. You’d have to make up any rent deficiency with the lender, though. But, for instance, let’s say the house is worth $300,000 and the owner has a remaining mortgage of $150,000. Plus, by not making his mortgage payments, he owes another $20,000 in back payments, interest, and penalties. So, in total, he owes $170,000. The house, as we’ve said, is worth $300,000.You could make him an offer for any amount above $170,000. Let’s say $185,000. Your pitch to the owner would be: “Look. If you let the house go into foreclosure, you probably won’t receive any of your equity back from the bank. You’ll get nothing, and you’ll seriously hurt your credit. With my offer, you walk away with $15,000 in cash and you help save your credit.” Yes, you’d have to come up with a down payment and closing costs, but let’s say you get an FHA (3.5%) loan. Adding in closing costs and other fees, you might have to come up with 6% or so in cash. That’s $11,100. You’d get a mortgage for the remainder; interest rates right now are very low. Your monthly mortgage payment (principal and interest) would be around $1,100-$1,200.So that’s one way to handle the situation if you’ve got some money and you’re willing to buy the property. And there are others.But if you don’t want to buy, or aren’t in a position to, the short answer is:Keep paying your rent.Prepare to move at whatever point the foreclosure is completed and ownership transfers.Check with your city and county regarding tenant rights. And check with a lawyer.

In a way, and after several years of court cases, negotiations, and squabbling the Church of Scientology won a battle of tax status with the IRS. However, there are still court cases and investigations ongoing it appears. You may read all about this at the Website: Tax status of Scientology in the United States - WikipediaAnother case reported by Forbes by Peter J Reilly wrote:I always love it when regular taxpayers beat the IRS in Tax Court without using lawyers. Of course, then I get annoyed with the IRS for chasing the wrong people. The most recent case of that sort I have noted is that of James Edwards Roberts. Mr. Roberts was in Tax Court over a deficiency notice of $8,274. The case was about the ordinary taxpayer trifecta - dependency deductions, earned income credit and head of household status. The wrinkle that might have thrown the IRS off is that Mr. Roberts was the children's grandfather. Here is the story.Sometime in January 2012 Mr. Roberts's daughter and her two children became homeless. A third grandchild was on the way and was born in 2012. Mr. Roberts responded to the emergency by entering into an agreement with Tammy Moody. Mr. Roberts agreed:....to pay 75% rent and utilities and bear the full cost of meals, etc. Both petitioner and Ms. Moody signed and dated the agreement. Petitioner [Mr. Roberts] and his two grandchildren, J.A.S. and B.M.S., moved into the apartment in January 2012. J.Z.S. began living in the apartment after March 28, 2012. Petitioner complied with the agreement to provide rent, utilities, and meals. Petitioner and his three grandchildren lived in the apartment until October 2012. During the period between January 16, 2012, and October 2012 petitioner's daughter also sometimes lived in the apartment and provided nonmonetary care for the three children. Ms. Moody also provided care for the three children when the petitioner and petitioner's daughter were not at the apartment. Expenses that Ms. Moody incurred in caring for the grandchildren were reimbursed by the petitioner.Conceivably the IRS computers were perturbed by a man moving to a new address and all of a sudden having three children as dependents. Also, Mr. Roberts might have been hurt in the eyes of an agent by the fact that the arrangement was temporary - beginning and ending within the same year. Nonetheless, the IRS seems to have conceded from the outset that their case was a little weak. The deficiency notice had asserted the accuracy penalty, which is pretty much routine, but they dropped that at the beginning of the trial.The Tax Court went through the requirements for a dependency deduction all of which Mr. Roberts met with respect to his grandchildren.In order for an individual to be a qualifying child of a taxpayer, section 152(c) requires that the individual: (1) bear a specified relationship to the taxpayer; (2) share the same abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the taxable year; (3) meet specified age requirements; and (4) not have provided over one-half of his or her own support for the tax year.The mystery to me is why when the IRS decided to drop the penalty, they did not drop the case entirely, since, by dropping the penalty, they were indicating that they did not think Mr. Roberts was lying and, given that, it's pretty clear that he wins. That the deficiency notice got issued in the first place is perhaps not that surprising given the amount of fraud there is surrounding the earned income credit. That may have turned the people working those cases into a bunch of cynical bastards. It wouldn't take me long. It is worth noting that it was very wise for Mr. Roberts to have entered into the written agreement with Ms. Moody rather than having the arrangement be informal. That extra piece of evidence may have been what won the case for him.You may read about this at this website: Grandfather Beats IRS In Tax Court Without LawyerI hope you find this interesting.