Tag Archives: Bedford Corners NY Homes
Housing Starts In Bedford Corners NY | Bedford Corners NY Real Estate
December Foreclosures Hit 68-Month Low | Bedford Corners NY Real Estate
Is the Deep Litter System Right for Your Homestead? | Bedford Corners Realtor
Citibank recruiting mortgage loan originators | Bedford Corners Realtor
1/14/13 3:15pmCitibank ($42.22 0%) is looking to expand its retail group partnership channel, which includes alliances with other companies and real estate agencies.
The company is looking for sales managers and loan originators.
Citibank is searching for staff in the states of Texas, Louisiana, Montana, Iowa, Indiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kansas, Wisconsin, Alabama, Minnesota, Kentucky, Michigan and Illinois.
At this time, Citibank does not know exactly how many independent loan brokers it will be hiring.
House of the Week: Ronald Reagan’s Pacific Palisades Home | Bedford Corners Homes
Revestor includes cash flow, cap rate in real estate search results | Bedford Corners NY Real Estate
Long Island Power Should Be Private, New York Panel Says | Bedford Corners Homes
The Long Island Power Authority should be converted into an investor-owned utility to end poor management practices that exacerbated slow and halting repairs of blackouts from October’s Hurricane Sandy, a New York state investigative panel said today.
Privatization would make management of the state-owned electrical system answerable to the New York Public Service Commission, which should be empowered by the legislature with stronger sanctions including the ability to revoke a utility franchise, the panel told Governor Andrew Cuomo today in a preliminary briefing.
Cuomo, a Democrat, convened the so-called Moreland Commission in November with the power to subpoena witnesses, after more than two million homes and businesses lost electricity from the storm, some for as long as 21 days. Some of the panel’s recommendations will need legislation and Cuomo said he’s waiting for its final report. No date was given for its release.
“The key to problems at LIPA was a fundamentally dysfunctional management structure,” Benjamin Lawsky, the commission co-chairman and superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, said at a meeting in Albany that was broadcast on the Internet. “The commission found that the only solution is for fundamental change at LIPA and how power is delivered on Long Island.”
Outsourced Operations
The state-controlled authority owns Long Island’s electrical lines and contracted with National Grid Plc (NG/) to operate them. Under such divided and “dysfunctional” management, LIPA let consultants, rather than the utility operator, guide its spending and failed to properly replace aging poles or trim away overhanging trees as recommended in state studies, Lawsky said.
Bringing day to day operations into LIPA may not improve management and would add 2,000 employees to the state pension system, Lawsky said.
LIPA was formed in 1985 by state lawmakers because of a “lack of confidence” in Long Island Lighting Co.’s ability to supply power reliably and economically after its investment in the ill-fated Shoreham nuclear plant. Shoreham, the most expensive U.S. nuclear power project, never operated commercially after the state raised questions about the ability to evacuate Long Island in the event of a radioactive release.
LIPA bought the lighting company’s remaining assets in 1998, including its power lines and power plants.
The authority has about $7 billion in debt and $4 billion of assets, Lawsky said.
New Contract
National Grid operates, maintains and repairs LIPA’s power lines through Dec. 31, 2013. The authority picked in 2011 Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PEG), owner of New Jersey’s largest utility, to take over the contract in 2014. The management structure is unique to LIPA.
Public Service is preparing to manage LIPA’s lines and intends to work with Cuomo and legislators as needed, Karen Johnson, a spokeswoman, said today in an e-mail.
LIPA is “reviewing the report and will continue to cooperate with the state and the Moreland Commission to do what is in the best interest of Long Island’s ratepayers,” Mark Gross, an authority spokesman, said in an e-mail.
The New York Public Service Commission, which regulates investor-owned utilities, needs the authority to impose stronger sanctions to compel better performance, said Robert Abrams, the other commission co-chairman and a former state attorney general.
Maximum Penalty
The maximum penalty for violating the commission’s orders is $100,000 a day, Abrams said. A more effective sanction would be 0.02 percent of gross revenue, or about $2 million a day for Consolidated Edison Inc. (ED), the state’s largest utility owner, he said.
Storm response plans should be subject to commission approval and compliance enforced by more staff, Abrams said.
“Superstorm Sandy devastated our region,” Chris Olert, a Con Edison spokesman, said in an e-mail. “All of us must participate in the discussions on infrastructure investments and new policies.”
Higher Costs
An October 2011 strategic review of LIPA by the Brattle Group concluded that privatization may raise costs by $438 million a year because an investor-owned utility can’t issue tax-exempt bonds. Cost of capital for the privatized utility would be 10.73 percent compared to LIPA’s current cost of capital of about 5 percent, it concluded.
A 10-year LIPA bond backed by bill payments traded Dec. 31 with an average yield of 2.27 percent, 0.58 percentage point above an index of benchmark municipals with similar maturity, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That yield difference has narrowed from when the bonds first priced in June with a spread of 0.81 percentage point.
Privatizing the Long Island authority “is just not realistic and practical,” said Matthew Cordaro, a former chief operating officer of Long Island Lighting. Refinancing LIPA’s tax-exempt bonds would raise power rates that are already among the highest in the country, he said today in a telephone interview.
Converting the authority into a full-service municipal utility that employs professional managers is a better option, he said.
A Closer Look At The Fiscal Cliff Deal’s Impact On The Built-In-Gains Recognition Period For S Corporations | Bedford Corners NY Homes
Last week, in a post titled “Secrets of the Fiscal Cliff,” I set about identifying six of the lesser publicized tax aspects of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA). In the final item, I wrote the following:
Ask a C corporation shareholder why he hasn’t converted to an S corporation, and the most common response is “the built-in-gains tax.” As a reminder, the built-in-gains tax prevents a C corporation from circumventing double taxation by converting to an S corporation and then immediately selling its assets or liquidating. In simple terms, it does so by requiring an S corporation to pay corporate level tax on any gains that were inherent in the assets of the S corporation on the date of the election and that are recognized within the first 10 years after the S election is effective.
Recent law changes, however, have provided for truncated recognition periods for existing S corporation that have reached certain landmarks in their 10-year period. For example, the 2009 Recovery Act provided that for S corporation tax years beginning in 2009 and 2010, no tax would be imposed on the net unrecognized built-in gain of an S corporation if the seventh tax year in the recognition period preceded the 2009 and 2010 tax years.
Note, however, that these law changes merely abbreviated the recognition period for certain existing S corporations that have already begun their recognition periods. For newly electing S corporations, the recognition period has always remained 10 years. Until now. The fiscal cliff deal surprisingly calls for only a 5-year recognition period for corporations that elect S status in 2012 or 2013.
I reached this conclusion based on the language of Section 326 of the ATRA, which reads:
EXTENSION OF REDUCTION IN S-CORPORATION RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN GAINS TAX.
IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (7) of section 1374(d) is amended by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR 2012 AND 2013.—For purposes of determining the net recognized built-in gain for taxable years beginning in 2012 or 2013, subparagraphs (A) and (D) shall be applied by substituting ‘5-year’ for ‘10-year’.’’
For a point of reference, pre-ATRA Section 1374(d)(7)(A) read:
(7) Recognition period.
(A) In general. The term “recognition period” means the 10-year period beginning with the 1st day of the 1st taxable year for which the corporation was an S corporation.
Putting it all together, I concluded that Section 326 of the ATRA provided a different type of relief from previous amendments to Section 1374. The fiscal cliff deal, it appeared to me, was abbreviating the typical 10-year recognition period for newly electing S corporations in 2012 and 2013 on a prospective basis. Why did I reach this conclusion, particularly in light of the fact that previous amendments to the recognition period had all been made on a retroactive basis?
For starters, the previous changes to Section 1374(d)(7) used very specific language to indicate the effect of a truncated recognition period. Consider Section 1374(d)(7)(B), which was added in 2009:
(B) Special rules for 2009, 2010, and 2011. No tax shall be imposed on the net recognized built-in gain of an S corporation—
(i) in the case of any taxable year beginning in 2009 or 2010, if the 7th taxable year in the recognition period preceded such taxable year, or
(ii) in the case of any taxable year beginning in 2011, if the 5th year in the recognition period preceded such taxable year.
Looking at it logically, I assumed that if Congress intended Section 326 of the ATRA to simply exclude from built-in-gains any gain recognized in 2012 or 2013 by an S corporation that had reached the five-year point in its recognition period, it would have written the proposed Section 1374(d)(7)(C) in the same manner as Section 1374(d)(7)(B). More to the point, Congress could have avoided adding a new subparagraph and simply amended Section 1374(d)(7)(B)(ii) by adding 2012 and 2013.
Adding a differently worded new subparagraph didn’t make sense, which is why I concluded that the language of new Section 1374(d)(7)(C) was meant to accomplish something else: to shorten the recognition period to five years for corporations electing S status in 2012 or 2013.
But over the weekend, something gave me pause, and it wasn’t just the fact that such an approach would be a departure from previous Congressional motives; it was the language of the title to Section 326 of the ATRA. As indicated above, it reads:
EXTENSION OF REDUCTION IN S-CORPORATION RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN GAINS TAX.








