DVC T &C Personal Use - Only Thread to Discuss.

[mkatsy]

Except, that is not the standard that they are supposed to take in this

They are supposed to look at the level of renting one is doing and apply a reasonable definition that you have gone from renting within your rights to renting for commercial.

DVCs statements last year discussed large point owners as the issue.

Plus, as I mentioned, DVC has adopted a commercial use policy in the past.

FL 718 110.3 law was meant to prevent condo associations to come and and amend contracts to limit owners rental rights beyond what they already enjoy.

So, expecting them to decide to make the definiton so narrow that they make it almost impossible to rent?

Not sure why anyone would want to see that or how one thinks that aligns with the intent of the commercial purpose clause of the contract.

At end of the day … Florida is a big state, and Florida is a “small” state … all Disney has to do is pick up the phone to the Governor & the Department of Revenue and there will be tax liens on those large commercial contracts faster than your head can spin … we’re not there yet.

 

[Sandisw]

At end of the day … Florida is a big state, and Florida is a “small” state … all Disney has to do is pick up the phone to the Governor & the Department of Revenue and there will be tax liens on those large commercial contracts faster than your head can spin … we’re not there yet.

Taxes have nothing to do with this. Let’s keep this in relation to what is at issue.

DVC enforcing the commercial purpose clause against those owners who are violating it using a standard that aligns with the intent of the clause.

Once they identify them, they have all the power they need.

 

[mkatsy]

Taxes have nothing to do with this. Let’s keep this in relation to what is at issue.

DVC enforcing the commercial purpose clause against those owners who are violating it using a standard that aligns with the intent of the clause.

Once they identify them, they have all the power they need.

I disagree … one of the tactics commercial renters employ is the “strip & flip” … you cannot close on real estate with an unresolved lien. Forcing them to pay their fair share in taxes would reduce their profitability and force them to employ someone to deal with this new paperwork. As of now, they are unencumbered by the “rules”.

 

[Sandisw]

I disagree … one of the tactics commercial renters employ is the “strip & flip” … you cannot close on real estate with an unresolved lien. Forcing them to pay their fair share in taxes would reduce their profitability and force them to employ someone to deal with this new paperwork. As of now, they are unencumbered by the “rules”.

Why are you assuming these people are not paying their fair share of taxes on the rental income or when they flip?

If I had to guess, a lot of this is due in part to DVCs lax enforcement of their own policies.

 

[muppets3d]

It's not my job to worry about someone else's tax burden, that's between them and Uncle Sam.

 

[DanCali]

I’d settle for any enforcement at this point. Looking at rentals, the number is going up, not down, after the T&C change.

Please quantify this if you can.

I wasn't aware people were even keeping track of this even before the T&C change, but what did you observe/count "before" vs "after" and on what platform/s.

 

[mkatsy]

Why are you assuming these people are not paying their fair share of taxes on the rental income or when they flip?

If I had to guess, a lot of this is due in part to DVCs lax enforcement of their own policies.

It’s not income tax … it’s sales tax and county “bed tax” on the rental revenue. There is no “bed tax” on the actual contract itself when you buy it, no tax on personal use, if you accept money for your accommodation, tax is due to the state and orange county.

 

[mkatsy]

It's not my job to worry about someone else's tax burden, that's between them and Uncle Sam.

It’s not the federal government, it’s Orange County

 

[Sandisw]

It’s not income tax … it’s sales tax and county “bed tax” on the rental revenue. There is no “bed tax” on the actual contract itself when you buy it, no tax on personal use, if you accept money for your accommodation, tax is due to the state and orange county.

And, again, what makes you think these owners are not submitting that?

But, strip and flip is not what we are discussing right now…

DVC has made one move to help with this. Enforcing the one transfer rule even for owners who have multiple memberships.

ETA: From DVC side, it’s simple, have a commercial use policy and enforce it when someone violates it.

The debate for owners is what we would like to see that policy to be.

IMO, I’m 99% confident that DVC will make that policy reasonable and in line with the thinking they used in 2008.

 

[mkatsy]

And, again, what makes you think these owners are not submitting that?

Do I think that they are voluntarily giving up a percentage of their gross revenue to a tax that historically has not been enforced? …. nope. Maybe they are the salt of the earth … but then again there’s all those bots and walking … so again, nope.

 

[Brian Noble]

Someone forgot to tell California it’s summer…

It is called June Gloom for a reason! My LA-based son always reminds me this time of year that "the beach is too cold."

One thing's for sure, I would never advertise what I do on a public forum where Disney (and the IRS) can see it all.

As far as the IRS goes, I find it easier to just be sure to pay any taxes that I owe. It is simpler that way.

If I should apply your logic to our current situation then ANY company owning DVC is in it for the money - that would mean ANY LLC owning DVC.

There is some language in the governing documents restricting how an LLC-owned DVC membership is used. I don't remember the details, because mine is not, but it is in there.

 

[Sandisw]

Do I think that they are voluntarily giving up a percentage of their gross revenue to a tax that historically has not been enforced? …. nope. Maybe they are the salt of the earth … but then again there’s all those bots and walking … so again, nope.

That’s why this isn’t relevant to the discussion

DVC doesn’t have to even worry or care because what someone is or is not doing in terms of that isn’t DVCs responsibility.

The owners who are currently renting in a way that obviously falls under what all of us would define as commercial use are getting away with it because either DVC has chosen not to enforce that clause…which they do have the right to do…or, they need to update the policy they have in a way to prevent people for getting around it by creating things like LLCs, etc.

 

[IMMkXLVI]

It impacts owners at a few resorts who want studios.

We own at GF & Riv. If I rent a studio there, or anywhere else for that matter, how is this impacting anyone?
Who's to say that if I didn't rent that studio for someone that I wouldn't have used it or gifted it to a friend?

It seems that people are hung up on the inventory taken by the renter, as if some illegal alien has usurped them and taken possession of what is rightfully theirs. I don't see it that way. The points owned by the "commercial landlord" if not owned by them WOULD BE OWNED BY SOMEONE ELSE! or a multitude of someones. It isn't like they'd be shelved and unused. BOTS not withstanding, the commercial owner is just doing for one what the many would be doing individually. Really a moot point.

 

[muppets3d]

We own at GF & Riv. If I rent a studio there, or anywhere else for that matter, how is this impacting anyone?
Who's to say that if I didn't rent that studio for someone that I wouldn't have used it or gifted it to a friend?

It seems that people are hung up on the inventory taken by the renter, as if some illegal alien has usurped them and taken possession of what is rightfully theirs. I don't see it that way. The points owned by the "commercial landlord" if not owned by them WOULD BE OWNED BY SOMEONE ELSE! or a multitude of someones. It isn't like they'd be shelved and unused. BOTS not withstanding, the commercial owner is just doing for one what the many would be doing individually. Really a moot point.

No you make a good point, certainly if renting were wiped from the program tomorrow somehow (which as we have had beaten into our heads over the past nearly 2000 posts, can't happen) - many studios would still be hard to book.

The number of points in the system doesn't change when commercial renting is curtailed.

The main thing is the commercial outfits book almost exclusively studios because that is what the clientele wants.

So when commercial outfits are gone (if that ever happens), more studios will be opened up for the membership, and not everyone who buys those dumped contracts from the commercial outfits will be booking studios - so theoretically, demand will equalize a bit.

That's the point.

I do agree that if you are a DVC member that isn't as interested in studios, then honestly this whole snafu isn't really concerning you. This really is a studios problem.

But since more and more DVC members (renters notwithstanding) seem to want studios, it is a growing problem.

 

[DonMacGregor]

It is called June Gloom for a reason! My LA-based son always reminds me this time of year that "the beach is too cold."

Yeah, and I’m wondering what the problem is:





Plus, it’s not summer yet.

 

[Brian Noble]

Fair point, I was in west LA a week or two ago, and it was pretty much lovely the entire time. I did not go down to the water, though, so microclimates etc. etc. etc.

 

[mkatsy]

That’s why this isn’t relevant to the discussion

DVC doesn’t have to even worry or care because what someone is or is not doing in terms of that isn’t DVCs responsibility.

The owners who are currently renting in a way that obviously falls under what all of us would define as commercial use are getting away with it because either DVC has chosen not to enforce that clause…which they do have the right to do…or, they need to update the policy they have in a way to prevent people for getting around it by creating things like LLCs, etc.

I think you’re missing my point here. I’m not suggesting that Disney is responsible for their members actions, I’m suggesting that they use their competitions weakness against them. Why would anyone get tangled up in a legal battle, when they can pick up the phone and tattle on the other side. It’s free and they look like a hero to the community who gets an influx of cash

 

[Cyberc1978]

Jury's out how much renting Disney will decide is part of the membership going forward. It could be the amount of renting they feel is appropriate makes it functionally impossible to rent your points with any regularity.

My comment was just about renting and protecting the membership, not how much or little you do.

 

[Cyberc1978]

We own at GF & Riv. If I rent a studio there, or anywhere else for that matter, how is this impacting anyone?
Who's to say that if I didn't rent that studio for someone that I wouldn't have used it or gifted it to a friend?

It seems that people are hung up on the inventory taken by the renter, as if some illegal alien has usurped them and taken possession of what is rightfully theirs. I don't see it that way. The points owned by the "commercial landlord" if not owned by them WOULD BE OWNED BY SOMEONE ELSE! or a multitude of someones. It isn't like they'd be shelved and unused. BOTS not withstanding, the commercial owner is just doing for one what the many would be doing individually. Really a moot point.

It’s a fair point that some members may have gifted or used the reservation themselves. But the mega renters would not have used all of their reservations by themselves or gifted them.

Personally I would have gifted some reservations but certainly not all.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Anyone attending the board meeting today?