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

[Brianstl]

Exactly! Not an accountant either, but finance.

This does seem to support my theory that Disney wants to shut down the major rental sites, or at least significantly kneecap them.

I think kneecapping the brokers is the major goal, not the people trading on here in private transactions. The David’s and others are who have they view as the competition to the hotel side. They don’t want one of the own products be advertised as a lower cost alternative to their deluxe resorts.

 

[mkatsy]

That and I doubt Disney wants to get into the policing business of who is in a room. If the police need a warrant or have to accept "He/she isn't home right now" then so too would Disney, no?

Have you been to Disney? Ever since the Las Vegas incident there are daily room checks. If you are lucky, they will make several good faith attempts to coordinate with you, if unsuccessful they knock and enter the room. Can the police do that?

 

[Sandisw]

I’m not an accountant, but I live with them if you don’t work off of gross revenue you open the door for a “rebate” situation where a third party could charge 15% fee, then rebate the owner a gift card, etc. for the 5% surcharge

You do realize that when you sign a contract with a rental agency to rent the points your contract includes what you will be paid, right?

So, if I contract with DVC rental store to get paid $16/point, then that is what my rental income will be.

The fee for the broker is technically charged and paid by the buyer and not the seller because they are the ones that are charged that extra.

You simple contract to be paid a certain rate and that is your rental incomes.

I don’t why people think DVC is going make this complicated.

Nothing I was told even implied or alluded to this.

 

[mkatsy]

You do realize that when you sign a contract with a rental agency to rent the points your contract includes what you will be paid, right?

So, if I contract with DVC rental store to get paid $16/point, then that is what my rental income will be.

The fee for the broker is technically charged and paid by the buyer and not the seller because they are the ones that are charged that extra.

You simple contract to be paid a certain rate and that is your rental incomes.

I don’t why people think DVC is going make this complicated.

Nothing I was told even implied or alluded to this.

I’ve never rented a single point in my life I use them all

 

[IMMkXLVI]

Have you been to Disney? Ever since the Las Vegas incident there are daily room checks. If you are lucky, they will make several good faith attempts to coordinate with you, if unsuccessful they knock and enter the room. Can the police do that?

WHAT?? You're kidding.

Yes, we've been to Disney 5 times since 2/2024 and each stay was 4-7 days on site. Not once did we get visited by room police.

I'll say, if that happened, it would be very off putting.

Oh, what happened in Vegas to prompt Disney to enact a room task force?

EDIT:

I Googled it. The Vegas shooting is what prompted it. I thought that might be it but that incident seemed pretty far removed from Disney and from Vegas that I second guessed if it was the connection.

https://www.explore.com/1614230/controversial-room-check-know-staying-disney-hotel-resort/

 

[Sandisw]

I think kneecapping the brokers is the major goal, not the people trading on here in private transactions. The David’s and others are who have they view as the competition to the hotel side. They don’t want one of the own products be advertised as a lower cost alternative to their deluxe resorts.

Sorry, but this idea is grounded in nothing that DVC has done or said or what they have a responsibility to do.

This is not about the hotel division because in a way, this new policy could increase rentals because owners who are using their points will rent for less just to not let them expire.

If an owner had 300 points and all are expiring and they can’t use them, they know they can’t charge more than dues, so they could now offer them for the actual cost of dues…which could up close to half the going rate.

Owners who rent and have rental contracts that show what they charged, will have all the proof they need to satisfy DVC during a review.

 

[Brianstl]

The rental income received by the owner is what will count.

So, if they have a rental contract to be paid for $16/point, then that is the amount the owner can use to prove their numbers.

All that matters at this point is that owners who are renting to offset dues will be allowed to continue to do that

This notion that DVC is going to try and go after brokers is unfounded and nothing to suggest that.

They know they can enforce the terms of the contract for the owner and if they believe your rentals are exceeding it and you get flagged. Your proof will be your rental contract.

If DVC isn’t going to allow owners to use a rental contract to prove income, then there would have been no reason to use this as the metric and continue to allow owners to offset dues

If they are definitely going by gross income the third party broker fees wouldn’t count, but all taxes associated with the rental would count towards the gross income total.

 

[Sandisw]

I’ve never rented a single point in my life I use them all

I also don’t rent because I have enough family and friends to gift to if we have extra.

But, I was pointing out that the way it works is that the owner’s contract with a broker is what they are actually paid because the broker is the one doing the payments.

 

[Sandisw]

If they are definitely going by gross income the third party broker fees wouldn’t count, but all taxes associated with the rental would count towards the gross income total.

This has nothing to do with taxes. It’s actual rental income received.

This is simply how DVC has decided to define for owners what is allowed under the right to rent. As long as the rental income you received is the amount of dues, you will be considered to have made “no profit” for the purposes of commercial clause of DVC.

As I stated, owners do not agree to pay a broker a fee…the owner contracts with the broker to be paid x for the rental.

What the broker actually charges the renter is not part of the owner’s contract. That is between the renter and the broker. They set that rate.

Look up the contracts. All that is included is the rate the owner is paid. There is no broker fee included.

So, if I agree to rent my points for $16/point then my contract will say $16/point. It doesn’t say $20/point with a broker fee of $4/point.

So, there is no actual broker fee attached to the owner…they get paid by the renter because the renter pays the extra.

That is why some do it on their own because they can charge a renter more.

 

[Brianstl]

If they are definitely going by gross income the third party broker fees wouldn’t count, but all taxes associated with the rental would count towards the gross income total.

And the sales taxes applied on the total would based on the total the customer actually paid not the amount you agreed to receive from the broker.

 

[Brianstl]

Nothing to do with taxes or what an owner has to pay.

This is simply how DVC has decided to define for owners what is allowed under the right to rent. As long as the rental income you received is the amount of dues, you will be considered to have made “no profit” for the purposes of commercial clause of DVC.

As I stated, owners do not agree to pay a broker a fee…the owner contracts with the broker to be paid x for the rental.

What the broker actually charges the renter is not part of the owner’s contract. That is between the renter and the broker. They set that rate.

Look up the contracts. All that is included is the rate the owner is paid. There is no broker fee included.

If they are using “gross income” from the rental like you posted earlier that definitely includes any taxes the broker pays on your behalf for the transaction. If the total doesn’t include the taxes it isn’t gross income. At least they is how it works if I was renting you a house or apartment.

 

[Sandisw]

And the sales taxes applied on the total would be based on the total would be based on the total the customer actually paid not the amount you agreed to receive from the broker.

Again, this has nothing to do with taxes at all.

I rent you a reservation and I get paid $18/point. It’s 100 point reservation. My income is $1800. That is it.

If my dues were $1000 that year, I broke the rule. If my dues were $2000 that year, I’m good.

That is all this is. If your rental contract shows you were paid $1800 and that is what you received, then it’s $1800.

And, there has been no change that owners renting will be even submitting contracts. They might be asked for them if the account is flagged and they have to go through a review, but if DVC doesn’t identify an owner as potentially in violation, then nothing more will be done.

Not sure I can explain it any clearer. But, this is also why I speculate that DVC might just use rental averages as a metric to flag.

 

[Sandisw]

If they are using “gross income” from the rental like you posted earlier that definitely includes any taxes the broker pays on your behalf on the transaction. If the total doesn’t include the taxes it isn’t gross income. At least they is how it works if I was renting you a house or apartment.

The brokers don’t pay any taxes on your behalf. You are responsible for that. You get a check for the amount and a 1099 at the end of the year, except for David’s who doesn’t issue one for the amount they paid you.

It’s like how I get paid as an independent contract for my job. I get paid my commission and it’s my responsibility to pay taxes owed.

No different then owners who rent on their own,,,they get paid a set rate and any taxes owed are their responsibility.

 

[Cyberc1978]

The rental income received by the owner is what will count.

So, if they have a rental contract to be paid for $16/point, then that is the amount the owner can use to prove their numbers.

I think it’s a fair solution but in reality it sounds like it can easily be gamed.

Using a broker or another strawman would be how mega renters or others will circumvent the policy.

They would basically draft a contract saying that they rent their points or reservation to x person at $14 pp. That person acts as intermediary and finds the real renter for the reservation at $35 pp.

Person x and owner are same company or some other way have a relation.

Owner would only need to disclose the contract with the intermediary to DVC.

 

[mkatsy]

WHAT?? You're kidding.

Yes, we've been to Disney 5 times since 2/2024 and each stay was 4-7 days on site. Not once did we get visited by room police.

I'll say, if that happened, it would be very off putting.

Oh, what happened in Vegas to prompt Disney to enact a room task force?

EDIT:

I Googled it. The Vegas shooting is what prompted it. I thought that might be it but that incident seemed pretty far removed from Disney and from Vegas that I second guessed if it was the connection.

https://www.explore.com/1614230/controversial-room-check-know-staying-disney-hotel-resort/

There are some very funny stories on the internet of mousekeeping walking in on folks while they are indisposed. There are some things you can’t unsee

 

[Sandisw]

I think it’s a fair solution but in reality it sounds like it can easily be gamed.

Using a broker or another strawman would be how mega renters or others will circumvent the policy.

They would basically draft a contract saying that they rent their points or reservation to x person at $14 pp. That person acts as intermediary and finds the real renter for the reservation at $35 pp.

Person x and owner are same company or some other way have a relation.

Owner would only need to disclose the contract with the intermediary to DVC.

Any system can be gamed if someone tries hard enough.

But, I am going to add that DVC still has the power to call into question if they think something dodgy is up

Remember, though, any points attached to an owner will count so the maximum number of points an owner can be connected with is 8000.

The maximum number of points, let’s assume rental income is only double the dues…so renting 50% of points gets you there.

That means that owner can, at most, have rentals for 4000 points,,,that still leaves them with 4000 points to have to use on their own..

Many of these owners are attached to multiple memberships and if you are, the potential rentals on all of them will flag.

All DVC will have is that the name on the reservation is not the owner…so, gifts for family and friends or renters will look the same to them and therefore, would be caught up in this.

Lets say X owns 5000 points alone, but XY own 3000 points jointly. Owner X can only be tied rentals at most to 4000 points between those two ownerships.

Let’s say Y also also have 5000 on their own, any rentals from the joint contract could actually count twice because they’d count for owner X and owner Y.

That is one of the big differences here than before since that looked at memberships. This looks at the dues for the points and the rentals for those points can never exceed the dues

I think it’s actually going to be harder for those on multiple memberships who have used that as a way around.

 

[Brianstl]

The brokers don’t pay any taxes on your behalf. You are responsible for that. You get a check for the amount and a 1099 at the end of the year, except for David’s who doesn’t issue one for the amount they paid you.

It’s like how I get paid as an independent contract for my job. I get paid my commission and it’s my responsibility to pay taxes owed.

No different then owners who rent on their own,,,they get paid a set rate and any taxes owed are their responsibility.

The short term rental tax is collected by the broker for your rental, but the more I think about that it is a liability since it is considered a sales tax and wouldn’t be applied to gross income.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I'm not buying that we have the whole picture. The "up to the value of your annual dues" cap seems somewhat arbitrary and will vary from resort to resort when translated into rental fees. As some have said, in the not-to-distant future, you'll need to rent out 110% of your points just to pay for your dues at Vero Beach.

Plus, while there has always been a requirement to have a rental agreement in place, a person can put any rental rate they want on it, then collect a different amount. It's literally the biggest non-secret in California that people put down ridiculously low sales prices on private sale used car transactions, because the state charges sales tax based on the self-reported sales amount. I'd wager 90% of the used cars sold in CA between private parties, "sell" for $500 to$1,000. And that's under penalty of perjury and considered tax fraud subject to civil and criminal penalties. I've heard it jokingly said that California is the home of the $500 E Class.

If I provide a rental contract that states I charged $10 per point to rent, there is absolutely no way Disney can refute it. They can't subpoena my bank records, and even if they did ask for a copy of any electronic funds transfers, I get the rental money in two payments for $10 PP each and only provide one to Disney. They'll never be able to tell how much I received as all documentation is provided by me. I have a contract that says $10 PP, and I have a receipt for an electronic funds transfer for $10 PP. It's too easily gamed.

Disney isn't stupid and knows from experience that people are going to try to lie and cheat their way around anything that costs them or makes them money. I'm going to wager there's more brewing on the back end.

 

[muppets3d]

I mean I would still consider renting out enough points to cover all your dues frequently and regularly renting, but I didn't write the documents.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I'm not buying that we have the whole picture. The "up to the value of your annual dues" cap seems somewhat arbitrary and will vary from resort to resort when translated into rental fees. As some have said, in the not-to-distant future, you'll need to rent out 110% of your points just to pay for your dues at Vero Beach.

Plus, while there has always been a requirement to have a rental agreement in place, a person can put any rental rate they want on it, then collect a different amount. It's literally the biggest non-secret in California that people put down ridiculously low sales prices on private sale used car transactions, because the state charges sales tax based on the self-reported sales amount. I'd wager 90% of the used cars sold in CA between private parties, "sell" for $500 to$1,000. And that's under penalty of perjury and considered tax fraud subject to civil and criminal penalties. I've heard it jokingly said that California is the home of the $500 E Class.

If I provide a rental contract that states I charged $10 per point to rent, there is absolutely no way Disney can refute it. They can't subpoena my bank records, and even if they did ask for a copy of any electronic funds transfers, I get the rental money in two payments for $10 PP each and only provide one to Disney. They'll never be able to tell how much I received as all documentation is provided by me. I have a contract that says $10 PP, and I have a receipt for an electronic funds transfer for $10 PP. It's too easily gamed.

Disney isn't stupid and knows from experience that people are going to try to lie and cheat their way around anything that costs them or makes them money. I'm going to wager there's more brewing on the back end.

I tend to agree because if you can game the system the system WILL be gamed without a doubt.

I don’t believe DVC will scan SoMe groups for rentals they will find an easier way to do something more.