Laserfiche WebLink
interest would be charged at a rate well above market on amounts they could have <br /> paid. Ms. Maxwell believed she had an asset worth $208'200 which could be <br /> converted into much needed cash. When the land was finally sold, after closing costs <br /> and the real estate agent's commission and these penalties, the net realized was only <br /> $113, 14.11. <br /> Perhaps the roll-back takes should have been foreseen, but as out of state owners of <br /> land that had been inherited the Maxwells thought they understood the philosophy of <br /> the statute, i.e. that in return for some tax relief the property owners gave the tern an <br /> option to buy the land and a hefty penalty if plans changed. They did not understand <br /> that the penalty was all of the deferred takes plus substantial interest. <br /> .This appeal is being brought because the Maxwells paid takes on the lots for a long <br /> period of time, thea spent considerable amounts of time and money preparing the lots <br /> for sale, then felt they were blindsided by this huge penalty. Had the facts been <br /> understood they would have given serious consideration to holding the land for the full <br /> ten year period. Instead they relied upon what turned out to be misleading and <br /> incomplete information, to their cost. <br /> Again, vire are asking that either the $8,000 penalty tax be applied rather than the roll- <br /> back, or that the interest be waived. <br /> Thank you for your consideration,of the above appeal. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> do <br /> An e tMaxwell Livingston <br /> cc. Feta Maxwell <br />