Local solution to economic crisis: Rape the poor!

manifold

Diamond Member
Feb 19, 2008
57,723
8,638
2,030
your dreams
The Chelmsford Board of Assessors dramatically increased the property taxes on the mobile home park based on an assigned value for the 255 trailers that rent space there.

This action appears to violate the spirit of the law, and perhaps the letter of the law.

Frank Reen, Chief Assessor for the town, admits that Massachusetts law historically has been interpreted to protect trailers from property taxes. However, the board contends that because some homes have attached decks they are taxable as permanent homes.

If a huge multinational firm like Sodexho spends money improving their commercial property they can save tens of thousands of dollars on their Chelmsford property taxes. If a few people decide to spend a little money to modestly improve their living conditions, the entire community becomes subject to a new tax.

There are 251 manufactured home communities in the state. According to the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Association, Chelmsford is the only town taxing trailers as real estate. The chief assessor in Littleton was asked why he is not taxing the trailers in his town as permanent residences. His response: He is going to abide by the law.
There seems to be a fatal flaw in the justification used in Chelmsford. In one instance, the courts upheld taxing a mobile home that takes on the character of a permanent home. That case involved a manufactured home with a permanent foundation and a basement.

In the Chelmsford Mobile Home Park, there are no permanent foundations, no basements.

The case is being contested in court. Last week, a Superior Court judge rejected the owner's request for a temporary injunction to stop the Board of Assessors from changing his tax assessments. However, his appeal with the Tax Appellate Board is pending and the merits of the case as a whole have yet to be addressed in court. In the meantime, the mobile home park owner is paying over $100,000 a year in additional taxes for property he does not own. The town does not even plow the streets in the park.

Chelmsford tests bounds of laws on revenue raising on its mobile home community - Lowell Sun Online
 
I see no reason not to tax trailers as homes.

After all, people do live in them. The owner is charging rent for them.

However, as they are usually a diminishing asset, their taxes should reflect that reality, too.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
I see no reason not to tax trailers as homes.

After all, people do live in them. The owner is charging rent for them.

However, as they are usually a diminishing asset, their taxes should reflect that reality, too.

They're not real estate.
 
I see no reason not to tax trailers as homes.

After all, people do live in them. The owner is charging rent for them.

However, as they are usually a diminishing asset, their taxes should reflect that reality, too.

They're not real estate.

Then what are they? They are estates which people live in.

And doesn't the ower of that trailer park charge people for living in his tin houses?

And if that is the case then why shouldn't they be assessed as real estate?
 
I see no reason not to tax trailers as homes.

After all, people do live in them. The owner is charging rent for them.

However, as they are usually a diminishing asset, their taxes should reflect that reality, too.

They're not real estate.

Then what are they? They are estates which people live in.

And doesn't the ower of that trailer park charge people for living in his tin houses?

And if that is the case then why shouldn't they be assessed as real estate?

typically, the owner of the trailer park rents the land on which the trailer sits to individuals who supply their own trailer. if someone rented a space and pitched a tent, should they be taxed for the tent?

i don't know, myself, but it seems that going after people living in trailers is a bit beyond the pale. maybe chelmsford should consider tightening its belt, maybe lay off some school administrators, for example.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
I see no reason not to tax trailers as homes.

After all, people do live in them. The owner is charging rent for them.

However, as they are usually a diminishing asset, their taxes should reflect that reality, too.

They're not real estate.

Then what are they? They are estates which people live in.

And doesn't the ower of that trailer park charge people for living in his tin houses?

And if that is the case then why shouldn't they be assessed as real estate?

They're mobile homes. If they're to be taxed, it should be an exise tax like the one I pay for my car. And it should be levied on the owner of the asset. What's happening in this case is the land owner is being taxed for property he doesn't own.
 
They're not real estate.

Then what are they? They are estates which people live in.

And doesn't the ower of that trailer park charge people for living in his tin houses?

And if that is the case then why shouldn't they be assessed as real estate?

They're mobile homes. If they're to be taxed, it should be an exise tax like the one I pay for my car. And it should be levied on the owner of the asset. What's happening in this case is the land owner is being taxed for property he doesn't own.

ahh, i missed that part. in that case, it's definitely wrong.
 
They're not real estate.

Then what are they? They are estates which people live in.

And doesn't the ower of that trailer park charge people for living in his tin houses?

And if that is the case then why shouldn't they be assessed as real estate?

typically, the owner of the trailer park rents the land on which the trailer sits to individuals who supply their own trailer. if someone rented a space and pitched a tent, should they be taxed for the tent?

i don't know, myself, but it seems that going after people living in trailers is a bit beyond the pale. maybe chelmsford should consider tightening its belt, maybe lay off some school administrators, for example.

Typically then, the OWNERS of the trailers are assessed taxes based on their value.

What am I missing here?

ARe you suggesting that only houses with basements are real estate?
 
But they have to have the school administrators to make sure they have all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted to keep the feds happy...
 
Then what are they? They are estates which people live in.

And doesn't the ower of that trailer park charge people for living in his tin houses?

And if that is the case then why shouldn't they be assessed as real estate?

typically, the owner of the trailer park rents the land on which the trailer sits to individuals who supply their own trailer. if someone rented a space and pitched a tent, should they be taxed for the tent?

i don't know, myself, but it seems that going after people living in trailers is a bit beyond the pale. maybe chelmsford should consider tightening its belt, maybe lay off some school administrators, for example.

Typically then, the OWNERS of the trailers are assessed taxes based on their value.

What am I missing here?

ARe you suggesting that only houses with basements are real estate?

see mani's post for clarification. a trailer depreciates in value like a car, and should be taxed accordingly. in no way should someone who doesn't own an asset be taxed for it, which seems to be the case here.
 
So let me see I'm renting and appartment in Boston I should have to not only pay rent I should have to pay realestate taxes as well never mind that I already am paying real estate taxes as that cost is certainly figured into the rent I pay for the apartment.

It's the same thing here. They own the tralier itself they do not own the land upon which it sets. They rent that land from the mobile home park and in what they pay for rent they pay a portion of the mobile home parks realestate taxes already. The weasels town now wants them to pa even more realestate tax you people don't have a problem with people being in essence taxed twice for the same thing.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top