[lewislynn]

Lewis -- land is not taxable because it has already been taxed. It is, by definition, a "used" good.

LOL!

You're making up rules as you go...Land along with all the improvements on it is "real property" and subject to tax AS defined in the bill.

You really should read it.

[kevkrom]

You're making up rules as you go...Land along with all the improvements on it is "real property" and subject to tax AS defined in the bill.

The only person making things up around here is you, Lewis. Any property that has already been subject to tax prior to the enactment of the NRST is exempt from being taxed again by the NRST.

You really should read it.

I have. The difference between you and me is that I understand it.

[ancient_geezer]

You're making up rules as you go...Land along with all the improvements on it is "real property" and subject to tax AS defined in the bill.

You really should read it.

It is obvious you haven't.

If the land in question is not in use for business purposes on the day prior to implementation of the act, (i.e. the NRST), it is residential and the sale of it cannot be taxed by the NRST act as it is defined as used property not subject to the NRST.

 

`Section 2(a)(16) USED PROPERTY- The term `used property' means--

`(A) property on which the tax imposed by section 101 has been collected and for which no credit has been allowed under section 203, and

`(B) property that was held other than for a business purpose (as defined in section 102(b)) on December 31, 2004.