Marguerite Harkness wrote:It isn't unusual for a business owner to sell the business, but retain ownership of the building. The business then pays rent. For tax reasons, the building is usually owned by a partnership (rather than another corporation or individual).
There is a very big reason, NOT to sell that building at the same time as selling the business. The building has been depreciated, meaning there would be a very large capital gain when it is sold. Most owners would like to have the next generation inherit the building - and then sell it if they want to - which basically eliminates the capital gains tax that would have been due.
This is normal, smart, tax planning - and is not a weird, "somebody's getting away with something" matter.
Hi Marguerite,
The point of my post was more to show that all ties were apparently not severed with the business. You may or may not recall a few years ago when there was a big hoopla made about Mr. Summers selling the family business. He did sell the business. However, that did not sever all ties, as he is still likely collecting rent from the tenant (which is probably the company he sold Summers' Rubber to), because he still owns the building. Also, Mr. Summers is still ultimately in control of what happens in the building if his name and tax mailing address are on the deed.
I hope that clears up the point of my post.
To re-focus on the financial disclosure statements, Mr. O'Leary accepted a "gift" from the owner of the public relations firm that I believe City Hall hired, called Eileen Korey Communications Counsel and Consultant.
Did Mr. O'Leary play a role in the hire of this communications firm when he accepted a gift from the owner? Or did the owner give Mr. O'Leary a "gift" after her firm was selected to represent City Hall? I do not have enough knowledge to say.
