It looks like the Chicago City Council may have the sellers pick up the burden of the big transfer tax increase that will take effect April 1. Much as I don't like to see the tax increase, sellers are often the ones paying the tax (or, as some called it, stripping the equity).
What isn't 100% clear from the Tribune's story is whether the seller is only the $3.00/thousand increase or whether the parties will share the cost of the tax equally. The Sun-Times, however, did make it clear: it will be an unequal distribution. "Ald. Pat O’Connor (40th), sponsor of the ordinance, said he wanted to evenly divide the entire $10.50 city tax between buyer and seller, “But state law will not allow that to happen.” So, he opted for “the next fairest thing.”"
I'm no expert on the state's transfer tax law, but why can't they divide the tax equally? There are jurisdictions that do (Bolingbrook, for example). That's also my personal preference.
All in all, at the end of the day, just get out the old wallets....
What isn't 100% clear from the Tribune's story is whether the seller is only the $3.00/thousand increase or whether the parties will share the cost of the tax equally. The Sun-Times, however, did make it clear: it will be an unequal distribution. "Ald. Pat O’Connor (40th), sponsor of the ordinance, said he wanted to evenly divide the entire $10.50 city tax between buyer and seller, “But state law will not allow that to happen.” So, he opted for “the next fairest thing.”"
I'm no expert on the state's transfer tax law, but why can't they divide the tax equally? There are jurisdictions that do (Bolingbrook, for example). That's also my personal preference.
All in all, at the end of the day, just get out the old wallets....
