Sorry, but discussion does not equal fact. You could be correct, but I'd like to see more confirmation than "discussion" around OPA.

The land was not "contiguous with the rest of Ocean Pines". If it had been over with the rest of the development, we could have robbed our own people as much as we liked. They wouldn't have bothered us. That was the complaint, and obviously it stood up in court.

I don't believe that was the complaint, but feel free to provide something other than a recollection of discussions. The IRS takes the position that HOA amenities that make a profit are subject to income tax unless the amenity is open to the general public to also use. This was the general crux of the case. I think the IRS is incorrect, but OPA chose not to pursue the case to the Supreme Court... probably properly so but it would have been interesting if the court had taken the case.

How much do we charge Seacrets for using our land over by the bay?That is obviously something that is taxed fairly.

What you wrote above tells me you do not understand the legal case. Seacrets pays OPA about $45,000 a year for parking on both bayside and on oceanside. OPA pays no income tax on that $45,000.

A tax that is collected is real estate tax on the areas Seacrets leases. OPA does not have to pay real estate taxes over there. However, leasing the land to Seacrets makes that part of OPA property subject to real estate taxes.  The lease provides that Seacrets pay that tax.

I know this because I had a copy of the lease and reviewed it carefully and wrote about it on this forum.