The Craig Mynard Foreclosure Fraud: By Bandit Lawyer Jason Leboeuf and Epiphany Properties et al

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-04622

Applying the Starker exchange, the contracts are legally infirm, but see;

202386606 – CHARLES, CLARENCE vs. STEPHENSON, NOVA-SHA (Court 055)

Citing to Judge Beau Miller and COA14

This allows fraudsters like Epiphany to “transfer” with nominal $10 value to Gold Coast and avoid litigation as shown in the Clarence case and also recently;

202377697 – VIZUET, BENJAMIN (JR) vs. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AGENCY INC (Court 190)

As a p.s. Habitat know Gold Coast well and their property build division has closed deals in the past, some not so good when Nick Bhagia is involved…

201545054 – BUILT BY HABITAT LLC vs. GOLD COAST EQUITY LLC (Court 164)

The tax implications for each seller and buyer in this scenario can be complex and would depend on various factors such as the jurisdiction in which the property is located, the individual circumstances of each party involved, and any applicable tax laws and regulations. Here’s a general overview of the potential tax implications:

Seller 1 (Family of Deceased Homeowner):

The family of the deceased homeowner who sold the property to Buyer A (Epiphany) may need to report the sale on their tax return, especially if they inherited the property and its value increased from the time of inheritance to the time of sale. They may be subject to capital gains tax on the difference between the sale price and the property’s adjusted basis (which could be the fair market value of the property at the time of the homeowner’s death).

Seller 2 (Buyer A, Epiphany):

Buyer A (Epiphany), who sold the property to Buyer B (Gold Coast) for $10, might not incur any significant tax implications if they acquired the property and sold it shortly thereafter for a nominal amount. However, they might still need to report the transaction on their tax return and provide documentation of the sale.

Seller 3 (Buyer B, Gold Coast):

Buyer B (Gold Coast), who sold the property to Buyer C (Col Capitals) for $142,500 (loan amount), could potentially be subject to capital gains tax on the profit made from the sale. They would need to calculate the capital gain by subtracting the adjusted basis (which could be the purchase price plus any improvements made) from the selling price.

If Buyer B (Gold Coast) held the property for a short period before selling it, the gain might be treated as a short-term capital gain and taxed at ordinary income tax rates.

The tax liability on $142,500 of income for a single filer (personal) in the tax year 2024 would be approximately $34,647.52.

However, if they held the property for more than one year, the gain might be considered a long-term capital gain and taxed at lower capital gains tax rates.

Buyer C (Col Capitals):

Buyer C, who purchased the property for $142,500 and intends to use it as a rental property, may not have immediate tax implications related to the purchase itself. However, they would need to consider potential rental income tax, depreciation deductions, and other tax implications associated with owning and renting out the property.

If Buyers A, B, and C are Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), the tax implications can differ from those of individual taxpayers.

LLCs are typically treated as pass-through entities for tax purposes, meaning the income and expenses of the LLC “pass through” to the owners (also known as members) of the LLC, who report them on their personal tax returns.

However, LLCs can also elect to be taxed as corporations, which would change the tax treatment.

Here’s how the tax implications might vary for each party if Buyers A, B, and C are LLCs:

Seller 1 (Family of Deceased Homeowner):

The tax implications for the family of the deceased homeowner would likely be similar to those for individual sellers, assuming they are individuals and not an LLC. They would need to report any capital gains on the sale of the property on their personal tax returns.

Seller 2 (Buyer A):

If Buyer A is an LLC, the tax implications would depend on how the LLC is taxed. If Buyer A is a single-member LLC (owned by one individual), the sale might be treated similarly to an individual sale, with any capital gains reported on the owner’s personal tax return.

If Buyer A is a multi-member LLC, the tax implications would depend on the LLC’s operating agreement and tax structure.

Seller 3 (Buyer B):

Similar to Buyer A, if Buyer B is an LLC, the tax implications would depend on the LLC’s tax classification and structure. Any capital gains from the sale of the property would typically pass through to the members of the LLC and be reported on their personal tax returns, unless the LLC is taxed as a corporation.

Buyer C:

If Buyer C is an LLC, the tax implications would depend on the LLC’s tax classification and structure. Any rental income generated from the property would typically pass through to the members of the LLC and be reported on their personal tax returns. Expenses related to the rental property, such as maintenance and repairs, would also be deductible.

In summary, if Buyers A, B, and C are LLCs, the tax implications would depend on the tax classification and structure of each LLC, as well as the individual circumstances of the owners/members.

Take Advantage of Section 1031 of the Tax Code

What it is: IRS Section 1031 “like-kind” exchange

Who it’s for: Anyone who can reinvest the proceeds of rental property sales in new real estate

What you get: The ability to defer some or all taxes on the capital gain

Real estate investors can defer paying capital gains taxes using Section 1031 of the tax code, which lets them sell a rental property while purchasing a like-kind property and pay taxes only after the exchange is made. Legally speaking, the term like-kind is broadly defined. An investor need not swap out one condo for another or trade one business for another. As long as both properties in question are income-generating rental units, they’re fair game.

But timing is key with this method because investors have just 45 days from the date of a property sale to identify potential replacement properties, which they must formally close on within 180 days. And if a tax return is due (with extensions) before those 180 days, investors must close even sooner. Those who miss the deadline must pay full capital gains taxes on the sale of the original rental property.

Here’s some information about COL CAPITALS LLC:

COL CAPITALS LLC is a Texas Domestic Limited-Liability Company (LLC) that was filed on February 21, 2023.

The company’s filing status is listed as “In Existence,” and its file number is 0804936071.

The registered agent for the company is Republic Registered Agent LLC, located at 17350 State Hwy 249 Ste 220, Houston, TX 770641.

The managing members of COL CAPITALS LLC are Gabriel Fula Pinto and Juan Roa, both based in Houston, TX.

As a relatively new company, it has been in existence for approximately 1 year and 2 months.

Mackie Wolf’s recent filing in Harris County District Court regarding Tami Taha.

By way of background;

2015; Default 736 Judgment signed Feb 27, 2015
2019; BDF non-suited 736 for alleged COVID reasons
2021; BDF non-suited 736
2021; Tami Taha Loan Mod
2023; Zillow shows property “sold” on Mar. 16, 2023
2023; CCTX Record TREC Agreement recorded same day, Mar. 16, 2023 with sale amount $170k.
2023; HCAD shows CCTX as owners since Mar. 10, 2023.
2024; MW take over from BDF, filing a new 736 lawsuit on Jan. 26, 2024, seeking default Judgment with notice of hearing Mar. 28, Court 152, Judge Schaffer. There’s no mention of the recordings by CCTX/Pawlowski in your filings.

Now, according to the TREC agreement, Pawlowski provides moving boxes and one month’s rent to move out. The fact the service was returned undeliverable is a strong indication that she’s no longer in the property, which is most likely in control of Pawlowski et al.

Question 1: Who’s livin’ at the property – as servicers do drive-by inspection?

Question 2: Why did the foreclosure wolves not include the CCTX/Pawlowski filings in their 2024 case?