# Reef Resort says I can't rent my week myself.



## okz

I am trying to rent my week at the Reef Resort on Redweek, and today I received this email below from the resort. It was too late to contact the resort today but I plan on contacting the resort.  If anyone has any comments on this matter I would appreciate hearing them. TIA

Tom McCallum <tmccallum@thereef.com> wrote:

Please note that under the Hotels Licencing Law in the Cayman Islands, only a licenced property manager in the Cayman Islands may offer rentals to the general public.

In addition, any such rentals must have tourism accommodation tax of 10% paid to the Cayman Islands Government via official monthly reporting, again by the licenced property manager.

The licenced property manager for The Reef Resort is Thompson Resorts Ltd.

In short, we would ask you to cease listing your rental to the public over the internet.

Please do not hesitate to contact our member services office at memberservices@thereef.com with any questions.


----------



## Larry

Don't know anything about requirements for rentals in the cayman islands but I have seen plenty of rentals listed for Morritts Grand and resorts on seven mile beach so unless this is somthing new it makes no sense. If you just look at redweek many cayman island resorts including the reef not only have rentals listed but several have already been rented. 

I also seem to recall when I was at Morrits that several owners own multiple weeks and rent out several to cover their maintenance on the weeks they are not using.

Good luck but if this is true I would never purchase at the Reef.


----------



## Pit

Here's some relevant information. The tax is either 10% of the rental or $10/day, depending on how the guest is classified. I don't see anything that prevents you from renting your own private property (you're not operating a hotel). For clarification, I would try contacting Mrs. Janice Williams (phone and email included in linked info).

http://www.gov.ky/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/CIGHOME/PRESSROOM/ARCHIVE/200206/TOURACCOMTAX.PDF


----------



## gmarine

Thats ridiculous. First of all what is someone from the Reef doing trolling Redweek for owners renting units they own? I wonder if the person who sent the email is TUGs very own Tom Cayman.

If an owner wants to let someone else use their week let the Reef try to prove that money actually changed hands. If I was an owner ,I would look for other owners and get together to question Reef management about it. 

I wonder if the Reef informs potential buyers of that policy during sales presentations.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

I'm not a lawyer; I only play one at TUG.

Seems to me that would be a Caymans law that would only govern activities that occur in the Caymans.  Since you are not located in the Caymans the Caymans has no authority to regulate what you do when you are not in the Caymans.

If you were trying to rent the unit from the Caymans the law might apply.


----------



## Seaside

TomCayman is Tom McCallum. This information does not seem correct, perhaps he will fill us in.


----------



## TomCayman

I sent that same message to the five rental listings for theReef on RedWeek. So far one owner has come back to me via email and asked for further clarification, and the answer was :

You are entitled under your membership agreement to rent the unit, however as explained in the message sent to you via your RedWeek listing, and for the reasons noted, you may not actively solicit rentals from the general public through advertising this over the internet or other public media.

As a practical matter, owners do frequently send guests down to use their units where those guests have paid them some consideration to use the week (ie rented it from them), and there is little that can be done by the Cayman Islands Government or resort management to ensure that the laws of the land with regard to licenced property management and collection and payment of tax are followed.

However, we have been advised by the Hotels Licencing Board that they are now paying close attention to internet advertisements for Cayman Islands properties (such as Redweek, but also VRBO and other condo rentals channels), and will take appropriate action if they find properties being rented outside the licenced channels.​
I provide this information for general use by Cayman timeshare owners, but beyond that, I would ask the OP (a Reef owner) to contact me or anyone in the Member Services department directly.

I would also note that theReef has a long history of renting out owner units with success. This is something we can achieve as theReef is a resort/hotel (so in the business of renting out rooms) where all the rooms are owned by members (whether condo/fractional/timeshare) and rented out on their behalf by the management company.

Quite frankly, the vast majority of owners wishing to rent their unit do so through theReef, and that activity is what allows us to complete the circle :
owners participating in rental programme > 
marketing budget from rental commissions > 
renters paying to stay at the resort> 
good rental returns for owners >
increasing number of owners in rental programme... etc​
This year alone we will spend cUS$1m in rental marketing for the resort, something that all owners renting their units benefit from. All funds required for this marketing budget from this come from rental commissions from owners in the programme.

I should stop now at this level of explanation, as to go further would risk leaping headlong into explaining why we are so great and do such a great job for our owners 

Oh, to Pit, the link you send is not relevant to this. The Cayman Islands Government (per the doc you linked to) charges a flat fee of US$10 per day for occupancy of a timeshare by an owner / guest / exchanger, BUT, if a property is rented (and it must be rented by a licenced operator), the charge is 10% of the rental value. Given that a quick glance on our website woudl show that a weeks rent in the component parts of a 2BD unit comes to well over $3000, that is c$300 per week in Tourism Accommodation Tax, not the flat amount of $70 in Timeshare Occupancy Tax.

I posted this in the spirit of openness in the TUG community, and for other Cayman timeshare owners, I hope it is taken in that manner.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

TomCayman said:


> I sent that same message to the five rental listings for theReef on RedWeek. …



I'm going to reiterate that I don't believe the Cayman Islands has any authority to regulate a commercial transaction involving non-Cayman residents and that does not occur on Cayman soil or within Cayman territorial waters.


----------



## RMitchell

Maybe Tom is trying to keep some value in the property or maybe he gets a cut. But at least...I don't see many EBay sales for The Reef at 99 cents and some of the timeshare properties on Cayman have dropped their internal renting programs, almost, completely. Tom has been one of the few Cayman timeshare managers that communicates through forums. I don't always agree with him but at least he communicates.


----------



## TomCayman

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I'm going to reiterate that I don't believe the Cayman Islands has any authority to regulate a commercial transaction involving non-Cayman residents and that does not occur on Cayman soil or within Cayman territorial waters.



From a legal standpoint, this one is pretty simple.. the value if provided through a stay in a property located in the Cayman Islands, hence tax is due and payable, so of course the Cayman Islands government has such authority.

If I visit the US / UK and buy a product for export, I don't have to pay sales tax / value added tax....but if I pay for a service actually utilised in that country, naturally I have to pay the appropriate tax...and that includes hotel taxes.

Enforceabilty is one thing, but authority is without question.


----------



## TomCayman

RMitchell said:


> Maybe Tom is trying to keep some value in the property or maybe he gets a cut. But at least...I don't see many EBay sales for The Reef at 99 cents and some of the timeshare properties on Cayman have dropped their internal renting programs, almost, completely. Tom has been one of the few Cayman timeshare managers that communicates through forums. I don't always agree with him but at least he communicates.



RMitchell,

First, I noted that we don't take a cut.... we will in the future, but right now we are still building out the resort (in fact the last phase is opening in a few weeks) and have committed to reinvesting 100% of the rental commissioninto the marketing budget in order to build revenue and occupancy as fast as possible during the build out. 

Second, no, not many cheap resales at theReef, and yes, that is always a measure of the viability of a resort.... and to us offering a viable rental programme option is part of that.

Third...lack of decent rental programmes at timeshares is not a Cayman problem, but a global one... I like to stay in timeshare resorts and would often be happy to rent a unit (exchange is nowhere near as flexible as rentals), I am disappointed that more resorts don't make an active effort to rent weeks for their owners.  

Seems to me that in most cases the only time most resorts do any rentals of any significance is when they open new units and giveaway weeks to the exchange companies to get cheap rentals in to pitch to....isn't that where the idea of timeshare exchange came from (lack of options for owners if they couldn't visit every year) ?, and isn't the best form of exchange the cold hard cash one should be able to get from renting their unit out ? We get far more owners renting their units out through us than using them for exchange, even though theReef has a very high  exchange "pulling power" with II.

Last... communication... just try and stop me... if you think I write too much, you should sit and try to get a word in while I talk


----------



## Seaside

I would think someone would check out the Hotel Licensing Board to see what is correct. Your sales people have told owners that they are "free" to rent out their units when they are trying to make the sale. Can you post a copy of what it says pertaining to this information in your By-Laws? Sounds like a "cut" is what comes into play here as there have always been owners that have rented out on their own.


----------



## caribbeansun

They are free to rent out their units as long as they get licensed independently by the licencing group which is not exactly something that would be done lightly - the wording in their advertising is technically correct however I would agree that the spirit of the message is misleading.

As to the "cut" part well again that's a matter of how it's read as well.  As one of the owners that participates in the rental pool I can verify that what Tom is communicating regarding the resort's investment in advertising is correct and that the resort receives a percentage of the gross rental revenue to pay for their costs and perhaps some profit should they be successful in filling the resort.  To that end leakage of dollars to contribute to that ad campaign costs all the other owners including myself.  

FYI - I may have the distinction of being the first owner Tom stopped from advertising my own unit about 2+ years ago.  I was mighty ticked off at the time but I think I've been drinking the Kool-aid too long as I've started to agree with him on this issue although I have to admit that when occupancy drops I start to wonder if the grass is greener...

Would I be hunting down individual TS owners, probably not.  Would I want the person with 52 weeks of availability on Redweek in the pool - at this point I would probably say yes from a purely selfish perspective because I want to see the advertising succeed and get paid for as quickly as possible.  Would I stop telling people they can rent their own week in my advertising literature - absolutely.  Would I get the Q1 statements done rather than posting on TUG - yup


----------



## Seaside

Do these "laws" pertain to Castaway's Cove or to their Timeshare Units, or both. It is understandable at Castaway's Cove that management would want a cut, and they should get one. However, to rent out 1 week of timeshare and they get a cut on that? How would that be fair to the owners of those units. I reread Tom's explanation, and to me, it seems like he is talking in circles. I wish he would make it more "simple". Certainly there is a difference between Castaway's Cove Condo's and their Timeshare units. Thank you for your explanation.


----------



## TomCayman

Seaside said:


> Do these "laws" pertain to Castaway's Cove or to their Timeshare Units, or both. It is understandable at Castaway's Cove that management would want a cut, and they should get one. However, to rent out 1 week of timeshare and they get a cut on that? How would that be fair to the owners of those units. I reread Tom's explanation, and to me, it seems like he is talking in circles. I wish he would make it more "simple". Certainly there is a difference between Castaway's Cove Condo's and their Timeshare units. Thank you for your explanation.



No difference between the condos and the timeshare, just a matter of scale (number of weeks per owner).

I'll repeat that we aren't taking a cut, ALL the money goes into rental marketing...and will do for a while to come.

caribbeansun :
.....you won't need any koolaid when you see the latest rental numbers, suffice to say you'll be happy 
.....sorry if I appear to be hunting down individual owners, not my intent (just took <3 minutes to fire some messages off when I got a listing alert from RedWeek), but we HAVE been advised that the practice of private rentals is being closely looked at by government.
....those messages took no time out of my day, but this thread is in danger of doing so (to your point about taking me away from doing other work for owners!), but I think it has served a useful purpose, though at this point most of what I could say has been said.
....as you noted that you feel we have sales people out there misrepresenting how owners can do their own rentals, I will look into that right away.

BTW, if anyone gets Caribbean Travel and Life magazine, lives in the Southern USA and gets USA Today on a Friday, or (soon) is on certain prominent websites, you'll see our advertising....and it's working... our rental numbers are up over 50% so far for this summer.

Does leave one thought.... for the owners who ARE participating in our rental programme with our expensive and aggressive marketing campaign to drive numbers..... aside from legalities, is it fair for other owners to sit out from that campaign and benefit from the marketing dollars without paying their share ?


----------



## Seaside

I believe you said that there was no "cut" in renting through you? So where are the dollars coming from for your marketing campaigns? Then it would certainly be fair for the Timeshare Owners to rent out on their own, they would get full value for their monies for renting, and the renter would pay the $10.00 US a day for the Government Tax that is imposed on all Hotels/Timeshares on the island. Either way, your resort would be taking a "fee" towards Marketing Campaigns, etc., which you said are very aggressive. It is not cheap to advertise in those publications, etc. Sounds like renting on Redweek, etc., is much more cost affective for those who cannot use their units and want to rent them out, to recoup their MF's and not have to pay a fee to the Reef Resort and their marketing. Would not benefit the owners, only benefits the Reef.


----------



## TomCayman

Seaside said:


> I believe you said that there was no "cut" in renting through you? So where are the dollars coming from for your marketing campaigns? Then it would certainly be fair for the Timeshare Owners to rent out on their own, they would get full value for their monies for renting, and the renter would pay the $10.00 US a day for the Government Tax that is imposed on all Hotels/Timeshares on the island. Either way, your resort would be taking a "fee" towards Marketing Campaigns, etc., which you said are very aggressive. It is not cheap to advertise in those publications, etc. Sounds like renting on Redweek, etc., is much more cost affective for those who cannot use their units and want to rent them out, to recoup their MF's and not have to pay a fee to the Reef Resort and their marketing. Would not benefit the owners, only benefits the Reef.



I'll try again.. there is no cut for the management company, the commission deducted from rental income is used wholly for the purposes of rental marketing.....which benefits the owners...who ARE theReef.... we (the management company) do not own theReef, we simply manage it FOR the owners.


----------



## Kal

TomCayman said:


> ...the vast majority of owners wishing to rent their unit do so through theReef, and that activity is what allows us to complete the circle :
> owners participating in rental programme >​
> marketing budget from rental commissions >​
> renters paying to stay at the resort>​
> good rental returns for owners >​
> increasing number of owners in rental programme... etc​This year alone we will spend cUS$1m in rental marketing for the resort, something that all owners renting their units benefit from. All funds required for this marketing budget from this come from rental commissions from owners in the programme...


 
I assume the rental program is NOT funded from maintenance fees.  Therefore, what percentage of the gross rental proceeds go to the owner?


----------



## Seaside

Good question. Kal.... Tom, let's say that someone wants to rent out their week of Timeshare for $800-$1000, what would they actually be able to put in their pocket? You are still saying, Tom, that monies would be taken out. How would that benefit owners who may only want to rent out for a one time only deal? They would certainly do better on other rental sites. I do not personally think there is a way that you can convince us how wonderful it would be to be able to give a percentage of their rental back to the managing company to use towards Marketing.


----------



## short

TomCayman said:


> Does leave one thought.... for the owners who ARE participating in our rental programme with our expensive and aggressive marketing campaign to drive numbers..... aside from legalities, is it fair for other owners to sit out from that campaign and benefit from the marketing dollars without paying their share ?



Well, you sort of had me agreeing with you up until this statement was made.

Its absolutely unfair to force owners to pay for advertising that they have no control over.

By the way, is the resort in developer sales yet and if so doesn't the developer get most of the benefit of renters who can be turned into interval buyers?  Is the developer participating in the advertising budget or only the rental pool?

Short


----------



## london

*Resort Management Commissions*

We have found that most resort management companies charge from 20 to 30% commission on the gross rental for the week.

Also they do not guarantee that the week can be rented.

We usually bank the week, if for some reason cannot use it.

Sometimes we trade back into our home resort for a better time frame.


----------



## Seaside

Perhaps on The Reef Owner's website there could be an area for owners wanting to rent out their weeks, at no cost to them, just for owners wanting weeks and owners looking to rent out their weeks.  I agree, why should someone renting out a week or two pay for excessive marketing strategies so the owner and management can benefit by promoting their resort, not only Timeshare, but also their condos. That does not make sense how it would benefit those who just own Timeshare and are not looking to upgrade or purchase more. I think in the long run, things like this turn people off. And it is bad publicity for the resort to have this being discussed on this thread.


----------



## Kal

TomCayman said:


> ...This year alone we will spend cUS$1m in rental marketing for the resort...


 
Follow the money!  I'm curious what's the source of this $1M funding at the beginning of the year?  Is it a loan which is to be reimbursed from rental proceeds during the course of the year?  Are members of the Management Company salaried employees with sales commissions as an add-on?


----------



## Seaside

Perhaps someone else that works at the Reef Resort can give us more of an honest answer, instead of a whirlaround confusing answer to important questions.......


----------



## Pit

TomCayman said:


> Oh, to Pit, the link you send is not relevant to this. The Cayman Islands Government (per the doc you linked to) charges a flat fee of US$10 per day for occupancy of a timeshare by an owner / guest / exchanger, BUT, if a property is rented (and it must be rented by a licenced operator), the charge is 10% of the rental value.



Tom, not only is it relevant, it discusses the specific law to which you made reference. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I simply restated what is in the document.



Pit said:


> The tax is either 10% of the rental or $10/day, depending on how the guest is classified.



If the guest is classified as a renter, TAT = 10%
If the guest is classified as an owner, TAT = $10/day



TomCayman said:


> From a legal standpoint, this one is pretty simple.. the value if provided through a stay in a property located in the Cayman Islands, hence tax is due and payable, so of course the Cayman Islands government has such authority.
> 
> If I visit the US / UK and buy a product for export, I don't have to pay sales tax / value added tax....but if I pay for a service actually utilised in that country, naturally I have to pay the appropriate tax...and that includes hotel taxes.
> 
> Enforceabilty is one thing, but authority is without question.



Your post above completely misses the point. Steve was not suggesting that TAT can be avoided. His point was that one need not be licensed by the Cayman government in order to conduct rental activities in the US. The Cayman goverment has no jurisdiction over rental activities on Redweek. They have jurisdiction over you, because you operate from there.



TomCayman said:


> Does leave one thought.... for the owners who ARE participating in our rental programme with our expensive and aggressive marketing campaign to drive numbers..... aside from legalities, is it fair for other owners to sit out from that campaign and benefit from the marketing dollars without paying their share ?



The tone of this statement makes perfectly clear what's going on here. I see nothing more than a management company looking after its own interests - attempting to coerce owners into the resort's rental program through misinformation.


----------



## BocaBum99

I will never buy a timeshare in the Cayman Islands because of laws such as those.  They should have no jurisdiction over transactions that occur in the US.  I consider ad trolling unethical behavior.  I won't be staying at the Reef because of that.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

TomCayman said:


> From a legal standpoint, this one is pretty simple.. the value if provided through a stay in a property located in the Cayman Islands, hence tax is due and payable, so of course the Cayman Islands government has such authority.
> 
> If I visit the US / UK and buy a product for export, I don't have to pay sales tax / value added tax....but if I pay for a service actually utilised in that country, naturally I have to pay the appropriate tax...and that includes hotel taxes.
> 
> Enforceabilty is one thing, but authority is without question.



I agree, it's simple.

The tax is to be collected by rentee, licensed in the Caymans..

So owner A, living in the US, rents tentant B, also living in the US.  The transaction is between two US residents.  The transaction occurs on US soil.  

How can the Caymans possibly have jurisdiction?  What are they going to do to enforce the law?  File suit in the Caymans???  

+++++

You are, in essence, asserting that the Cayman's has a legal right to regulate the content of a website that is situated outside the Caymans, with content provided by people who do not live in the Caymans.  And you are saying that the Caymans has the authority to do this because the activity discussed is illegal if the activity occurs in the Caymans.

Sorry Tom - no country has the right to regulate activities that occur on foreign soil just because the activity would be illegal were it to occur in that country. If countries had that power, you can be sure that despots the world over would "seeking justice" from people who took actions that annoyed them.

Caymans has every authority to collect an occupancy tax on renters and transients.  They have every authority to collect taxes on rental activities that occur within the Caymans.  They have authority to collect taxes from Cayman citizens living in other countries when those Cayman citizens rent property in the Caymans.

But the Cayman's have no authority to regulate the behavior and activities of non-Cayman residents that occur outside of lans and waters that are not Cayman territories.


----------



## TomCayman

Kal said:


> I assume the rental program is NOT funded from maintenance fees.  Therefore, what percentage of the gross rental proceeds go to the owner?



Correct, the rental programme is totally independent of the maintenance.

All rental proceeds after rental commission to to our owners, what percentage is between us and our owners.


----------



## TomCayman

Seaside said:


> Perhaps someone else that works at the Reef Resort can give us more of an honest answer, instead of a whirlaround confusing answer to important questions.......



Well Mr/Ms Seaside, you've said in your last few posts :
- I'm dishonest 
- Our marketing budget is excessive
- There is no way I can convince you that someone putting their unit in the rental pool should pay a rental commission to help pay for the marketing budget that put the renter in their unit in the first place.

No point in me giving you a substantive reply then, is there.


----------



## TomCayman

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I agree, it's simple.
> 
> The tax is to be collected by rentee, licensed in the Caymans..
> 
> So owner A, living in the US, rents tentant B, also living in the US.  The transaction is between two US residents.  The transaction occurs on US soil.
> 
> How can the Caymans possibly have jurisdiction?  What are they going to do to enforce the law?  File suit in the Caymans???
> 
> +++++
> 
> You are, in essence, asserting that the Cayman's has a legal right to regulate the content of a website that is situated outside the Caymans, with content provided by people who do not live in the Caymans.  And you are saying that the Caymans has the authority to do this because the activity discussed is illegal if the activity occurs in the Caymans.
> 
> Sorry Tom - no country has the right to regulate activities that occur on foreign soil just because the activity would be illegal were it to occur in that country. If countries had that power, you can be sure that despots the world over would "seeking justice" from people who took actions that annoyed them.
> 
> Caymans has every authority to collect an occupancy tax on renters and transients.  They have every authority to collect taxes on rental activities that occur within the Caymans.  They have authority to collect taxes from Cayman citizens living in other countries when those Cayman citizens rent property in the Caymans.
> 
> But the Cayman's have no authority to regulate the behavior and activities of non-Cayman residents that occur outside of lans and waters that are not Cayman territories.



When Expedia (or any other corporation, US or otherwise) rents a room out to a US (or any other) resident to stay at The Reef, this is a rental on which 10% tourism tax is payable....even if every element of the transaction is located outside Cayman.

Oddly enough I don't know any company in the travel industry that has the slightest problem with the concept of paying appropriate tax over to the government of the country in which the accommodation is located.

This is not exactly a radical concept under the tax law of any country.


----------



## TomCayman

Kal said:


> Follow the money!  I'm curious what's the source of this $1M funding at the beginning of the year?  Is it a loan which is to be reimbursed from rental proceeds during the course of the year?  Are members of the Management Company salaried employees with sales commissions as an add-on?



Ok, as you asked, a) yes, the $1m funding for rental marketing is funded by the rental management company based on our projections for the expected rental revenues, b) we reimburse that from rental proceeds.

On your last point, I think you are making some incorrect assumptions, you seem to be associating our rental management with our timeshare sales, they are totally separated.


----------



## TomCayman

Geez...would it kill you guys to consider our resort (and me) innocent until proven guilty ? 

I've been accused (or had it clearly implied) in this thread of being dishonest, of acting illegally, of charging excessive management fees, of using rental marketing commissions to pay sales commissons, of only having a rental programme to help support timeshare sales...so before you get to it... 
- I don't kick my dog
- I haven't gone to the dark side and am not part of any branch of the evil empire

Would it kill you to perhaps consider the glass half full instead of half empty ?

theReef has a pretty darned good reputation over the years, and we've done it by taking the simple approach that if we look after our owners, the business side of things will look after itself.....call me crazy, but I like that simple philosophy.

You know, after Hurricane Ivan threatened our lives in Sep 2004, took my house (and that of many of our staff), separated me from my family for months on end, separated me from much of my savings permanently.. what was I doing ?...yup, along with the whole team, we were working 7 days a week, roughly 16 hours per day (sometimes more)... to do what ?... hmm.. get theReef back open for our owners and guests as soon as possible.

What did it cost our owners to get their resort back in record speed ? (we were the first resort to reopen of all those that were forced to close by storm damage)... the princely sum of US$210 per timeshare owner, or 2% of the amount insured... and we even managed to cover the uninsurable parts of the property (pavers, outdoor structures etc) in our insurance settlement.

Oh yeah, while we were closed for four months.... guess what, we never got reimbursed for the rental marketing dollars spent in the months leading up to the Hurricane...we just sucked it up.

Wait, there's more.. for all those owners who could not use their week in the 4+ months we were closed, we gave them an extra week.... no, not a nigh useless giveaway week from II or RCI, but an extra week to use at the resort.

Forget it...based on some of the responses, none of that could possibly be because we wanted to do the right thing by our owners...

Come on guys... give someone with a good track record at least SOME benefit of the doubt instead of calling him dishonest etc etc !

I sent the messages to RedWeek owners to give them a heads up that our government is looking to enforce their laws on this, ie I was providing them with information of value to them....taking care of our owners.

As this thread has started to make accusations towards me and theReef verging on the libellous, I'm going to back away from this, but members of theReef may feel free to contact me at any time.


----------



## Seaside

Interesting that you are still "skirting" the issues. Questions have not been about what you have done Post Ivan. We have all heard that information, you have made sure of it. Ivan was almost 4 years ago. What amount of commission do you take? An owner is the one that started this thread and was upset. And wanted to rent out their unit on their own and not put it into your rental pool.  Do you have any other staff that goes on this site that can give some answers to questions. THAT would be a good marketing tactic.


----------



## TomCayman

Seaside said:


> Interesting that you are still "skirting" the issues. Questions have not been about what you have done Post Ivan. We have all heard that information, you have made sure of it. Ivan was almost 4 years ago. What amount of commission do you take? An owner is the one that started this thread and was upset. And wanted to rent out their unit on their own and not put it into your rental pool.  Do you have any other staff that goes on this site that can give some answers to questions. THAT would be a good marketing tactic.



Seaside... you are not adding anything, simply insulting me and theReef and insinuating we have something to hide (and surely my lengthy participation in this makes clear the opposite is the case...I am nothing if not open).

If you are an owner at theReef, call or email me at theReef and I will happily discuss any issues with you.

If not, I have in fact already answered the question you pose here.... in several different ways... so have nothing further to add.


----------



## Seaside

What is the percentage that someone who wants to rent will have to "pay" to the Reef if they do their renting through the Reef?


----------



## Seaside

Since you have been so "honest" I will be. We have been looking into buying a couple of weeks of Timeshare at the Reef, or perhaps buying the full share of a Condo there, we would then put the Condo on the rental market for the time we will not be there. I can say that we have been a bit turned off by the information on this thread. I ask honest questions. We would be investing big money. We deserve answers. Do not forget that anyone is a potential customer.


----------



## TomCayman

Seaside said:


> Since you have been so "honest" I will be. We have been looking into buying a couple of weeks of Timeshare at the Reef, or perhaps buying the full share of a Condo there, we would then put the Condo on the rental market for the time we will not be there. I can say that we have been a bit turned off by the information on this thread. I ask honest questions. We would be investing big money. We deserve answers. Do not forget that anyone is a potential customer.



Having looked back on previous posts you have made about me and theReef on this and other forums, I would suggest that you have no interest in investing in theReef, given your consistent negativity towards our resort and how happy you appear to be with everything at the other resort you own timeshare at in Cayman.

Enough for this thread.


----------



## Seaside

??????????


----------



## gmarine

Tom

Expedia etc renting inventory from a resort is completely different than an owner renting their unit. Expedia is working on behalf of the resort to rent resort owned units.

If I own a condo in another country or state and that government has an occupancy tax on guests, it cannot be imposed on owners who live outside of that country/state when they rent to others. 

The worst part of this is that The Reef is actively trolling for people renting units. Has the Reef been bought by Westgate?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

gmarine said:


> Tom
> 
> Expedia etc renting inventory from a resort is completely different than an owner renting their unit. Expedia is working on behalf of the resort to rent resort owned units.



Correct.  Expedia is not renting it's own inventory; it is renting Reef's inventory.  That puts it into Cayman jurisidiction.

Do you see the difference?  Cayman has every right to collect a tax from owners who are domiciled in the Caymans or when the transaction occurs in the Caymans.  They have ZERO jurisdiction over what happens outside the Caymans.

Of course, the Caymans has every right to collect a transient occupancy tax from visitors to the Caymans.  They can easily enforce that by requiring the resorts to collect and remit the tax.

But they have no authority to tax business transactions by non-Cayman's domiciled entities unless those transactions occur inside the Caymans.

****

This is the same as if a Caymans corporation has stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange.  The Caymans would have no authority to require sellers of the stock to pay a sales tax to the Cayman's on the sale of the stock, nor would the Caymans have authority to require the NYSE to collect and remit a sales tax on purchases of securities in that company.  The Cayman's certainly could require that same company, however, to pay a transfer tax whenever the Company processed a transfer of ownership in stock certificates. They could also require Caymans residents to pay a tax whenever they purchased or sold those same shares.  But they can't extend that taxing jurisdiction to alien non-residents.


----------



## geekette

I have yet to see in the linked-to tax law any mention of required licensing to rent.  

"timeshare properties must now pay the government US$10 for each day or part of a day for each occupied room."

So why wouldn't the resort already be paying this, whether they extract it from the occupants or not?

I'm not getting why owners should be forced to use the internal rental program as the tax is there no matter what, even if I use my own unit - that's not the true cause of this rental policy.  

If I can rent my week out for $X why should I go thru the resort and maybe only get $X - Z?  Those that want to use the marketing program can pay the commission and let someone else do the work for them, but an owner that chooses to do it themselves should not be banned from doing so.

I guess I have a bit of fundamental problem with this policy and how it is blamed on the tax deal and phantom licensing requirements.


----------



## TomCayman

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Correct.  Expedia is not renting it's own inventory; it is renting Reef's inventory.  That puts it into Cayman jurisidiction.
> 
> Do you see the difference?  Cayman has every right to collect a tax from owners who are domiciled in the Caymans or when the transaction occurs in the Caymans.  They have ZERO jurisdiction over what happens outside the Caymans.
> 
> Of course, the Caymans has every right to collect a transient occupancy tax from visitors to the Caymans.  They can easily enforce that by requiring the resorts to collect and remit the tax.
> 
> But they have no authority to tax business transactions by non-Cayman's domiciled entities unless those transactions occur inside the Caymans.
> 
> ****
> 
> This is the same as if a Caymans corporation has stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange.  The Caymans would have no authority to require sellers of the stock to pay a sales tax to the Cayman's on the sale of the stock, nor would the Caymans have authority to require the NYSE to collect and remit a sales tax on purchases of securities in that company.  The Cayman's certainly could require that same company, however, to pay a transfer tax whenever the Company processed a transfer of ownership in stock certificates. They could also require Caymans residents to pay a tax whenever they purchased or sold those same shares.  But they can't extend that taxing jurisdiction to alien non-residents.




I'm going to  agin (glutton for punishment, clearly !)

Expedia is renting timeshare and condo owner (and only some developer) inventory...theReef is a mixed use property, with upwards of 90% of inventory independently owned by our timeshare/condo owners.

Any inventory put up for rent has to be licenced to do so, and the licencing process is onerous and is done by the company that manages the resort/rental programme.

That management company is responsible not only for maintaing standards, passing inspections etc (all the legal licencing stuff), but also ensuring that all rentals have tax collected on the rate charged and that the tax is remitted within 28 days of month end together with detailed reporting of same. 

As a matter of interest, if the payment is late, there is a late payment/reporting charge.. of 20%... not 20% per annum, a flat 20%...how is that for a late penalty !

Now, timeshare owners can (in practice) skirt this by renting privately and just telling the resort their renter is a "guest". As a practical matter, it is very difficult to enforce the law if this is done... but when owners (whether timeshare owners, whole condo owners or whatever) are publically advertising rentals (whether on their own website, VRBO, Ebay, Redweek, whatever), they are clearly flouting the law.

If (say) Disney Vacation Club operated a rental programme for owner inventory in Orlando and I booked that, I'd have to pay whatever rental taxes are levied by the authorities (in Cayman it is 10% of rental income), Disney would collect them (as managers) and remit them.

If on the other hand I rented a week direct from an owner and there was a different tax on timeshare occupancy to that charged on rentals (say $10 a day to compare to Cayman), they'd be collecting that from me as they would consider my use "timeshare usage".

A 2BD unit at The Reef costs thousands of dollars per week to rent, so 10% rental tax is a whole lot more than $10 timeshare tax, so one can see how this issues interests the government here.

This thread all started as a result of me trying to give some owners a heads up that this is definitely on the radar for the Cayman government...

In closing, at theReef we DO have a very successful rental programme and the vast majority of our owners consider their usage options in this order :
a) Owner use
b) Rental through the rental programme
c) Exchange last.....

II does a great job for our owners and we have good exchange power, but at the end of the day most people prefer cold hard cash to an exchange, especially when the rental programme does the job.

Let's be honest here, how many timeshare owners can honestly say that their resort does that well with their owner rental programme that they would think to rent it through the resort before exchanging ? It truly is one of our strengths


----------



## Seaside

It would be kind if you can give the percentage of what the owner must give to The Reef if they rent out through them.


----------



## Kal

My guess is it's at least 40%.


----------



## caribbeansun

Your guess is too high.


----------



## Kal

The numbers have to be very high to generate a NET to the Management firm of $1M per year.

What's your number?


----------



## TomCayman

Kal said:


> The numbers have to be very high to generate a NET to the Management firm of $1M per year.
> 
> What's your number?



(I'm hoping) For the last time, currently the net to the management company is zero.... the $1m is the total budget, ALL of which is spent on administering and running the programme.

As to anything more specific, that information is for our members.


----------



## cayman love r

*Give Tom a break!*

Tom,

I will come to your defense.  

The Reef is a beautiful, well run resort on the east end of Cayman.  There are few if any resales on the market.  If you do see them listed for sale, they are not at the "please take this unit off my hands!!" prices that you see on Morritts units.

Perhaps the manager of the Reef wants to do things correctly according to the law of the location of the property.  Is that so bad?  Having a central rental listing area is a good thing.  They can reach a larger market than most owners can.  If you are renting to Cousin Fred, then you are not listing on Redweek anyway.  So the Reef rents your unit, takes a cut for what ever, and the owner gets the rest.  If you are an owner, you will know the percentage the Reef takes.  If it does not appear to be fair, you can deposit the unit with II.  It seems like a great service and help to the owners.  Better than being stuck with yet another Special Assessment.

[_Personal comment about another poster removed.  Please keep TUG's courtesy requirements in mind when posting.   Makai Guy, TUG BBS Administrator_]


----------



## Kal

TomCayman said:


> (I'm hoping) For the last time, currently the net to the management company is zero.... the $1m is the total budget, ALL of which is spent on administering and running the programme.
> 
> As to anything more specific, that information is for our members.


 
To generate a $1M budget to fund the management operation means two things:

* The management percentage of the rental is very high
* Lots of units are being rented.

Curiously, it would appear that not many owners use their units and the property is more like a hotel.


----------



## vacationhopeful

My resort in FL is 40% plus a $100+ cleaning fee ( I question that fee as isn't the TS cleaned weekly as part of the maintenance fees and RCI points guests are only charged $39 for a short week cleaning?).

Resort Management => Outside service is used and they clean the windows, too. 

IMO, this has been an interesting exchange of opinions.  The resort manager, TomCayman, has generated a slew of discussion  ...  and I just appreciate the interchange.  Thanks for your time, Tom.


----------



## Caladezi

As an owner at Morritts, I wish that we had a management style more like that at the Reef.  Perhaps if that were the case, our owners would not have to rent their units out for just a small amount more than the MF, and be able to recover some of the SA's that we have also had to pay.  I would also like to see a ROFR article added to our resale documents so that we would not have to sell our units at prices less than the yearly MF+SA costs.  MANY,MANY of our owners have lost so much money that the amount is staggering.  The problem at Morritts is that the developer can not afford to guarantee a ROFR concept and owners are forced to sell for far less than they pay for their units.  At the very least, Tom is honest with his owners and communicates with them.


----------



## timeos2

*ROFR is "Right of Flimflam Repeated" for owners Don't ever buy it*



Caladezi said:


> As an owner at Morritts, I wish that we had a management style more like that at the Reef.  Perhaps if that were the case, our owners would not have to rent their units out for just a small amount more than the MF, and be able to recover some of the SA's that we have also had to pay.  I would also like to see a ROFR article added to our resale documents so that we would not have to sell our units at prices less than the yearly MF+SA costs.  MANY,MANY of our owners have lost so much money that the amount is staggering.  The problem at Morritts is that the developer can not afford to guarantee a ROFR concept and owners are forced to sell for far less than they pay for their units.  At the very least, Tom is honest with his owners and communicates with them.



You obviously don't realize that ROFR doesn't raise the price of resale weeks it simply gives the developer the right to buy it at the deeply discounted price IF you, as a seller, manage to find a buyer who then gets screwed out of the deal. You as the SELLER don't get one penny more than the offer - in fact some ROFR developers even take of "commissions" and other bogus charges - it does nothing to increase resale value. 

Now a BUY BACK program, at a published rate WOULD create a floor for values and give owners a way out but few resorts offer that. ROFR is NOT a friend to owners, sellers or buyers only to the developer. You should be happy your resort doesn't have it.


----------



## Caladezi

timeos2 said:


> You obviously don't realize that ROFR doesn't raise the price of resale weeks it simply gives the developer the right to buy it at the deeply discounted price IF you, as a seller, manage to find a buyer who then gets screwed out of the deal. You as the SELLER don't get one penny more than the offer - in fact some ROFR developers even take of "commissions" and other bogus charges - it does nothing to increase resale value.
> 
> Now a BUY BACK program, at a published rate WOULD create a floor for values and give owners a way out but few resorts offer that. ROFR is NOT a friend to owners, sellers or buyers only to the developer. You should be happy your resort doesn't have it.



Oh I do realize the ins and out of a ROFR program.  Yes it does give the developer the right to buy it at the low rate and "screw" the prospective buyer.  The point is that if enough sellers have their buyers ""screwed" by the developer, then those sellers will  not continue to try to sell at the low prices and give the profit to the developer.  If that happens, sellers will price their units at realistic prices and the values WILL rise.  Granted, a buy back program at published prices would be great, but that just won't happen.  If sellers would just wake up and stop giving their units away, things could turn around quickly.


----------



## vacationhopeful

A willing buyer offers what they think the property is worth --- a seller who demands a higher price and unacceptable price to the buyer, will continue to pay maintenance fees and special assessments.


----------



## Pit

cayman love r said:


> Perhaps the manager of the Reef wants to do things correctly according to the law of the location of the property.  Is that so bad?  Having a central rental listing area is a good thing.  They can reach a larger market than most owners can.  If you are renting to Cousin Fred, then you are not listing on Redweek anyway.  So the Reef rents your unit, takes a cut for what ever, and the owner gets the rest.  If you are an owner, you will know the percentage the Reef takes.  If it does not appear to be fair, you can deposit the unit with II.



Nothing wrong with those options, however, owners also have the option to rent their unit(s) on the open market. I understand why resort managment would prefer to sweep that option under the rug, after all you are competing with them instead of subsidizing them. 

Regardless, owners should be aware of all their options and choose the one that best suits their needs. I choose not to use resort rental programs, as I have found I can do better renting my own units. Resort rental programs are a good option for owners who don't care to spend the time and effort necessary to find renters.


----------



## KevinRS

*As an owner it upsets me too... I was also told not to remove my ad*

I own a March week and a July week at the Reef, and I was also instructed this week that I could not rent my July week (I had a Redweek ad)... no problem on the winter week, when they rent it for me and I make a significant amount over my maintenance fees... However for the July week, last year I did not even make HALF my maintenance fees back.  

If you don't give them 120 days advance notice to rent your week, then you take a 50% penalty.... this is a no-win situation for the owner and certainly leaves no options for flexibility.....  I grudgingly removed my Redweek ad this time but I am a very unhappy owner.

If as Tom says, they are just trying to stay within the law, perhaps they can help us owners and represent us to address this problem.  If I can find a renter for my unit, then I simply advise them, and they can represent me  by handling the transaction and we can stay within Cayman Law. 

The alternative I guess, is to list the week without specifying my unit number, or owner information.  When someone rents it, I advise them they have two options, tell the resort they rented from a third party site, and they will have to pay 10% of the rental to the Cayman government, or tell them they are just using my week and they can pay the standard $70.

I do have a problem paying into the marketing program if they cannot find me a renter to more than cover my fees.  If I find the renter, then I feel I am saving them some of the expense of advertising.


----------



## TomCayman

KevinRS said:


> I own a March week and a July week at the Reef, and I was also instructed this week that I could not rent my July week (I had a Redweek ad)... no problem on the winter week, when they rent it for me and I make a significant amount over my maintenance fees... However for the July week, last year I did not even make HALF my maintenance fees back.
> If you don't give them 120 days advance notice to rent your week, then you take a 50% penalty.... this is a no-win situation for the owner and certainly leaves no options for flexibility.....  I grudgingly removed my Redweek ad this time but I am a very unhappy owner.
> 
> If as Tom says, they are just trying to stay within the law, perhaps they can help us owners and represent us to address this problem.  If I can find a renter for my unit, then I simply advise them, and they can represent me  by handling the transaction and we can stay within Cayman Law.
> 
> The alternative I guess, is to list the week without specifying my unit number, or owner information.  When someone rents it, I advise them they have two options, tell the resort they rented from a third party site, and they will have to pay 10% of the rental to the Cayman government, or tell them they are just using my week and they can pay the standard $70.
> 
> I do have a problem paying into the marketing program if they cannot find me a renter to more than cover my fees.  If I find the renter, then I feel I am saving them some of the expense of advertising.



As an owner, please simply give me a call to discuss at as much length as you like.... I'm in the office on Tuesday through Friday this week.

Happy to answer your questions in detail, but this thread is getting a bit too detailed and specific for a general audience.


----------



## caribbeansun

Some very cynical people here - your first option means that I lied when I indicated it was <40%.  

The property has more condo units than it does TS and they do rent many units out.  IMHO they are doing what is right for the entire ownership group including the TS owners by establishing and protecting the brand.  The Reef's resale market has held up far better than most any other TS on the island - there must be some reason for that.

I found it quite interesting that the two resorts on the island with the highest occupancy rates are the Ritz Carlton and The Reef/Castaways' Cove but then I'm probably lying about that too...



Kal said:


> * The management percentage of the rental is very high
> * Lots of units are being rented.
> 
> Curiously, it would appear that not many owners use their units and the property is more like a hotel.


----------



## Seaside

Where is that information from? Usually Comfort Suites occupancy rate is much higher than both of them.


----------



## Kal

caribbeansun said:


> Some very cynical people here - your first option means that I lied when I indicated it was <40%....


 
I'm not saying you lied, I'm just saying If you have a better number than my 40%, what is it?  In any case, paying a 40% commission is very high.  Even "<40%" is very high especially when an owner (as some say) is "required" to go thru the rental outfit rather than use far less costly and more economical options.

In any case, owners who provide their unit to the rental outfit are short $1M from the rental proceeds.  Pretty soon, that's almost like real money.


----------



## Seaside

I have been checking and there is no information that I can find on the Internet, Cayman Islands Government, whatever, that has information about the occupancy rates of the hotels/timeshares on Grand Cayman. Can you please let me know where I can read about it for my own curiosity? Thank you.


----------



## Kal

Seaside said:


> I have been checking and there is no information that I can find on the Internet, Cayman Islands Government, whatever, that has information about the occupancy rates of the hotels/timeshares on Grand Cayman. Can you please let me know where I can read about it for my own curiosity? Thank you.


 
That information is key to the hospitality industry and is usually limited to hotel/resort managers or very limited key management staff.  It would appear that CaribbeanSun is a member of that group.


----------



## caribbeansun

Honestly you guys are a joke - just because you can't find information it means I'm some sort of undercover spy and part of management and I've been hanging out on TUG for how many years just waiting for my chance to pounce on you.  Don't blame me for your own inability to gather data.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you two sound?:hysterical:

My number is better than your's because it's the REAL number and it's none of your business - I could post the "real" number but at this point after being called a liar and some sort of spy why the hell would I?  Owners have the real number readily available to them if they are interested.

"Even "<40%" is very high"  So by your logic ANY commission is too high, how very reasonable of you.


----------



## Kal

caribbeansun said:


> .."Even "<40%" is very high" So by your logic ANY commission is too high, how very reasonable of you.


 
In my book, a 40% commission to sell anything is outrageous.


----------



## Carolinian

My suggestion is keep the ad up and wait for the government to ask for the 10%.  Wanna bet whether they actually do?

I know that one of the towns on the Outer Banks tried a little different approach, requiring a registration fee for properties held for rent.  They demanded that timeshare HOA's pay this for all their units.  Some did, but one board member who was an attorney pointed out to the town that the HOA was not itself in the rental business, and that most of their individual week owners did not rent, but either used the week themselves or exchanged, and based on the wording of the laws, the HOA refused to pay.  The town attorney then backed off, and none of the timeshare resorts are billed for this registration fee any more. It is too much trouble to try to track down individual owners to figure out who is renting their weeks, so the town just gave up.  Score one the good guys!

I can't help wondering if these contacts have something to do with the government or do they just have to do with management's own rental program?  Have owners at other timeshares on the Caymans had either the government or their own management breathing down their necks on outside rentals?


----------



## Kal

Carolinian said:


> My suggestion is keep the ad up and wait for the government to ask for the 10%. Wanna bet whether they actually do?..


 
In that case the Resort Manager was probably supportive in helping the owners save money.  In the case here, there is an effort to try to force owners to rent thru the captive in-house rental outfit at a price of $1M per year.


----------



## gmarine

A management company that is tries to force owners to pay them commission on rentals or not be able to rent at all is ridiculous and unenforcable. I hope the owners who received the emails due to management trolling for rentals just disregard them as spam.


----------



## ralphd

General Observation:

1. The member/owner *signed* a agreement with the resort with rental restrictions.
2. The renter must check in the resort, which is located in the Cayman Islands, which means the resort 
probably has the right to *enforce* the member agreement. 
3. The member agreement probably states that any disagreement will be
handled in a *Cayman* court.

I am a owner at Morritt's and not at the Reef, so can only judge by our contract as to the Reef contractual language. 
Most of the above has been posted by Tom or other members.

This is somewhat the same situation as the RCI 1 in 4 rule. RCI may mess up and give you a second reservation, 
but the resort could refuse to allow you to check-in.

I agree with Caladezi's observations.


----------



## gmarine

ralphd said:


> General Observation:
> 
> 1. The member/owner *signed* a agreement with the resort with rental restrictions.
> 2. The renter must check in the resort, which is located in the Cayman Islands, which means the resort
> probably has the right to *enforce* the member agreement.
> 3. The member agreement probably states that any disagreement will be
> handled in a *Cayman* court.
> 
> I am a owner at Morritt's and not at the Reef, so can only judge by our contract as to the Reef contractual language.
> Most of the above has been posted by Tom or other members.
> 
> This is somewhat the same situation as the RCI 1 in 4 rule. RCI may mess up and give you a second reservation,
> but the resort could refuse to allow you to check-in.
> 
> I agree with Caladezi's observations.



The resort would have to prove money changed hands and the person using the unit isnt just a guest of the OWNER.

In addition, the email from the reef makes no mention of resort rules regarding renting. The reef is trying to imply that hotel licensing laws apply to non residents on the CI. It has nothing to do with the membership agreement.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

I've been watching this thread with some interest, and I see similarities with other past TUG threads, where Morritt's management was getting beaten up by posters who had no ownership interest in that resort.

Why should Tom share information about rental commissions or the terms under which owners are permitted to rent their units with anyone other than owners at his resort? In my opinion, that information falls under the classification of confidential business information. Tom has repeatedly stated in this thread that owners may contact him to discuss rental policies, fees, etc. with him at any time. In my opinion, specifics on these topics are not and should not be of concern to anyone other than owners at The Reef. Sure, we all have opinions and opinions are what this forum is all about. But, when non-owners ask Tom to divulge rental commission rates, occupancy rates, or specifics on use of funds collected as rental commissions, that is, again, in my opinion, way out of line.

Onward to the issue of taxes...........

Here's an excerpt from the Tourist Accommodation Taxation (TAT) Law:

_2 (b)"Timeshare" means any accommodation in the Islands, used or intended to be used, wholly or partly, for leisure purposes by a class of persons, all of whom have rights to use, or participate in arrangements under which they may use, that accommodation, or accommodation within a pool of accommodation (wherever located) to which that accommodation belongs, for intermittent periods of short duration;" and,_
_"service" does not include the cost of food, drink and other consumables supplied to a tourist;",_​ 
_3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the proprietor of any accommodation shall pay to the Government a tax equal to ten percent of the amount of the charges made by him in respect of each tourist accommodated therein._
_(2) Where a tourist is accommodated at a timeshare and such tourist is either -_
_(a) the owner of the timeshare;_
_(b) a guest of the owner of the timeshare; or_
_(c) a person who has exchanged his timeshare for that timeshare,_​ 
_the proprietor of the property at which the timeshare is located shall pay to the Government the equivalent of ten dollars US for each day or part of a day in respect of each room in a timeshare which is occupied by tourist of a category specified in this subsection._​ 
_(3) Where a tourist occupying a timeshare does not fall into any of the categories __specified in subsection (2) the proprietor shall pay the tax specified in subsection (1)."_​


My interpretation of this amendment is that all units at The Reef are classified as timeshares, whether they are actually used by the "owner" or whether they are used by anyone else. If the timeshare is occupied by either the owner or a guest of the owner or a trader, then the tax is USD $10 per day. If the occupant is in a category other than the three described in the preceding sentence (such as a renter), then the TAT is 10% of the amount charged for the occupancy of the subject timeshare.

The amendment further states that the proprietor of the property at which the timeshare is located shall pay the tax to the government. I'll admit that there may be some ambiguity to the meaning of "proprietor of the property at which the timeshare is located," but the wording indicates to me that the developer or whoever owns the real estate is liable for the tax, regardless of whether they can collect it from the renter or the owner. If this is indeed the situation, then I certainly can understand The Reef's efforts to insure that the tax is paid by the owners of all units that are rented.

These are just my opinions folks. I love to dissect things such as this.


----------



## gmarine

Rod in Louisiana said:


> I've been watching this thread with some interest, and I see similarities with other past TUG threads, where Morritt's management was getting beaten up by posters who had no ownership interest in that resort.
> 
> Why should Tom share information about rental commissions or the terms under which owners are permitted to rent their units with anyone other than owners at his resort? In my opinion, that information falls under the classification of confidential business information. Tom has repeatedly stated in this thread that owners may contact him to discuss rental policies, fees, etc. with him at any time. In my opinion, specifics on these topics are not and should not be of concern to anyone other than owners at The Reef. Sure, we all have opinions and opinions are what this forum is all about. But, when non-owners ask Tom to divulge rental commission rates, occupancy rates, or specifics on use of funds collected as rental commissions, that is, again, in my opinion, way out of line.
> 
> Onward to the issue of taxes...........
> 
> Here's an excerpt from the Tourist Accommodation Taxation (TAT) Law:
> 
> _2 (b)"Timeshare" means any accommodation in the Islands, used or intended to be used, wholly or partly, for leisure purposes by a class of persons, all of whom have rights to use, or participate in arrangements under which they may use, that accommodation, or accommodation within a pool of accommodation (wherever located) to which that accommodation belongs, for intermittent periods of short duration;" and,_
> _"service" does not include the cost of food, drink and other consumables supplied to a tourist;",_​
> _3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the proprietor of any accommodation shall pay to the Government a tax equal to ten percent of the amount of the charges made by him in respect of each tourist accommodated therein._
> _(2) Where a tourist is accommodated at a timeshare and such tourist is either -_
> _(a) the owner of the timeshare;_
> _(b) a guest of the owner of the timeshare; or_
> _(c) a person who has exchanged his timeshare for that timeshare,_​
> _the proprietor of the property at which the timeshare is located shall pay to the Government the equivalent of ten dollars US for each day or part of a day in respect of each room in a timeshare which is occupied by tourist of a category specified in this subsection._​
> _(3) Where a tourist occupying a timeshare does not fall into any of the categories __specified in subsection (2) the proprietor shall pay the tax specified in subsection (1)."_​
> 
> 
> My interpretation of this amendment is that all units at The Reef are classified as timeshares, whether they are actually used by the "owner" or whether they are used by anyone else. If the timeshare is occupied by either the owner or a guest of the owner or a trader, then the tax is USD $10 per day. If the occupant is in a category other than the three described in the preceding sentence (such as a renter), then the TAT is 10% of the amount charged for the occupancy of the subject timeshare.
> 
> The amendment further states that the proprietor of the property at which the timeshare is located shall pay the tax to the government. I'll admit that there may be some ambiguity to the meaning of "proprietor of the property at which the timeshare is located," but the wording indicates to me that the developer or whoever owns the real estate is liable for the tax, regardless of whether they can collect it from the renter or the owner. If this is indeed the situation, then I certainly can understand The Reef's efforts to insure that the tax is paid by the owners of all units that are rented.
> 
> These are just my opinions folks. I love to dissect things such as this.



Your 100% correct that the tax would be paid by the occupant. This is the case at many resorts. Thats not the issue.

The reef is saying that not only do you have to pay the government tax, but you also cant rent a unit that you own without paying commission to the reef. The reef justifies this by referring to CI law.
If the government actually thought they had the right to impose such a rule on owners not in the CI,it should be left up to them to contact owners rather than the management of the reef trolling for rentals.


----------



## Seaside

I agree....this thread has been about a commission and not about taxes being paid to the government. Dissecting things like this are important, as I mentioned in an earlier post, anyone is a potential buyer/owner, can we not get the information on a Forum like this versus getting a sales pitch? My daughter happens to like the Reef better than Morritt's. She, husband and kids have rented a week there. My interest is obviously personal.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

Seaside said:


> I agree....this thread has been about a commission and not about taxes being paid to the government. Dissecting things like this are important, as I mentioned in an earlier post, anyone is a potential buyer/owner, can we not get the information on a Forum like this versus getting a sales pitch? My daughter happens to like the Reef better than Morritt's. She, husband and kids have rented a week there. My interest is obviously personal.


 
I do agree that, as a potential owner, your daughter is entitled to know how the rental program works to the extent that she should know how much of her unit rental she'll be giving up to management/advertising fees. However, I don't agree that she's entitled to know how that money is spent after it gets into the hands of the management company, until such time as she becomes an owner. 

And, if you're on the island, a personal visit with either Tom or one of his sales staff would seem to be the most expeditious way to get detailed answers to your questions. As much as I dislike sales pitches, they are, in my mind, the proper forum to get those answers. And remember, a sales pitch can be completely shut down. If you go into that sales pitch armed with knowledge of the resort and a list of specific questions you want answered, control of the meeting passes to you.

More of my opinions


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

gmarine said:


> Your 100% correct that the tax would be paid by the occupant. This is the case at many resorts. Thats not the issue.
> 
> The reef is saying that not only do you have to pay the government tax, but you also cant rent a unit that you own without paying commission to the reef. The reef justifies this by referring to CI law.
> If the government actually thought they had the right to impose such a rule on owners not in the CI,it should be left up to them to contact owners rather than the management of the reef trolling for rentals.


 
My interpretation of Tom's initial post was a bit different from yours. Here's what I took from the post:

Tom said that Cayman law prohibits anyone other than licensed property managers from renting property.
He said that Cayman law imposes a 10% tax on tourism rental transactions.
He said that Thompson Resorts is the property manager for The Reef
Based on his belief that owners who rent their properties and who do not go through a licensed property manager are in violation of Cayman laws, he asked those owners to cease violating those laws by using a licensed property manager and by paying the tax that is due to the Cayman government.
In subsequent posts, he stated that the Owners Agreement that is signed by all owners gives the owners the right to rent their units. He further stated that the Cayman government will encounter a great deal of difficulty in enforcing these laws. So far, I haven't seen any statement by him that an owner can't rent their unit.

Now, if my interpretation of the law is correct, then The Reef is liable for the collection of that 10% tax and its remittance to the Cayman government. If that is indeed the case, then I believe The Reef will and should do anything it must to collect those taxes.

But, to finally cut to the chase.....I haven't seen Tom do anything other than remind folks of the Cayman laws and ask them to stop violating those laws. Sure, he made the comment that didn't like the idea of those who rent their own units getting the benefit of advertising dollars paid by those who are in the rental program, but he never attempted to present that as anything but his own opinion.


----------



## Seaside

I interpret it as if people want to rent their unit/units out on their own, what do they care about the advertising dollars, what possible benefit would they receive from that? This issue has not been about renting at the Condos, just a few who want to rent out a week or two that they own of Timeshare.....to recoup maintenance fees. If they wanted to bank they would have done so. Simple answers to simple questions I think are what should have transpired. Not about taxes, etc. I think we all know about the $10.00 a day tax.


----------



## Pit

Rod in Louisiana said:


> Tom said hat Cayman law prohibits anyone other than licensed property managers from renting property.


This is the point at issue. Here's what Tom has posted concerning this point ...



> Please note that under the Hotels Licencing Law in the Cayman Islands, only a licenced property manager in the Cayman Islands may offer rentals to the general public.
> 
> You are entitled under your membership agreement to rent the unit, however as explained in the message sent to you via your RedWeek listing, and for the reasons noted, you may not actively solicit rentals from the general public through advertising this over the internet or other public media.



Several of us here are calling BS on this. The Cayman Islands has no jurisdiction to regulate advertising outside of their borders. It's rather absurd to say you can rent your unit but you can't advertise it for rent.


----------



## ralphd

Pit said:


> This is the point at issue. Here's what Tom has posted concerning this point ...
> 
> 
> 
> Several of us here are calling BS on this. The Cayman Islands has no jurisdiction to regulate advertising outside of their borders. It's rather absurd to say you can rent your unit but you can't advertise it for rent.



I still note:

The resort is located in the Cayman Islands and operates under Cayman law, not U.S. law.


----------



## ralphd

Morritt's has allowed owners to rent their thru personal effort or thru the other available channels. However, if we used the resort as the leasing agent our costs would be:

From the agreement-

"MPC reserves the right to increase rental rates or offer discounts off the rental rates (maximum discount 20%) at any
time. MPC shall still earn its 30% commission on the rental rate."

They have the right to increase/decrease the rental rate and charge the owner a 30% commission.


----------



## caribbeansun

I was thinking the exact same thing Rod as you and I had exchanged a few heated comments on that thread and in the end I saw and respected your point of view (albeit grudgingly at that time ).



Rod in Louisiana said:


> I've been watching this thread with some interest, and I see similarities with other past TUG threads, where Morritt's management was getting beaten up by posters who had no ownership interest in that resort.


----------



## Kal

ralphd said:


> Morritt's has allowed owners to rent their thru personal effort or thru the other available channels. However, if we used the resort as the leasing agent our costs would be:
> 
> From the agreement-
> 
> "MPC reserves the right to increase rental rates or offer discounts off the rental rates (maximum discount 20%) at any
> time. MPC shall still earn its 30% commission on the rental rate."
> 
> They have the right to increase/decrease the rental rate and charge the owner a 30% commission.


 
So the number is 30% rather than the 40% number I suggested.  Even then a 30% commission is OUTRAGEOUS.  Forcing an owner to pay that rate or trolling the net to frighten owners into that program does not speak well.

BTW, is the current real estate rental commission for residential property about 6-8%?  Would I enjoy getting a message from somebody telling me I MUST pay 30% (and a potential 20% discount) in my rental?  I don't think so.


----------



## RMitchell

Timeshare seems to be...a builder builds a bunch of condos and sells a right to use for way more than the actual value of the condos. The builder gets to keep ownership after selling the right to use and then charges for any upgrades or repairs. With this system, that only benefits the real owner, how could you think that anything good could come out of this? Rules can be made or bent and bookkeeping can be reinvented. That's why they say...don't buy unless you're going to stay at the joint every year forever and ever.
I wish my joint, at least, communicated.


----------



## Pit

ralphd said:


> I still note:
> 
> The resort is located in the Cayman Islands and operates under Cayman law, not U.S. law.



No problem there. I will simply repeat that RedWeek and (presumably) the OP and renter reside in the US and operate according to US law, not Cayman law.


----------



## okz

In addition to my Reef week  I also have a week at the Grand Morritts. I am uncomfortable with the notion that I can rent out my unit at one resort myself, and that at the resort next door I can't rent it out without a licensed property manager. 

If the end game is for the Cayman Island Goverment to recoup a tax, why can't the Reef collect the $10 a day or 10% of the rental amount when the guest checks out. If that is too onerous, I would prepay the tax along with the electricity charge when I inform the resort that I have a guest. A guest willing to pay a tax to stay in Grand Cayman, a benefit I would provide.

 I think I am better off trying to rent my unit because I know what I am willing to lose on the rental if it came down to that situation. There is no guarantee that the resort will be able to rent my unit.

I have never had rental issue until now, I am puzzled as to how restrictions can be placed on the use of the internet to rent my week.

In spite of this issue I have always enjoyed my stays at both resorts.


----------



## TomCayman

okz said:


> In addition to my Reef week  I also have a week at the Grand Morritts. I am uncomfortable with the notion that I can rent out my unit at one resort myself, and that at the resort next door I can't rent it out without a licensed property manager.
> 
> If the end game is for the Cayman Island Goverment to recoup a tax, why can't the Reef collect the $10 a day or 10% of the rental amount when the guest checks out. If that is too onerous, I would prepay the tax along with the electricity charge when I inform the resort that I have a guest. A guest willing to pay a tax to stay in Grand Cayman, a benefit I would provide.
> 
> I think I am better off trying to rent my unit because I know what I am willing to lose on the rental if it came down to that situation. There is no guarantee that the resort will be able to rent my unit.
> 
> I have never had rental issue until now, I am puzzled as to how restrictions can be placed on the use of the internet to rent my week.
> 
> In spite of this issue I have always enjoyed my stays at both resorts.



I do not feel it would be appropriate to make any comparisons or provide answers to such comparison as you have made in a public forum, so please (as you are an owner) call me in the office tomorrow (Tuesday) and I would be happy to discuss.


----------



## TomCayman

RMitchell said:


> Timeshare seems to be...a builder builds a bunch of condos and sells a right to use for way more than the actual value of the condos. The builder gets to keep ownership after selling the right to use and then charges for any upgrades or repairs. With this system, that only benefits the real owner, how could you think that anything good could come out of this? Rules can be made or bent and bookkeeping can be reinvented. That's why they say...don't buy unless you're going to stay at the joint every year forever and ever.
> I wish my joint, at least, communicated.



Speaking for theReef, our company has a long history as real estate developer, so when we developed theReef as our first timeshare resort we did indeed want to offer title with the timeshares, but Cayman Islands law does not allow for property to be subdivided down to individual weeks, so we had no choice but to offer RTU contracts.

What we did, then, was to put in those contract a limited life on the membership contract (to 2050), at which point the resort will be sold on the open market and 80% of the proceeds paid out to the timeshare owners, with 20% to the developer. We originally were going to make it 100%/0%, but we test-marketed that and people thought it was too good to be true, plus they were concerned that we wouldn't put out every effort to maintain the property if we weren't going to get anything at the end... hence the 80%/20%.

I do understand scepticism towards RTU, and would simply encourage potential buyers of RTU to make sure they are comfortable with the developer/management company who run the resort, do some due diligence into their track record, talk to existing owners etc.


----------



## Seaside

Tom, since you own at Morritt's, perhaps you can give us your "feelings and knowledge" concerning this issue on the public forum, again, can't someone at least be honest with us? It would be great publicity to do so. Seems like this thread will go on and on, and even if you do speak to an owner directly, there will still be those that want to know information on the public forum. It is very expensive for someone to call you from the states.


----------



## Caladezi

Kal said:


> So the number is 30% rather than the 40% number I suggested.  Even then a 30% commission is OUTRAGEOUS.  Forcing an owner to pay that rate or trolling the net to frighten owners into that program does not speak well.
> 
> BTW, is the current real estate rental commission for residential property about 6-8%?  Would I enjoy getting a message from somebody telling me I MUST pay 30% (and a potential 20% discount) in my rental?  I don't think so.




Kal
Please note that the commission rate quoted bt Ralph is for MORRITTS.  It has nothing to do with the Reef and your "enlightened" information has nothing to do with what the Reef charges its owners.  It could be they charge 2% or 50%, but has nothing to do with Morritts, where they really want nothing to do with renting units for owners, but rather just selling units in a building that doesn't exist and has no construction schedule that has been shared with its "owners".


----------



## Seaside

This thread started out about The Reef, who cares what Morritt's does?


----------



## timeos2

*Why not be forthcoming in all areas?*



TomCayman said:


> I do not feel it would be appropriate to make any comparisons or provide answers to such comparison as you have made in a public forum, so please (as you are an owner) call me in the office tomorrow (Tuesday) and I would be happy to discuss.



While each resort/HOA can choose to do as they see fit I fail to see how open discussion of non-personnel or secret accounting numbers hurts anyone. In fact having open and honest discussions helps alleviate the questions of owners and gives a sense that all is well with the operation. Guests at your resort are unlikely to care.  Hiding things or requiring each owner to check for themselves only serves to give the impression there are things to hide and that is never a positive for owners OR guests.


----------



## Caladezi

Seaside said:


> This thread started out about The Reef, who cares what Morritt's does?




THEN WHY ASK?  Do you have some kind of an agenda?




 June 16, 2008, 01:01 PM    #86  
Seaside 
Guest


BBS Reg. Date: Sep 2, 06
Posts: 70  Tom, since you own at Morritt's, perhaps you can give us your "feelings and knowledge" concerning this issue on the public forum, again, can't someone at least be honest with us? It would be great publicity to do so. Seems like this thread will go on and on, and even if you do speak to an owner directly, there will still be those that want to know information on the public forum. It is very expensive for someone to call you from the states.


----------



## Caladezi

Perhaps what Tom should do is allow his owners to rent out their weeks in any way they want.  The Reef could establish a fair market value for all of their weeks and then just add 10% of that amount (for the government) to the renters bill payable at checkout.  It would not matter what the renter actually paid to the owner that he rented from.  If the rental value is determined to be $2,000/week, then $200.00 tax would be due at check out, paid by the renter, and then paid by the Reef to the Cayman Government.  If an owner wants to have the Reef rent out their unit for them, then a commission to the Reef would also be due from the owner.  A simple soultion to a complex problem.


----------



## TUGBrian

just so im reading this correctly....I need a bit of clarification.

you earlier claimed that the fees you are charging for this go to "advertising"....yet you claim you dont take a "cut".

You are making a profit off a transaction and using it to pay a business expense...how is this not a cut?


----------



## RMitchell

TomCayman said:


> Speaking for theReef, our company has a long history as real estate developer, so when we developed theReef as our first timeshare resort we did indeed want to offer title with the timeshares, but Cayman Islands law does not allow for property to be subdivided down to individual weeks, so we had no choice but to offer RTU contracts.
> 
> What we did, then, was to put in those contract a limited life on the membership contract (to 2050), at which point the resort will be sold on the open market and 80% of the proceeds paid out to the timeshare owners, with 20% to the developer. We originally were going to make it 100%/0%, but we test-marketed that and people thought it was too good to be true, plus they were concerned that we wouldn't put out every effort to maintain the property if we weren't going to get anything at the end... hence the 80%/20%.
> 
> I do understand scepticism towards RTU, and would simply encourage potential buyers of RTU to make sure they are comfortable with the developer/management company who run the resort, do some due diligence into their track record, talk to existing owners etc.



Wow...not that I'll be alive in 2050, but the value then could be a tidy sum. As a hand me down it does sound too good to be true. Is that in writing? If the place was kept up, your resell would keep it's value. I made a huge mistake and bought a family owned RTU at the "resort". I'll never buy another timeshare but this sounds better than mine.


----------



## ralphd

Seaside said:


> This thread started out about The Reef, who cares what Morritt's does?



Maybe because they are also in Grand Cayman.

Maybe because they are next door to the Reef.

Maybe because it compares two different rental programs.

Maybe because several of the people posting are Morritt's members.

Do any of the posters have an agenda - think we know the answer, but there are also several TUG members that are trying to help.


----------



## TomCayman

TUGBrian said:


> just so im reading this correctly....I need a bit of clarification.
> 
> you earlier claimed that the fees you are charging for this go to "advertising"....yet you claim you dont take a "cut".
> 
> You are making a profit off a transaction and using it to pay a business expense...how is this not a cut?



I'm not sure how many different ways to say this... but we.. do... not.. make... a.. profit... (or take a fee)... from the rental commission.

Will we do so in future.. yes.. but we have committed to our owners that we won't until rental occupancies have increased (with this marketing) to catch up with the rate of construction.

On July 4th we open the final phase of the resort, and with resort rentals for the YTD up over 25% on 2007 and looking like being up 40%+ for Q3, those marketing dollars are being put to good use and the time will therefore come (perhaps within a year or so) when it will be reasonable for the management company to take a cut out of the rental commission.. but again we won't do it until the owners are making higher returns... funny, we WANT them to be happy.. we think it is good for business


----------



## TomCayman

RMitchell said:


> Wow...not that I'll be alive in 2050, but the value then could be a tidy sum. As a hand me down it does sound too good to be true. *Is that in writing?* If the place was kept up, your resell would keep it's value. I made a huge mistake and bought a family owned RTU at the "resort". I'll never buy another timeshare but this sounds better than mine.



In writing in every contract... but more than that, a commitment from the Thompson Group, people who know Cayman know our reputation


----------



## TomCayman

timeos2 said:


> While each resort/HOA can choose to do as they see fit I fail to see how open discussion of non-personnel or secret accounting numbers hurts anyone. In fact having open and honest discussions helps alleviate the questions of owners and gives a sense that all is well with the operation. Guests at your resort are unlikely to care.  Hiding things or requiring each owner to check for themselves only serves to give the impression there are things to hide and that is never a positive for owners OR guests.




timeos, anyone who knows me recognises that I am nothing if not open...but unfortunately one or two very negative and cynical posters here are spoiling it for the broader community, as I just can't engage with people who won't listen. I'm therefore restricting what I say mostly because I get the distinct sense that no matter what I say, a) those posters won't believe me, and b) they'll just ask more and more questions without necessarily adding to the conversation for the benefit of the greater audience.

Still, in the interests of giving out information, I'm working on a public holiday today (just about to leave to go home !) to get caught up on rental accounting.. and am pleased to note that rental returns are well up this year....you know, a LOT of our owners rent through us each year..hmm, more information.... right now about 25% of our timeshare owners for 2008 have put their units up for rent through us.....so I guess we are doing something right


----------



## Seaside

Tom, please review TugBrian's questions, an administrator for TUG, they have not been answered


----------



## TUGBrian

TomCayman said:


> I'm not sure how many different ways to say this... but we.. do... not.. make... a.. profit... (or take a fee)... from the rental commission.




ok...to simplify this for me since I am a public school grad =)

you charge a commission from a customer.  yes?

you take the money from this commission to pay for advertising for your business.  yes?

if you didnt charge this commission (and or make money from it)...you would have to pay for advertising with money from somewhere right?  

I am still just not quite understanding how you collect a fee...and use it to pay for a business expense....and this is not considered a profit/income.

Simply repeating "we dont make a profit" doesnt answer my question. or are we having a semantic debate about the "actual" definition of profit vs income vs expenses?  Just because 150 dollars of my paycheck each month goes to pay my electric bill...doesnt mean that 150 dollars is not income!

if it does...I need to have a chat with the IRS!


----------



## TUGBrian

TomCayman said:


> In writing in every contract...



well that certainly changes things...could you post the section of the contract where this is explained?


----------



## Kal

TUGBrian said:


> well that certainly changes things...could you post the section of the contract where this is explained?


 
He would tell you, but he'll have to kill you!  That's top secret information where you would have to have a special "de-coder ring".


----------



## TomCayman

TUGBrian said:


> ok...to simplify this for me since I am a public school grad =)
> 
> you charge a commission from a customer.  yes?
> 
> you take the money from this commission to pay for advertising *for your business*.  yes?
> 
> if you didnt charge this commission (and or make money from it)...you would have to pay for advertising with money from somewhere right?
> 
> I am still just not quite understanding how you collect a fee...and use it to pay for a business expense....and this is not considered a profit/income.



The words in bold are where I think the fundamental misunderstanding lies...the management company does not own the inventory being rented out, it acts as the agent for the timeshare and condo owners in renting out their weeks... so no, it is not advertising for our business, it is advertising for their business.

Why should we then act as an agent for someone else without any fee ? Partly because we are good guys (!), but in the long term (as previously stated) we will earn a fee from this work in future years.


----------



## TomCayman

TUGBrian said:


> well that certainly changes things...could you post the section of the contract where this is explained?



Brian, you've already put the word advertising in quotes, inferring that we don't spend the money on advertising.

I'm getting a bit fed up of the inferences, insinuations and downright accusations made against me in this thread by you and others.

By asking me to post the section of the contract where the residual rights of members in the real estate value are noted is to doubt my word.

You might call me oversensitive, but whilst taking jabs at developer and resort operators may be sport for some, this is my career and livelihood.

My reputation for honesty and integrity in business is very important to me, so feel free to question me, but do recognise that if you all continue to keep trying to find the negative (and in fact accuse me of same without the slightest shred of evidence or reason)....when it (inevitably) turns out that I have acted in a fashion that is positive and to the benefit of our owners, who'll be the fool then ?

Several moderators and posters with thousands of posts have now jumped in on this thread, and some have not exactly covered themselves in glory... perhaps the moderators might want to lock / take down this thread, as some clearly keep want to jab away, and they've found my weak spot... if people post negative things about me for all to read, I am generally compelled to answer (although I've made clear to one poster that I've got to the point that I will ignore them in particular  )


----------



## Seaside

Tom, the way to "fix" things is for you to give the answers to the questions you are being asked.


----------



## Kal

The original premise of the thread was to call out someone who trolled the web to scare off people from trying to rent their own timeshare unit. Now in the latest post the approach is to attack others who question the legitimacy for such a tactic rather than provide backup supportive information. 

Aside from that, it is clear that there is an outfit who earns income directly (or indirectly) by renting owner's units. They charge a heavy fee for that service and we assume they are not a charitable enterprise who provides that service for free. So it still comes down to "trolling for dollars" under the quilt of "_it's just the law; the government made me do it_".


----------



## ralphd

Seaside said:


> Tom, the way to "fix" things is for you to give the answers to the questions you are being asked.



Why have you not answered the question Caladezi asked you earlier?

I think most Morritt's members know the answer.

It seems Tom has done a better job of communications than some resort owner/developers. Whether you agree with the rental policy or not, The Reef has, as stated previously, been controlled by a good management group.

The tone of some posters on this thread, including the Administrator, has almost become personal.


----------



## Rod in Louisiana

caribbeansun said:


> I was thinking the exact same thing Rod as you and I had exchanged a few heated comments on that thread and in the end I saw and respected your point of view (albeit grudgingly at that time ).


 
Thanks for the acknowledgement.  

I've just completed a review of that entire thread. Actually, our (yours and mine) comments to and about each other on that thread were quite civil. 

While reviewing the thread, I noticed that some of the same posters who were presenting passionate arguments and opinions about a resort where they did not own are the same posters who are now presenting equally passionate arguments and opinions on this thread about another resort where they do not own. Interesting.


----------



## Dave M

ralphd said:


> The tone of some posters on this thread ... has almost become personal.


I agree, and unnecessarily so. Tom has been a long-time, very helpful, straight shooter on TUG and many TUGgers have benefited significantly from his posts. I think he has responded to why he made his initial post.

Many of the questions here are related to issues that no business would disclose unless it was a publicly held company that disclosed specific info as required by the SEC or other regulatory agency. Because The Reef is not a publicly held company, pressuring Tom for those details is unfair, particularly with the less-than-courteous wording used in some posts.

I believe all who post subsequently in this thread should be especially careful to adhere to the BBS "Be Courteous" rule.

*   *   *   *

On a different note, I don't understand Brian's questions about profit. (Accounting is my profession.) Using a variant of his example, if I have $150 of rental income and I have $150 of business expenses related to that income, my profit is zero, not $150, and I would have no taxable income. Profit is what's left over after paying business expenses. 

That's much different that Brian's example, as follows: If I have $150 of income in my paycheck and I use all of that for my personal electric bill, I still have $150 of profit, all of which would be taxable. The fact that I used that $150 for personal expenses doesn't change the profit or taxability.


----------



## Seaside

[_Message deleted. As I stated, please be courteous. Among other things, that includes not rehashing your dissatisfaction with others in this thread._ Dave M, BBS Moderator]


----------



## TUGBrian

i never said the 150 was for personal electric bills...even tug has to keep the lights on with money.

It was not my intention to personally attack anyone...nor do I feel I have done so.  I dont insult you (I actually insult myself)...call you names...or belittle you in any way.

I merely wanted clairification on a single point I read in the thread....you replied with what I felt was an unsatisfactory answer (to me) and I chose to make my point more clear (although it doesnt appear that was what was done).

I wont continue the conversation further however given daves endorsement that you have been a long time supporter and contributor here on the forums.

thats good enough for me.


----------



## Bluewaterbums

Interesting discussion!  We own two weeks at Morritts and have rented at the Reef when Morritts was closed post-Ivan.  We love both resorts.

We have rented out our units a number of times, including this year.  Sometimes we rent to friends and other times we rent to individuals who have found us via the Morritts forum.  In any case, the individuals who rent our units are our guests and are therefore subject to the $10 a day Cayman tourist tax.  This tax is clearly stated in our rental agreements and is collected by Morritts from the guests when they check out.  

We tried to use the Morritts rental program in the past but there are no guarantees and the resort takes a 30% commission.

We have never, no do we intend to, advertised our weeks for rent on Redweek. com or any other forum of that type.  If the Reef can guarantee that the owners units will be rented out AND that the owners will be able to recoup at least their MF's, I see no reason why the rentals should  not be restricted.  If not, the owners should be allowed to rent out their units as they please as long as the Cayman tourist is being charged and collected by someone and turned over to the government.


----------



## RMitchell

Morritts and The Reef are very close together and the Morritts people depend on Tom's info during any crisis. We have trouble getting info from our reps and have to depend on a second website. Because of our dependence on Tom we have become more or less a second cousin to The Reef. This second cousin element causes any comments about The Reef or Morritts to be somewhat combined.

The Reef must be doing something right because Morritts currently has 7 units for sale on EBay at a dollar. I have never seen that kind of price tag on Reef resale.

Did anything get settled on the week rental problem?


----------



## JRS

*Rental by owner or resort only ?*

I am also not happy with resort's ability to rent out weeks for the owner - I am not a Reef owner so not targeting Tom or this resort.  It seems to me the based on different conversations is that the resort will try to rent their own weeks in inventory before an owner week, so perhaps a conflict of interest in this respect ?  I'd like to see this one debated - but not limited to the Carribean.  In one instance in particular I as an owner was supposed to have been 10th in line for available units for my week.  At about that same time called the resort, they thought I was a potential renter and indicated there were NO weeks available for the particular week that I was supposed to have available .....  hmm, then I went on to explain again my situation ......


----------



## TomCayman

JRS said:


> I am also not happy with resort's ability to rent out weeks for the owner - I am not a Reef owner so not targeting Tom or this resort.  It seems to me the based on different conversations is that the resort will try to rent their own weeks in inventory before an owner week, so perhaps a conflict of interest in this respect ?  I'd like to see this one debated - but not limited to the Carribean.  In one instance in particular I as an owner was supposed to have been 10th in line for available units for my week.  At about that same time called the resort, they thought I was a potential renter and indicated there were NO weeks available for the particular week that I was supposed to have available .....  hmm, then I went on to explain again my situation ......



Please therefore open another thread (perhaps in the buying,selling,renting forum?) to discuss this in general.... as you say, you are not referencing theReef, plus your situation could not occur with our resort, as a) our programme works on a pooled basis, so you couldn't be "10th in line", and b) I can tell you we will always do everything to rent out the last available room


----------

