Show All » 2010 » February
Saturday, February 13, 2010Anoka MN Homes for Sale
The city of Anoka, Minnesota has had a significant increase in the quality and profitability of it’s housing market, along with an increase in affordable housing, in the month of January 2010 as compared to January 2009. This may generally be seen as evidence towards a growing trend of “bottoming out” in the housing market as the credit collapse comes to a close and the surplus quantity of homes on the market begins to meet demand. It should be noted that, while nowhere near the sky-high levels of a few years ago, Anoka houses are now closing in less time, for less money, in higher levels of frequency.The first and most telling number is that new listings in Anoka decreased 34.6% as compared to the same month last year, which indicates that there is less of a glut of houses entering the market, giving the market more of an opportunity to bleed of existing supply. This is also reflected in the fact that the average number of days between when a house is first listed and when it sells has decreased from an agonizingly high 131 days to a much more reasonable 69 days, a drop of over 47%. This indicates that the housing market has largely stepped out of it’s free fall, and while 69 days is still a historically long time for a house to remain on the market, it is much closer to expected norms than 131.
The most hopeful number, however, is that the percentage of closed sales has increased 80% when compared to January of 2009. This indicates that more houses are ending with sale of the property as opposed to the property being abandoned or falling into bank ownership. However, this may be due to the fact that housing prices have dropped almost 25% within the past year. While certainly good to first-time home buyers and new homeowners, this means that property values are dropping and that many persons who sought to make their home an investment are receiving much less from the sale than they had hoped. However, since on average a seller receives 92.1% of the asking price, it appears that most persons who are selling their home at least receive most of what they expect to get for the sale. This seems to indicate that prices have now met market demand and may in fact be helping to spur sales.
Posted By: Ryan O'Neill @ 1:07:16 PM Top
Show All » 2010 » January
Saturday, January 30, 2010Help With Foreclosure Confusion - Minnesota
Late this week Minnesota Public Radio ran a story about how national research firm RealtyTrac's foreclosure information in the Twin Cities was being disputed by Minnesota housing experts. In the story, foreclosure numbers published by RealtyTrac in the Twin Cities for 2009 were double the amount of actual foreclosures.
In an attempt to determine if the story has any validity, today we're examining a very specific segment of the market: Hennepin county. Hennepin is the most populous county in Minnesota with an estimated 1 out of every 5 Minnesotans residing inside the county.
According to RealtyTrac, during 2009 in Hennepin County there were 9,778 foreclosures. Cross-referencing the figure above with HousingLink, a nonprofit Minneapolis-based organization that claimed RealtyTrac's numbers were too high, led to incomplete information which led to more digging.
HousingLink only has foreclosure numbers for Hennepin county up to the third quarter. The foreclosure figure for Hennepin county in quarters one and two was 2,722. In quarter three the number of foreclosures was 1,447. The combined number of foreclosures for quarters one through three was 4,169.
Looking for another figure, we searched the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office for the number of foreclosures in 2009. The total number of foreclosures according to the Sheriff's office was 4,852. The total number of foreclosures for Hennepin county is likely to be slightly higher than the Sheriff's offices' figures simply because they were only reporting on foreclosures up 'til December 4, 2009.
Of the three figures examined, HousingLink and the Sheriff's office seem the most reliable.
There are a lot of different housing figures constantly being generated and it's not always easy it determine which numbers are correct. If you've got questions, the first person you should talk to is a Realtor you trust. Not sure whom you can talk to? Consider attending a free mn first time homebuyer class where you can have your questions answered by a professional that's working in the field. These classes are great opportunities to meet a number of different real estate agents to begin building a professional relationship.
If you are a first-time investor and have considered purchasing a foreclosed property to start generating income, your head may be spinning because of all the numbers and figures in this post! Fear not! If you're looking to purchase a foreclosure as a minnesota investment property, you're going to need an experienced Realtor that knows all of the intricacies of foreclosed properties.
If you're looking to buy, remember you've only got until April until the homebuyer credit runs out!
Top
Show All » 2010 » January
Sunday, January 24, 2010St. Paul Real Estate Market Update
The city of St. Paul is Minnesota's second most populated city in the state and is home to many attractions. While we anxiously wait to see how buyers and sellers started 2010, today in honor of St. Paul's Winter Carnival celebration we're reflecting on the housing market in Minnesota's capital city.
The number of single-family homes in December 2008 was 1,622 homes on market, 399 being new listings. December 2009 saw the total number of homes on the market drop 29.2% to 1,148. Likewise the townhouse and condo inventories saw an 18.9% decrease between December 2008's 429 units and December 2009's 348 units. New market listings in December '09 were down 19% to 323 over the previous year. This change for new market listings follows the year-to-date trend: 6,859 in 2008 down 8.6% in 2009 to 6,268.
Closed sales for December 2009 slipped slightly while closings year-to-date saw an increase. In December '08 and year-end of 2008, the numbers of closed sales were 228 and 3,059 respectively. Closed sales for December '09 slipped 7.9% to 210 with the year-to-date at 3,893 closings, a 27.3% increase over the previous year.
The average sales price for December 2008 to December 2009 decreased from $138,084 to $136,126 in 2009. The average sales price for the year-to-date decreased 16.5% from $170,040 to $142,013 in 2008 and 2009 respectively. However, the percent of sellers receiving the original list price increased 7.7% from December 2008's 88.4% to 95.1% in December '09. For the year-to-date in 2009, 92.8% percent of sellers in St. Paul received the original listing price (not accounting for previous listing prices), which increased slightly by 3.3%.
The average number of days a home sat on the market decreased by 23.5% from 142 days in December 2008 to 108 days in December 2009. The year-to-date average also fell by 10.5% from 141 days to 126 days.
With St. Paul's many charming neighborhoods, schools, universities, and cultural amenities, this city is guaranteed to feel like home. You may need help finding the right location, which is what the MN Real Estate Team excels at! First time homebuyers often have many questions and aren’t sure where to find the answers, but the Minnesota Real Estate Team help answer any question in a casual setting with their various seminars. In addition, as you search for properties, you can have an actual realtor search the mn mls for you. Only a licensed realtor can access the MLS but you can certainly search for properties at our team's websites.
Posted By: Ryan O'Neill @ 6:22:56 PMTop
Show All » 2010 » January
Tuesday, January 19, 2010New Home Buyer Credit
New Homebuyer Credit Form 5405 Released
The IRS released the updated Form 5405 that is to be used to claim the First Time Homebuyer Credit under the revised rules. The IRS is expected to begin processing these forms in mid-February. Qualifying homebuyers can now start to file their 2009 tax returns.
Note: No EFiling allowed. Taxpayers claiming the homebuyer credit must file a paper tax return because of the added documentation requirements.
When will I get my refund? For those taxpayers that are able to file early may see tax refunds take an additional two to three weeks.
In addition to filling out a Form 5405, all eligible homebuyers must include with their 2009 tax returns one of the following documents in order to receive the credit:
- A copy of the settlement statement
- For a newly constructed home where a settlement statement is not available, a copy of the certificate of occupancy showing the owner's name, property address and date of the certificate.
For taxpayers claiming the $6,500 credit (homeowners who have lived in their home 5 consecutive years out of the past 8 years) must also show documentation. The IRS encourages homebuyers claiming this part of the credit to avoid refund delays by attaching documentation covering the five-consecutive-year period:
- Form 1098, Mortgage Interest Statement,
- Property tax records, or
- Homeowner's insurance records.
In general, it takes about four to eight weeks to get a refund claimed on a complete and accurate paper return where all required documents are attached. For those homebuyers filing early, the IRS expects the first refunds based on the homebuyer credit will be issued toward the end of March. By having your refund directly deposited will help speed up this process.
For additional resources taxpayers can go to the IRS website at www.IRS.gov. Here they can look at FAQs on the Homebuyer Credit and also check the status on their refund claim by clicking under “Where’s My Refund?”
Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses.
Greg Nelson, CPA, MBT
Principal
Olsen Thielen CPAs & Consultants
952.941.9242
Posted By: Ryan O'Neill @ 1:19:30 PMTop
Show All » 2010 » January
Thursday, January 07, 2010Passive Activity Loss
Revenue Notice 2010-13
Passive Activity Loss (PAL) groupings/regroupings must be reported to IRS
Effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 25, 2010
====================================================================
Who does this affect? In general…..
-Taxpayers with many trades/ businesses that want to act as one economic unit;
-Trades/businesses that want to combine rental activities as one economic unit
-These new rules don't apply to the rental real estate activities of persons or entities who have made the election relating to real estate professionals.
=====================================================================
A new notice requires taxpayers to report to IRS their groupings and regroupings of activities and the addition of specific activities within their existing groupings of activities for purposes of the passive activity loss (PAL) rules. The new rules are effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 25, 2010.
Background. Deductions from passive trade or business activities, to the extent they exceed income from all such passive activities (exclusive of portfolio income), may not offset other income.
Disallowed losses and credits are treated as deductions and credits allocable to the activity in the next tax year (i.e. carried over)
Sometimes it is beneficial for taxpayers to group their passive activities together in order to materially participate and deduct the losses currently.
The PAL rules under IRS Code 469 are very complex and intertwined.
In general, once a taxpayer has grouped its activities, it can't regroup them in subsequent tax years. However, if IRS determines that a taxpayer's original grouping was clearly inappropriate, or if a material change in the facts and circumstances has occurred that makes the original grouping clearly inappropriate, the taxpayer must regroup the activities and must comply with the disclosure requirements that IRS may prescribe.
The new rules require a statement with specific information to be filed with respect to these events:
New groupings- A taxpayer must file a written statement with his original return for the first tax year in which two or more trade or business activities or rental activities are originally grouped as a single activity or as separate activities.
Addition of new activities to existing groupings- Whenever a taxpayer adds a new trade or business activity or a rental activity to an existing grouping within a tax year, he must file a written statement with his original return for the tax year in which the new trade or business activity or rental activity is added to the existing grouping. Besides other required information, the statement must contain a declaration that the activities constitute an appropriate economic unit for the measurement of gain or loss.
Regrouping- If it is determined that the taxpayer's original grouping was clearly inappropriate or a material change in the facts and circumstances has occurred that makes the original grouping clearly inappropriate, the taxpayer must regroup the activities and file a written statement with his original return for the tax year in which the regrouping occurs. For activities regrouped into a single activity, the statement must in addition to other required information contain: (1) a declaration that the regrouped activities constitute an appropriate economic unit for the measurement of gain or loss; and (2) an explanation of why the taxpayer's original grouping was determined to be clearly inappropriate or the nature of the material change in the facts and circumstances that makes the original grouping clearly inappropriate.
Where no reporting is required- Reporting isn't required for:
Partnerships and S corporations, which must instead comply with the disclosure instructions for grouping activities provided for on Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income and Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, respectively. Generally, compliance with the applicable form requires disclosing the entity's groupings to the partner or shareholder by separately stating the amounts of income and loss for each grouping conducted by the entity on attachments to the entity's annual Schedule K-1.
Preexisting groupings, namely groupings of trade or business activities and rental activities that were made before Jan. 25, 2010 (but reporting will be required if the taxpayer makes a change to the grouping).
Failure to report- In general, if a taxpayer fails to report a grouping, then each trade or business activity or rental activity is treated as having been grouped as a separate activity for purposes of applying the passive activity loss and credit limitation rules. However, a timely disclosure is deemed to have been made by a taxpayer who has filed all affected income tax returns consistent with the claimed grouping of activities and makes the required disclosure on the income tax return for the year in which the failure to disclose is first discovered by the taxpayer. If the failure to disclose is first discovered by IRS, however, the taxpayer must also have reasonable cause for not making the required disclosures.
Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses.
Greg Nelson, CPA, MBT
Principal
Olsen Thielen CPAs & Consultants
952.941.9242
Top
Show All » 2010 » January
Wednesday, January 06, 2010Twin Cities Foreclosure Stats
As the local and national economy continues to recover, foreclosure rates are speculated to rise in 2010. Disappearing labor markets responsible for high unemployment rates and adjustable-rate-mortgages (ARMs) resetting higher may ultimately contribute to the increase in foreclosures. Today we’ll compare foreclosure numbers in the Twin Cities during November 2008 and November 2009.
Top
Show All » 2009 » October
Monday, November 09, 2009FIRST TIME HOME BUYER CREDIT-EXTENDED AND EXPANDED
The “Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009”
Effective November 7, 2009, there are new law changes that go into effect for qualifying for the Homebuyer Credit. Note that this extends the first time homebuyer credit (FTHTC) and also allows a credit for homeowners who are (1) higher-income taxpayers and (2) to existing homeowners who are qualifying “long-time residents” and who buy another principal residence. However, for the first time there will be a dollar cap on residences qualifying for the FTHTC.
FTHTC extended: The FTHTC is extended to apply to a principal residence purchased by the taxpayer before May 1, 2010. The FTHTC also applies to the purchase of a principal residence before July 1, 2010 by any taxpayer who enters into a written binding contract before May 1, 2010, to close on the purchase of a principal residence before July 1, 2010.
FTHTC available to higher income taxpayers:. For purchases after November 6th, 2009 the FTHTC phases out for individual taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income (AGI) between $125,000 and $145,000 ($225,000 and $245,000 for joint filers) for the year of purchase (it was $75,000 for Single filers and $150,000 for Joint filers).
FTHTC available for existing long term homeowners: For purchases after November 6th, 2009, any individual (and, if married, the individual's spouse) who has maintained the same principal residence for any 5-consecutive year period during the 8-year period ending on the date of the purchase of their new principal residence qualifies for the FTHTC. The maximum allowable credit for such taxpayers is $6,500 ($3,250 for a married individual filing separately
FTHTC home price limitation: For purchases after November 6th, 2009, the FTHTC cannot be claimed for buying a residence if its purchase price exceeds $800,000. Note that this is a “cliff credit” which means a purchase price that exceeds the $800,000 threshold by even a single dollar will cause the loss of the entire credit.
OTHER NOTABLE CHANGES/ ANTI -ABUSE RULES:
- The taxpayer may elect to treat a home purchase after 2008 as made on Dec. 31 of the calendar year preceding the purchase for purposes of claiming the credit on the prior year's tax return.
- For purchases after November 6th, 2009, the FTHTC can't be claimed unless the taxpayer has attained 18 years of age as of the date of purchase. A taxpayer who is married is treated as meeting the age requirement if the taxpayer or his spouse meets the age requirement.
- For purchases after November 6th, 2009, the FTHTC can't be claimed by a taxpayer if he can be claimed as a dependent by another taxpayer for the tax year of purchase.
- For 2009 tax returns the FTHTC is not allowed unless the taxpayer attaches to their tax return a copy of the settlement statement used to complete the purchase.
- The Act extends the FTHTC for an additional year, and waives recapture provisions, for individuals who are on qualified official extended military duty., as amended by Act Sec. 11(e))
Greg I. Nelson, CPA, MBT
Olsen Thielen CPAs
Top
Show All » 2009 » October
Tuesday, October 06, 2009Mortgage Interest Limitation
The $1 Million Dollar Mortgage Interest Limitation has potential new meaning with recent Chief Counsel Advice
Chief Counsel Advice 200940030 (10/08/2009)
IRS Chief Counsel recently advised that indebtedness incurred by taxpayer to acquire, construct, or substantially improve qualified residence can constitute home equity indebtedness to extent it exceeds $1 million.
TAX LAW BACKGROUND
Currently taxpayers can deduct home mortgage interest if they fall into one of two categories consisting of 1) interest paid on acquisition indebtedness or 2) interest paid on home equity indebtedness. Acquisition indebtedness is indebtedness to acquire, construct, or substantially improve a residence, but the amount treated as acquisition indebtedness cannot exceed $1 million. Home equity indebtedness is indebtedness other than acquisition indebtedness, but the amount treated as home equity indebtedness cannot exceed $100,000.
SITUATION
Facts: Taxpayer buys a principal residence for $1,500,000, paying $200,000 in cash and borrowing the remaining $1,300,000 through a loan that is secured by the residence.
Question: Can $100,000 of Taxpayer's indebtedness in excess of $1 million qualify as home equity indebtedness or is the taxpayer limited to the $1 million cap? If yes; then interest on up to $1.1 million of the debt would be deductible ($1 million of acquisition indebtedness and $100,000 of home equity indebtedness).
The Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum determined that the taxpayer would qualify for a mortgage interest deduction based on the combined $1.1 million dollar cap. This position is contrary to previous Tax Court Memos (Pau v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-43 and Catalano v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-82). To the extent it becomes the “official” position of IRS there would be little reason for a court to again address the issue.
Note: This Chief Counsel Advice responds to an issue under a specific consideration. This advice may not be used or cited as precedent.
Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses.
Top
Show All » 2009 » May
Wednesday, July 15, 2009Attention Florida Rental Property Owners:
Casualty Loss resulting from Chinese Drywall damage
Casualty loss deductions would ease the financial pain of faulty Chinese drywall
Responding to legislators' requests that IRS clarify whether damage caused by defective Chinese drywall can result in a casualty loss deduction, IRS Associate Chief Counsel George Blaine has responded with a conditional “yes.” The damage would be deductible as a casualty loss under Internal Revenue Code 163(h) but only if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) determine that the defective drywall is the source of unusual damage.
Background. To qualify as a casualty loss, a loss must result from a destructive force, such as a fire, shipwreck, automobile collision, hurricane or other storm, flood or similar event.Personal casualty losses are subject to a $100-per-casualty floor and the 10%-of-AGI limitation. Business casualty losses are not subject to any limitations (Rental Properties)
Court decisions and revenue rulings have developed the overall concept that the term casualty refers to an identifiable event of a sudden, unexpected, or unusual nature. Suddenness is an essential element of a casualty. To be sudden, the event must be one that is swift and precipitous and not gradual or progressive. Progressive deterioration of property through a steadily operating cause isn't a casualty loss.
Chinese drywall problem. At the height of the U.S. building boom (largely in Southwest Florida), a scarcity of domestically made drywall resulted in the importation of large quantities of Chinese-made drywall, which was installed in an estimated 100,000 living units. Many news reports have surfaced to the effect that the Chinese drywall is defective, and due to the chemicals it emits, is causing health, as well as construction problems.
Please consult your tax advisor if you feel this may apply to your situation and to the treatment of these losses.
Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses.
Greg Nelson, CPA | Principal | Olsen Thielen & Co. Ltd. | Flagship Corporate Center | 775 Prairie Center Dr. Ste. 480 | Minneapolis, MN 55344 | Phone: 952-829-3402 | Fax: 952-941-0577 | www.otcpas.com
Top
Show All » 2009 » May
Tuesday, June 02, 2009No deduction for costs before real estate business actually began; training classes nondeductible
Thomas J. Woody, TC Memo 2009-93
Thinking about starting a business in real estate? Dot your 'i's and cross your "t's ! A recent Tax Court decision deals with a taxpayer who spent big money to get into the real estate business but wasn't entitled to deduct his expenses for a couple of reasons 1) because they were incurred before his business began and 2) because they were incurred for a new career as such deemed nondeductible educational expenses.
Background. To be deductible under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 162, ordinary and necessary business expenses must be directly connected with or pertain to the taxpayer's trade or business. The entity must be functioning as a business when the expenses are incurred. Until the business is functioning as a going concern, expenses related to it are not ordinary and necessary expenses but, rather, startup expenses that may be deductible over a period of time under IRC 195 .
Facts. In 2004, Thomas J. Woody started investigating the real estate market so that he could buy properties for investment or rental purposes. He created a name for his venture (Value Property Investments) and began marketing his services via business cards, flyers, and word of mouth. In May 2004, Mr. Woody completed a business outline for his venture with “buying, remodeling, and renting property” being its stated purpose. On Oct. 17, 2004, Woody paid $21,490 to the Wealth Intelligence Academy for certain training classes, which he subsequently attended to acquire real estate investment skills. After taking the courses, his business plan shifted from merely buying, remodeling, and renting to also include what Woody referred to as “flipping” or “wholesaling.” However, he never completed this type of transaction during 2004. In November of 2004, he got a loan from the U.S. Small Business Administration and got an employer identification number from IRS. In December of 2004, he got a credit card in the name of “Thomas J. Woody Value Property Invest” and opened a checking account in the name of “Mr. Thomas J. Woody D/B/A Value Property Investments.”
Despite his efforts, Woody didn't actually engage in any real estate activity until Dec. 30, 2004, when he bought an investment property. He didn't succeed in renting it out until 2005.
On his 2004 tax return Woody reported $23,373 of expenses on Schedule C, consisting of the cost of his training classes (the majority of $21,515) and expenses for car expenses, supplies, meals and entertainment, and computer and software costs.
IRS disallowed Woody's claimed Schedule C deductions on the ground that he wasn't engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business and determined an income tax deficiency of $4,955. Woody appealed to the Tax Court.
No business deductions until business actually commences. The Tax Court pointed out that in determining whether a trade or business exists, the courts have examined: (1) whether the taxpayer undertook the activity intending to earn a profit; (2) whether the taxpayer was regularly and actively involved in the activity; and (3) whether the taxpayer's activity actually commenced. The Tax Court found the third factor to be determinative in Woody's case. Until he actually began to buy, remodel, or rent— i.e., to perform the activities for which he organized Value Property Investments—he was not carrying on a trade or business for IRC 162 purposes. And until that time, none of his expenses could be claimed as IRC 162 expenses. The Tax Court found that Woody's activities did not rise to the level of a trade or business until, at the earliest, the time he purchased investment property on Dec. 30, 2004, and more likely, did not rise to that level until he held the property out for rent sometime after the close of 2004. If the earliest possible date he was actively carrying on a trade or business was Dec. 30, 2004, then any expenses incurred in that year but incurred before the active trade or business began would be, by definition start-up expenses rather than ordinary and necessary business expenses.
The Tax Court pointed out that Woody's largest expenditure in 2004—$21,515 for workshops and training—was an educational expense incurred to prepare for a new career, i.e., real estate investor and renter, rather than to maintain or improve skills in an ongoing business or career. It was therefore not deductible under IRC 162 nor would of been if classified as a start up expense.
Note: The treatment of start-up costs were different in 2004 where there had to be an election filed with the taxpayers return. The regulations changed in October of 2004 eliminating this election however, only a very small portion of Woody's expenses were incurred after that date and wouldn't have helped him much. Even if Woody had paid for his educational expenses after Oct. 22, 2004, he couldn't have amortized the cost as start-up under IRC 195. A start-up expense must be one that, if paid or incurred in connection with the operation of an existing active trade or business (in the same field as the taxpayer's new business), would be deductible for the year in which paid or incurred. Because the educational expenses would not have been deductible under ordinary and necessary, they could not have been amortized as start-expenses.
Greg Nelson CPA, MBT
Olsen Thielen, CPAs
Top
Next » |
Last »» |
Records 1 to 10 of 31 |
