More Links

Are you looking for an experienced agent to help you buy or sell a home? Contact Jim the Realtor!

(760) 434-5000

Carmel Valley
(858) 560-7700

Posted by on Dec 1, 2011 in Can You Top This?, Interesting Houses | 14 comments | Print Print

$88,000,000 Listing

From The Real Estalker:

New York-based financier Sandy Weill has already “reached an agreement with an unnamed buyer” to purchase his posh and exceedingly pricey penthouse at 15 Central Park West in New York City.

You’ll recall that Mister and Missus Weill heaved and hoed their Robert A.M. Stern-designed and Mica Ertegun-decorated 6,744 square foot penthouse with its 2,000 square foot-plus wrap around terrace on to the market a few weeks ago with a ball-busting $88,000,000 asking price. Although an agreement has (allegedly) been reached, the as yet unidentified buyer has yet to sign the proper purchase contracts, according to the New York Post, and “appears to be foreign.”

Mister Weill, the former CEO and chairman of Citigroup, has pledged to donate the proceeds of the sale to as yet unidentified charitable organizations.


  1. I read the MSM story earlier today and knew I’d recently seen the pics of that pad but couldn’t quite remember where, now I know… 😆

    She’s a hoot if taken in very small doses.

  2. The “charitable organization” sounds like a front to avoid paying taxes on the sale.

  3. “Charitable foundation” = Weill Family Foundation

  4. And using the rules in place to avoid paying taxes to the government is bad how?

  5. There are plenty of people who have that kind of money to spend freely, and that appears to be a prime lot. I’m not surprised at all that it sold quickly.

  6. Clearfund:

    If they get the benefits of its use, but pay nothing for its cost, the imputed benefit should normally be taxed.

    For example, if my wholly-controlled “charitable organization” that is also a “non profit” offers me free and exclusive use of a penthouse in New York City… yeah, that’s crooked. I don’t get taxed on the value unless the IRS catches me.

    Saying something is charitable does not make it so. I think that’s what’s being assumed here.


  7. Chuck Ponzi


    Bending the tax rules seems to have become a national “sport” — agree completely with your take on this. Examples like this property and the financial “scheme” being used with it only give fuel to the OWS movement.

  8. #6 & #7 – You are using the word “scheme” and slighting the owner of the property w/o a single shred of proof that he is doing anything even remotely close the your insinuations/accusations.

    Nowhere did it say he had the unit in a personal charity and was using it for his benefit then trying to avoid taxes.

    Focus on available facts, not your predetermined outcome of the facts to fit your desires.

  9. #8

    Take off your rose-colored glasses…there is no evidence that the penthouse was used for anything but a gain for the owner — with the added bonus of a tax dodge (of course, “using the rules in place…”).

  10. Dear Clearfund,

    Sorry, but I didn’t use “scheme” in my post, and I don’t agree with dd that this is what is happening here. There are plenty of abuses in finance, but there is no proof that this is one.

    My apologies if I didn’t properly convey that I was trying to interpret what Peter and Francois had apparently joked about above. Sorry, the lighthearted voice doesn’t come through well on the internet.

    I didn’t realize you would take it so seriously, and will refrain when in your company in the future.

    Best wishes and kind regards,

  11. I wasn’t joking. I’ve become extremely suspicious of self-serving charities after I learned how they were used for the benefit of the owner-contributor.

  12. Nothing says “hi class and expensive” more than an art deco naked lady statue.

  13. Low flat tax and no deductions. Nobody can escape that, and there is no bigotry towards the well off. Everyone is treated fairly.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.