This guy Matt should be able to keep the ball without paying any tax. Have the American Goverment gone Communist?
2007-08-24 22:59:38 · 6 answers · asked by riljoy 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
It's under the same rationale that if you won a car in a raffle or had it given to you by your boss as part of your compensation package, you would have to pay taxes on its estimated value. He acquired something of substantial value without paying for it, which means that he had income. Whether the law is fair is debatable, but the IRS is definitely applying the law correctly, and if they didn't make a point about enforcing the taxes on this guy, they would be opening up a giant loophole for all sorts of other people, which would end up costing us ordinary taxpayers without access to these loopholes a lot of money in the long run.
2007-08-24 23:12:37 · answer #1 · answered by Thomas M 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Isn't it funny that immediately after the game, Matt spoke to reporters and told them that he had made a deal with his buddy that if one of them caught the ball, they would split whatever they made from the sale of it, 51% to the guy that caught it, 49% to the other guy. Does this sound ike a person who wanted to keep the ball to show his grandchildren? Not to me it doesn't. You'll also notice that the so called experts on this have different opinions, but the IRS has not come out and said that they will tax him on any assessed value of the ball if he should decide to keep it. It's odd too that this has not come up before. Nobody ever came out and said this stuff about McGwire's 70th home run ball.This guy also said that he hopes someone buys it to give to the Hall of Fame, but if he were to do that, he would not be taxed on any value of the ball. This guy's just looking for sympathy, and to be honest with you, it's real hard for me to sympathize with a guy who's going to end profiting hundreds of thousands of dollars because a baseball happened to come his way. Keep in mind that this guy isn't some poor schmuck barely making ends meet, he obviously had enough money to be taking a trip to Australia, and he had enough money to buy tickets to the game, probably at way over face value. This is a classic case of someone getting their 15 minutes of fame, and wanting more. I can't wait for him to just sell the damn thing, take his money and move on with his life.
2007-08-25 09:29:55 · answer #2 · answered by artistictrophy@sbcglobal.net 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I understand this rationale of taxation due to possession of somethign that you received without paying for and it has value that you could acquire, blah blah blah.
Answer me this...why have we not heard of this until now. I don't remember anyone mentioning anything like this when McGwire hit the home run to pass Maris, or when Bonds hit the home run to pass McGwire.
And if they want to be consistent, shouldn't they tax anyone that catches a foul ball. They are worth 4 or 5 bucks and that person could sell it for a profit, so they should have to pay the feds like 25 cents or something.
2007-08-25 08:57:34 · answer #3 · answered by d7602002 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Between Bonds and the ball, they're both worth about $.10
2007-08-25 10:59:08 · answer #4 · answered by Mark G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. The tax burden should be on MLB who must pay Gift Tax on the ball given to this fan.
2007-08-25 07:42:44 · answer #5 · answered by jasonpickles 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
interesting argument. but possession is 9/10 of the law. and he has the ball and has to pay the tax.
seems to be clear cut to me.
2007-08-25 08:23:57 · answer #6 · answered by Michael M 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋