Fair or Not Fair?

Question

The guy (Matt Murphy) who caught the record breaking homerun ball that Barry Bonds hit had to sell the ball becuase he could not afford to pay the taxes that they would levy on the estimated worth of the ball.

My question is it fair that the person who went to the game, got the ball isnt able to keep it becuase he is an average Joe. Why wouldn't they just tax him on it when he sold it. either way they get their money and it would alow him to keep a part of history for a time. The way it worked out some rich guy who would have been sitting in a luxury box if he was there now gets the ball.

They want to tax him now for money he doenst yet have saying they are estimating the cost, but if he did pay the taxes on it then sold it for more later I am sure they would tax the difference.

They said tax on it would have been in the 100's of thousands

Matt Murphy, a 21-year-old student and construction supervisor from New York, emerged from a scrum with the ball on Aug. 7. He decided to sell it, he said, because he couldn't afford the tax bill that would result from holding onto the ball.

Some tax experts said Murphy would have owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes based on a reasonable estimate of the ball's value even if he had never sold it. He may also have faced capital gains taxes as the ball gained value.

I know it was sold, but he sold it becuase of the taxes I have a link do you have a link where the top IRS guy said he didnt have to

Matt Murphy, a 21-year-old student and construction supervisor from New York, emerged from a scrum with the ball on Aug. 7. He decided to sell it, he said, because he couldn't afford the tax bill that would result from holding onto the ball.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-756ball&prov=ap&type=lgns

Answer 1

Not Fair, but when has government ever cared for the little guy, had a Senator caught the ball you'd probably never hear about any tax.

Answer 2

The whole publicity over the poor guy having to sell the ball to pay the taxes was b.s. - gee, now he's only got a lousy $600K plus (OK, after tax probably more like $400K plus - still a nice piece of change!) I'm not going to shed any tears for him. He sold it a day or two ago btw. Nobody is estimating the cost - it was a public auction, and the price is public record.

Now that he's sold it, he will owe tax, but if he hadn't, he wouldn't have, no matter what some kooky publicity-hound lawyer said so he could see his name in the paper. The IRS never said that - read back through the articles. In fact, in an earlier similar situation, the IRS commissioner (top guy) came out with an official statement saying basically that someone saying he'd be taxed whether or not he sold it was crazy.

I saw a great quote yesterday, from Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." This pretty much applies to your question on the tax status of Matt Murphy. You read that some lawyer told him he'd owe taxes, and jumped to the conclusion that the IRS was after him for it - W R O N G.

Answer 3

Not fair at all! What is after he sold and the ball value go down, will he get the different back. BTW, who came up with such a ridiculous law?!?!?

Next time any average joe should hide to avoid ball from homerun!?!?!? Ridiculous

p/s I hope Judy is correct with the IRS's quote "crazy"

Answer 4

I say not fair. It was given to him (by catching) and has no value until he actually sells it. And why sell the ball? He could just as easily have donated it to the Baseball Museum and then been free of any tax.

Answer 5

That is completely wrong. Ypou cannot be assessed tax on unrealized income. The taxes are only due upon sale. You got the wrong info.