Re: Why is catching a baseball taxable income?

True, it's taxable upon receipt.

But what is the value of the ball that Barry Bonds hit for the record setting homerun when reciept was established? Has it been determined if Murphy was in receipt of the ball before or after Barry Bonds crossed homeplate. I believe that it could be sucessfully argued that if Bonds had not crossed home plate before Murphy was in receipt of the ball, the value of the ball was no different than any other baseball hit into the stands, So it is critical to determine if receipt of the ball was before or after Bond crossed homeplate for tax purposes before consiudering any tax implications of acquiring the historic ball. There are rules in baseball and there is the Internal Revenue Code and the rules of baseball cannot be ignored in this case. Cheers,

WDK

Moderator: You are misquoting me. I referred to something else as taxable upon receipt.

To the best of my knowlege, the value of the ball has yet to be established. Your question about the timing of crossing home plate is at best frivilous. There is only obvious rules in Baseball applicable here would be if he failed to touch a base, passed a runner while rounding the bases, or ran the bases backwards. Since there has been no appeal, those issues are moot. There are provisions in the IRC for taxing the acquisition of wealth by chance. They have never been applied to catching an historic home run ball.

> > > > > > > > >
Reply to
KEBSCHULLW
Loading thread data ...

We can assume half a million or so for argument's sake.

Why? Isn't what matters the value at the instant of acquisition?

And since he might have done those *after* acquisition, at the time of acquisition the ball was only *potentially* a record-setting homerun ball.

If I win a raffle for a rare coin worth $500, I owe tax on $500 of income (less the cost of the raffle ticket). If a month later that coin grows in value to $50,000 (my henchmen scratched up the only other mint copies of it around), I still only owe taxes on $500. Seth

Reply to
Seth

Actually that's a pretty creative argument. Under baseball rules, just because a ball is hit out of the park doesn't mean it will necessarily be a home run? I don't know what a court would do with that argument, but it is certainly worth making. In fact it's the best argument I've heard that the ball is not taxable to the person who catches it at that time. Stu

Reply to
Stuart Bronstein

When I went to work for my uncle in his nit picking business, he told me there were some nits not worth picking and some nuts whose nits should be picked. He also said if I learned well, the Governor might appoint me to a Judgeship. The point being that Judges needs to know which nits and nuts are worth a Judge's time.

Dick

Reply to
Dick Adams

As was mentioned, there are some things the runner can do to mess up (forget to touch a base for instance), there are also things the fans can do to mess up a home run (IIRC the name correctly Steve Bartman comes to mind to Cubs fans). There are probably at least 3-4 decision points before it is official, going over the wall would just be the first.

This doesn't negate the taxes, just gives a different take on the what taxes would be owed. It would also probably impact the basis for reselling.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Sometimes even Supreme Court judges get it very wrong. For example Dickman v. Commissioner 465 U.S. 330 (1984) where the Court decided that what the tax code said couldn't possibly be what Congress meant to say, so they came up with a rule they thought was reasonable in spite of code provisions directly to the contrary.

formatting link
Stu

Reply to
Stuart Bronstein

Do you mean that, assuming that's the law, it wouldn't negate the ball catcher's responsibility to claim taxable income at that time? It seems to me that if he caught the ball when there was still a reasonable risk that ball would not be a home run ball, and a few seconds later it did, that he acquired it with a low basis (which would be taxable) and left the park with a capital gain. If Picasso gives you a painting worth $100,000 and then he dies, making it then worth $1,000,000, when do you recognize the additional $900,000? Stu

Reply to
Stuart Bronstein

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.