Why is catching a baseball taxable income?

Sorry, that's incorrect.

That started out as a small value and you added value to it. That's not the same as something you just ran across. Stu

The ruling just verified the value. It didn't create the value. The value was created by it being hit over the fence, which happened before it was caught.

Technically you're right. I don't know what a court would do with it, though. Stu

They can only deduct what they paid for it, unless they give it to charity.

Exactly.

Stu

This is an intriguing position to take, and I believe it has merit.

-- To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.

There are many tax cases that come down to a battle of the experts. The court has to decide which expert has the better opinion, or whether both are equally correct and the answer is somewhere in between.

I think it's pretty clear that, technically, it is taxable. What the IRS does about it, though, may be an entirely different matter. Stu

Moderator: In theory, yes. In practice, no.

Apropos to this discussion, Henry Aaron's record breaking 715th home run ball in 1974 landed in the Braves bullpen. It was retrieved by a Braves relief pitcher who immediately gave the ball to Aaron. (There was a celebration at home plate.)

While it is unlikely that any income tax was paid, based on what has been posited here, would the retriever be liable for same? If so, that would constitute an excellent reason for not enforcing the regulation.

Bill

OK, following your logic, the ball was worth $500K when caught. Later, the umpire rules the ball foul (or some other ruling that negates the HR). The value of the ball suddenly drops to $500.00. I assume that because the ball lost $499500.00 in value while in possession of the catcher/finder, then he can claim that amount as a loss? If not, why not? And why not the opposite - that the ball has little or no value until it actual IS a HR which only happens after the fact. Yes this is picking nits, but isn't that what taxes are all about? If the ball has instant value when it IS a HR, then how can the exact same ball under the exact same conditions have little or no value if it is NOT a HR, when the circumstances leading up the the "catch" are exactly the same. It seems to me that the determining factor that sets the value can only happen after the ball is caught.

--

-Ernie-

Would that 50,000 of gold NOT be a treasure trove?

What if it had been buried by Blackbeard, and thus acquired the status of "buried treasure"?

ChEAr$, Harlan

Ahh, just you wait, Dick Adams: JUST you wait! IOW, all dog have their day.

ChEAr$, Harlan

Moderator: It is difficult to believe a Son of the Southland could be an athletic supporter of a damn-yankee team!

No, the value was whatever it was when it went over the fence. We just didn't know what it was until the umpire made his declaration. I guess you could call it Schrödinger's baseball. I did like Seth's suggestion, though, that there really was no home run until the batter properly rounded the bases, because he could conceivably have screwed it up. If that's the case (I don't know baseball rules well enough to know for sure), then the ball really didn't have value until Bonds got back safely to home. In that case I think it would be a good argument to say that the person who caught it had a $5 baseball when he caught it, and it increased in value a few seconds later. Stu

I liked the idea that batter really hasn't gotten his home run until he rounds the bases and gets back home. Under the rules of baseball is it actually a real possibility that, once the ball goes over the fence, he won't get the home run? If so, I think it would be very reasonable to say the person who catches a ball really has nothing of value until a few seconds later when the batter gets back home. Stu

Ernie Klein wrote: ...

If in one case it is a HR and the other case it isn't, then the conditions leading to the catch are NOT the same or both will either be fair or both will be foul...

It isn't a "record-setting homerun ball" until the umpire says so. But that _could_ happen before it's caught. Seth

The retriever says "according to my morality, the ball belongs to Hank, so I returned it to him." No taxable event. Henry Aaron gained a ball worth maybe $100,000, but since he's the one who added that value, that shouldn't be a taxable event either. Seth

Gold mines don't owe taxes when they discover gold, or dig it up, but only when they sell it.

Suppose I happened to live someplace where there were diamonds around, and I found a large raw diamond while digging in my garden. Seth

Less the ticket price and other expenses, I think.

Seth

So the store manager gives a free lottery ticket to anyone who gets a red star on their cash register receipt. It has no value until the batter crosses the plate (I meant until after the lottery drawing later that day). So now I have a ticket worth $3,000,000 cash value. According to the above logic, it increased in value after I got it. WoW!!

Even if this logic were valid, the fact remains that the only reason Mr. Murphy might not be taxed on ordinary income in

Dick

"...peanuts and popcorn and Crackerjacks..."?

Bill

Just on the rules --

The batter has to touch all the bases in order on the way around as well. I'm not positive whether it requires an appeal play by the opposing team (similar to an early departure from a base after a fly ball by a baserunner) after the new ball is put into play but before the next pitch or whether it can be called by an umpire simply observing the infraction. But, there is at least one way to even get back to home plate and still not have an official homerun after hitting the ball fair out of the ballpark. This happened to our local summer league team earlier this summer -- I wasn't at the game to actually witness it and as it happened in the first or second inning and I didn't get into the house until later I don't know more than the summary of the play, not the actual details of how it transpired (hence the uncertainty of the manner of the call). And that's all I know about that... :)