I don't get this re: Bonds 756 ball

[Seacrest]

The IRS apparently says the guy who caught it has to pay estimated income tax on the "market" value of the ball if he keeps it, but the market value isn't set until the ball is actually sold.

So up until the point the ball is sold, I would think that the ball is worth $12.99 (or less, as it was a slightly used ball), and actually wouldn't be subject to income tax as its worth is less than $50.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs...002/SPORTS

PS: this is not a thread about steroids in baseball or the general fairness or unfairness of the Federal Income Tax itself. 'EFF the IRS' sentiments, however, are totally welcome. ;-)

[OWC Jamie]

When you get one you can certainly sell it to me for 12.99.



The key word there is "estimated".
The IRS will allow you to pay the difference when the time comes.




I'd argue the value of the ball being the cost of the game admission.
Edit: but I suppose they would argue back lottery rules.

[macphanatic]

I don't think that they have a leg to stand on in court. IIRC, they didn't do this with the balls hit by Sosa, McGuire, et al. No where in the article do they cite anyone from the IRS saying this though. I wouldn't be surprised if they told the kid this to get him to sell it.

[Seacrest]

[quote billb]
I'd argue the value of the ball being the cost of the game admission.
Edit: but I suppose they would argue back lottery rules.
Not a bad argument, but flawed.
He paid the admission to the baseball club and got value for it. The baseball club pays taxes (or not) on the profits they make from selling tickets and garlic fries.

The baseball was a 'prize' or 'gift' from the baseball club (or baseball Gods), not unlike winning a game show car. He shouldn't really pay "income" tax on it until he realizes income from it. (besides which, IMO, he should really be paying cap gains tax, not income, but WTF do I know.)


macphanatic, I think you're right.
That's why I said "apparently" since I have not heard this from the horse's (IRS officials) mouth either.

[mattkime]

I don't get it. The IRS considers it income, even if the income has been unrealized?

[AAA]

That's probably the primary reason the cops whisked him away.. was so they could identify the person to TAX. Not kidding. What if he said he was just leaving,and not identifying himself? Would he have been under arrest? Would he have had to turn over the ball? What an interesting story that would make.

[OWC Jamie]

Estimated income.

and don't be wrong by much because there is a penalty for that, too.







( I hope they're not taxing sperm donations)
((they can have a percentage))

[MGS_forgot_password]

You don't pay taxes on stock options until you exercise them, I don't see how this is any different.

[Buzz]

somebody should merely record the announcement made over the PA system before the game starts as to, "the [home team name here] invite you to keep any foul ball, home run, ground rule double hit into stands, or any ball accidently thrown into the stands as souvenir of the game..., please do not reach into the field of play and interfere with any ball still in play... yada, yada, yada..."

the announcements never discriminate about who hits what ball. you'd expect a reasonable warning of, "oh, btw, catch a famous guy's dinger instead of a journeyman utility player's, and you'll be identified and taxed up the wazoo..."

I don't get this either...

[Seacrest]

[quote billb]Estimated income.

and don't be wrong by much because there is a penalty for that, too.
Yes, I know it's ESTIMATED.
My quarrel is with how they arrive at that "estimate." (if that's what they do. that seems to be up for dispute.)
IMO, they are taxing him on potential appreciation -- which may or may not happen -- not the actual value of the ball as he caught it. If he keeps the ball, it has only the nominal market value of Rawlings official MLB balls plus his own sentimental value. Only when he sells it does one realize what real monetary value that sentimental value takes.
And if he never sells it, that presumed will fluctuate, ie: when some future event like Bonds admitting steroid use or A-Rod or another future player hits a ball that surpasses this one, the market value will change.

To me that's like taxing the assumed appreciation on one's house every year even if you don't sell it. A good analogy would be that if you sell your house today, they tax you on the highest price your house would have sold for during this recent bubble.