Ball Tax

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Here's a new one for the books:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

Some of these lines kind of shocked me:

"It's an expensive catch," said John Barrie, a tax lawyer with Bryan Cave LLP in New York who grew up watching the Giants play at Candlestick Park. "Once he took possession of the ball and it was his ball, it was income to him based on its value as of yesterday,"

That would instantly put Murphy, a college student from Queens, in the highest tax bracket for individual income, where he would face a tax rate of about 35 percent, or about $210,000 on a $600,000 ball.

Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still owe the taxes based on a reasonable estimate of its value, according to Barrie. Capital gains taxes also could be levied in the future as the ball gains value, he said.

I mean, holy shit. Who determines how much the ball is worth? I don't think that should fall under the realm of taxable income, since its basically just something he could put up for auction on Ebay. I'd like to point out that taxes have already been paid on the ball... when the ball was originally purchased by the stadium. It wasn't bought or sold, it was basically given to the guy when he caught it.

Things like this kind of disgust me. It sucks all the fun out of life as anything special that happens can apparently be taxed.

[TheSpacePope]

Double taxation, we fought a war because of it, and now its happening again.
I love it.

[Demetrius]

Heh, "The homer heard 'round the world."

I think that is just crappy, honestly if the guy sees it as a collectors item and not something for selling then he shouldn't be hit on it. It wasn't purchased, it wasn't exactly given. I think the only time it should be taxed is if the guy sells it. I mean you can't exactly claim that as an asset to take a loan out with.

[Fifthfiend]

Honestly it reads to me like a scare story. Unless they can cite particular instances of people being taxed for posessing sports memorabilia their tax lawyer is blowing smoke.

I mean I'm not really an expert so if this kind of thing does actually happen I wouldn't know, but at least on its face this doesn't strike me as any different from when they ran that bunch of stories on how the government was going to start taxing item posession in World of Warcraft, which as far as I know has as yet failed to occur.

[adamark]

I'm sorta mixed on it. Imagine if I found blackbeard's buried treasure, or something. And I wanted to keep all of it just for its sentimental value. Should I be taxed?

When you think about it, nothing has any "real" value. Gold is just an element. It only has the value people assign to it. A house where you grew up has a lot of sentimental value, but we also assign a monetary value to it. The ball has sentimental value, but for convention it is calculated to have a monetary value as well.

Buuut, I also think that this is just looking at things through a capitalist world-view, which places a dollar sign next to everything. It's like calculating the worth of a human life after a disaster (like 9/11) to determine how much the family gets paid out by insurance companies. Can a human being really be given a dollar value? Can a baseball? Can the house you grew up in?

I think he should only have to pay taxes on it if he sells the ball, because by selling it he has transformed the item from a sentimental value into a monetary value.

[Major Blood]

Besides, i'm pretty sure the value of the ball is what it costed on the receipt when it was bought. So from a technical standpoint, that's what you SHOULD be paying tax on.

[Magus]

Well, no, Gold is not just an element, most world economies are (somewhat, yes) based on how much gold that country has in their Fort Knox or the royal family's vault or what have you. Sure, a lot of it is just "it's worth a dollar because it's worth a dollar" on the dollar bill, but it DOES have a backing, that is why the pound is worth twice as much as the dollar--the U.K. has craps load more of precious metal. That is why you can buy more gold for one dollar than you can one peso.

So gold is definitely worth more than a ball, it's actual money, or what backs money, or what have you. So anyway, he shouldn't have to pay the tax until he sells it and actually has the monetary value sitting in his bank, because until then it IS just a ball. Even if it was hit by Barry Bonds. I dunno...it's not like real estate or something. It's just not as solid. Not everyone would say "well that ball is really worth 600,000", but show someone some prime acreage real estate and they'd say it had WORTH, from your average American to your Indian to your Russian.

EDIT:

On the other hand, he said, if the ongoing federal investigation into steroid abuse among professional athletes takes a criminal turn for Bonds, the ball's value could go down -- which would likely allow Murphy to claim a loss.

lol now THAT would be awesome. "Guess what, IRS, I just had a 600,000 dollar loss this year. Look who's never paying taxes again! Wha-hooo!"

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Does the US still operate on gold standard? I didn' think it did.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Roy_D_Mylote

Does the US still operate on gold standard? I didn' think it did.

I don't believe it does. I forget when we stopped using the gold standard, but as far as I know the dollar isn't backed by anything anymore.

[adamark]

Even if the US operated on a gold standard, which it doesn't, Magus, you are still wrong. Gold *is* just an element. An element does not have an inherent value to it. It does has a certain rarity in the universe and on this planet.