Sell Jeter's ball or give it back?
- Thread starter FlabLoser
- Start date
99% of sports for the owners and players is about $$$. And that's cool - I'm the same way about my work. But to all of a sudden act like fans are supposed to be altruistic to these guys is asinine. I do think a fan in the situation should at least give the team/player the courtesy of first crack to offer a fair price.
Now, if they wanted to work something out behind the scenes, and then have the "story" be this adoring, selfless fan and the caring, generous player and owners, that's fine. Actually, that's my guess what happened here - the Yankees publicly gave the guys some chits, and I'd bet anything dude has some cash out of the deal, either from Jeter personally or the Yanks organization.
Now, if they wanted to work something out behind the scenes, and then have the "story" be this adoring, selfless fan and the caring, generous player and owners, that's fine. Actually, that's my guess what happened here - the Yankees publicly gave the guys some chits, and I'd bet anything dude has some cash out of the deal, either from Jeter personally or the Yanks organization.
student loans. I would probably cut Jeter a deal but screw giving it away for free especially if you have to pay taxes on it anyway depending on what value the IRS determines.
He is supposedly going to get hammered by the IRS. I read somewhere in the $14K range because of the price of the suite/front row tickets. <div>Also read that Jeter might pick up the tab on taxes as well...but wouldn't that would be considered another gift?</div>
care less what he did with the ball, but I do think it's admirable that he gave it back. People ***** all day long about athletes only caring about money, and then something like this happens and people ***** about him notcaring about money.
They can set a fair market price on historically significant equipment. Change their policy and have on the tickets that all equipment that lands in the stands is property of Major League Baseball and may be subject to confiscation for the fair market price set by MLB Antiquities.
They can then basically market this as a lottery. So when Jeter was going for 3,000 they could have set the market price as $150,000. They could then sell seats at a premium value when a historically significant milestone is possible at a game. Seats, that had not already been sold, that are in prime locations would be more expensive during the time of this milestone possibility.
I would also include in this program a set price of like $50 for a players first Major League Hit or HR. $100 for hit 1,000 or HR 100, 200, or 300. $200 for hit 2,000 or HR 400. $500 for HR 500. They could come up with some other things.
This way the player can have an option to get the item significant to them in a way that can be worked out between MLB and the Union and the people won't have to be faced with a decision that can be questioned as this young man just did.
They can then basically market this as a lottery. So when Jeter was going for 3,000 they could have set the market price as $150,000. They could then sell seats at a premium value when a historically significant milestone is possible at a game. Seats, that had not already been sold, that are in prime locations would be more expensive during the time of this milestone possibility.
I would also include in this program a set price of like $50 for a players first Major League Hit or HR. $100 for hit 1,000 or HR 100, 200, or 300. $200 for hit 2,000 or HR 400. $500 for HR 500. They could come up with some other things.
This way the player can have an option to get the item significant to them in a way that can be worked out between MLB and the Union and the people won't have to be faced with a decision that can be questioned as this young man just did.
He can then claim it as a tax deduction if he gives it to the Hall of Fame. Why wouldn't that work?
TBonewannabe said:
Any individual is allowed to make a gift to any other individual yearly of $13,000. That gift can be in the form of cash or property, so Jeter could step up and pay $13,000 of his tax liability legally in this instance.
These taxes alone force many people to sell these "prized baseballs" The ball is at the peak of it's value most likely when it's hit. The IRS will then value the ball at that moment and levy a tax on the receipient. The same thing happened with Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire's home run ball.
Unless people win a prize in the form of cash they typically have to sell the prize just to pay the taxes. A classmate of mine in High School won an Audi TT roadster. It was a huge deal I remember, and a big step up from her ******* car. I remember her driving it to school for like a week then they sold the car just to be able to pay the taxes
as someone with a ton of law school loans, i'd have sold the ball to jeter, the deal being (1) you pay off my student loans and (2) what amount of the taxes you can pay that'll be classified as a gift.
The gift tax only applies to the donor. Prizes and winnings are a different matter and taxed as ordinary (I think?) income.
The hairy situation is when you acquire something of value like a baseball. Nobody technically gave it to you and you certainly didn't win it. The question is, "do you owe taxes on the estimated value of the baseball once you possess it?" or "do you pay taxes once you sell it?".
I'm not sure that question has ever officially been answered by the IRS. I certainly would argue that you only owe taxes once you sell it. There is absolutely no tangible value to a baseball sitting in a private collector's basement until it's sold. The common sense/reasonable answer would be only to recognize income once you sell it. The Barry Bonds HR record ball had a lot of controversy around it with several "experts" saying that the guy owed taxes before selling, but I don't think any IRS rulings were ever sought. The guy sold the ball and paid taxes on what he received for it. Argument moot at that point.
Here, the guy essentially traded in a baseball (I assume he gave it to the Yankees, not Jeter himself) for goods/services with a verifiable FMV. That's income. He owes taxes. Jeter can gift him the tax money if he wants and I don't think the guy would incur any additional tax liability since that technically is a separate transaction. Jeter isn't giving him money in return for the baseball as the Yankees now possess it (again, assuming here). And even if the IRS somehow interpreted this as something not considered a gift - Jeter could always just gross up the amount he gives so that he has enough to cover his original tax bill after paying the taxes on this portion of his income as well.
Bottom line - guy should have just sold the damn thing and gave Jeter the right to match the best offer.
His tax liability is a capital gain (ordinary tax rates instead of capital gain rates since he held it for less than 1 year) on selling the baseball for the tickets, boxes, etc. the Yankees gave him for it. If Jeter covers the taxes for him, they could argue that that was a gift from Jeter to him, but I suspect the IRS would take the position that was additional proceeds from selling the baseball and tax that as a capital gain (again ordinary rates). If they take the position that Jeter's reimbursing him for the taxes was a gift, then it's not taxable to the recipient, and also not taxable to Jeter to the extent the gift doesn't exceed $13,000. If the gift does exceed $13,000, he wouldn't have to pay any gift tax now unless he wanted to. He could elect to have it reducehis lifetime exclusion for estate tax purposes and let his estate pay it (hopefully a long time from now).
I know it's operated privately, though unsure of their tax status.
And they don't have to be a charity to have donations be tax deductible.
And they don't have to be a charity to have donations be tax deductible.