Your take: Should Yankees fan be taxed?
Christian Lopez may face a big tax bill on the largesse he received after returning Derek Jeter's baseball.
One of the big stories in Major League Baseball this year was Derek Jeter getting his 3,000th hit. After a lot of anticipation, a trip to the 15-day disabled list for his calf, and a monstrous 5-for-5 day, the milestone was his when the Yankees shortstop blasted his first home run in Yankee Stadium this year, on July 9.
What makes it more amazing is that the person who caught it, Christian Lopez, gave it back. For his kindness, and passing up probably $250,000 according to some estimates, he gets four seats to every game for the rest of the season, signed merchandise, and the opportunity to meet Jeter. A quarter of a million dollars is a lot of money, but remember, these are die-hard fans and he wins the adoration of a lot of people too.
Unfortunately, if the seats and the memorabilia aren't considered gifts, he'll have to pay about $14,000 in taxes on it. To his credit, Lopez has said he'll pay whatever he's supposed to pay. Post continues after video.
I personally think that he should have to pay taxes on it. That's just how the system works. However, I also thought that MLB or the Yankees should give him enough cash to cover it. (Since then, a bunch of folks have seized the opportunity to help pay the taxes, his student loans, etc.) (Do you have too much debt? Try MSN Money's calculator.)
It's a lot like when Oprah Winfrey gave away all those cars. She gave away 276 Pontiac G6 cars to her audience and anyone who got one owed $7,000 in taxes on the sticker price of $28,500. In that case, Oprah and Pontiac didn't pay the taxes (paying out an additional $1.93 million to cover taxes does seem a little too generous) but Oprah did learn her lesson and in her all-expenses-paid Australian trip giveaway, she did pay for the taxes.
What do you think?
More on Bargaineering and MSN Money:
"I personally think that he should have to pay taxes on it. That's just how the system works. However, I also thought that MLB or the Yankees should give him enough cash to cover it."
But then wouldn't that cahs also be considered a "gift" and he would have to pay taxes on that as well? Then what? They should give him more to cover the taxes on that second "gift" as well? Doesn't this become an upwards spiral?
I personally think it is stupid to tax a man on the value of a ball not sold but simply bartered for other products. The ball is worth a couple dollars. Period. People only assume that it is worth much more but unless it is sold no one knows. The Yankees gave him some several nice things for that couple dollar baseball. If you go by simple logic then those items, if considered equal value, cannot be considered worth more than the ball. Again, a couple dollars.
This is just government trying to find another money hole to dip in to in order to cover the fact that it doesn't know what the heck it is doing with the trillions of dollars it already recieves and squanders those dollars on a daily basis.
I would interpret the items he received as a gift from the team. A big, generous thank you. He didn't ask for anything. He didn't hold the ball hostage to get something for it. He received those items after he turned the ball over.
So if the IRS concludes the baseball is worth a million dollars he should get a million dollar deduction for giving it to Jeter and Jeter should have to pay income tax on it ! Man.....the IRS is a bunch of bloodsuckers !
First off, I think that if one catches a ball the ball should not be taxed and the basis of the ball should be zero dollars.
If the guy later sells the ball, then all of the proceeds would be capital gains and taxed as such.
As far as this situation goes, he disclaimed the ball, so the ball is a red herring. The stuff he got a gifts and the team should pay a gift tax on that stuff. He should pay nothing.
This is an example of how doing something good or as some call the right thing the person doing the good act is punished. After all of this who will do the right thing? The stinking ball is only worth about 5.00. The ball is worthless until it is sold! This is why the goverment is such trouble - they have no clue how things really work!
He should have sold the ball to Jeter for $250,000 pay the taxes and then buy 4 season tickets and all memorablia he wants and still have some cash left. Jeter has enough money to pay half million for the stinking ball.
What if, as a Yankees fan, he just wanted to keep the ball as a most prized memento? He never plans to sell it, he just wants his grandkids to see it on the mantle for years to come? Why should he have to pay taxes on the estimated price he could sell it for if he did sell it? Its not actually worth anything if he does not sell it. In that case the person should be taxed if/when they sell it.
Since he gave the ball back..he has the write off...2 can play that game!
The tax on the "gifts" should be paid by the Yankees.
End of story!
JJ - as I understand it, the tax he has to pay isn't on the ball he gave away, but on all the stuff he got in exchange. And yes, they could give him the money to pay taxes on that, and increase it enough so that he can pay the taxes on the money they gave him as well.
I'm with the author, I think he should have to pay, but I think the Yankees should pony up the dough for the taxes and what he'd have to pay in taxes for the cash he'd receive.
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
Joe Cantrell says he faces charges after trying to take advantage of the retailer's policy.