Bonds' 756th ball going to auction...owner cant afford to keep it - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

transplant99 · 08-22-2007, 01:31 PM

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

octothorp · 08-22-2007, 01:41 PM

Probably a good idea to sell it now. The really valuable ball will be the last one that Bonds hits in his career, which becomes the new record mark; once that ball becomes available, this one will probably drop in value. If Bonds were to announce today that he's retiring immediately, the #760 homerun ball would instantly become more valuable than #756.

Burninator · 08-22-2007, 01:44 PM

The 21-year-old New York man said Tuesday he had no choice but to sell the ball — several people told him he would be taxed on the souvenir just for holding on to it.

"It wasn't hard. It was simple math. I'm upset by the decision I had to make," Murphy said. "I wanted to keep it. I'm young. I don't have the bank account. ... It would have cost me a lot more to keep it."

What a groin cash grab by the government.

habernac · 08-22-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

The 21-year-old New York man said Tuesday he had no choice but to sell the ball — several people told him he would be taxed on the souvenir just for holding on to it.

"It wasn't hard. It was simple math. I'm upset by the decision I had to make," Murphy said. "I wanted to keep it. I'm young. I don't have the bank account. ... It would have cost me a lot more to keep it."

What a groin cash grab by the government.

yeah, sounds like a bunch of crap to me. How can they arbitrarily assign any value to the ball whatsoever?

the_only_turek_fan · 08-22-2007, 02:12 PM

How the hell can you get taxed on a souvenir? Grabbing baseballs is not a source of income?

Bobblehead · 08-22-2007, 02:23 PM

The taxation sounds like BS.

If it were true then the value would need to be estimated every year and he could take a gain or loss on it accordingly.
Every person holding stocks would need to declare the value every year.

That whole idea doesn't wash.

Bench Warmer · 08-22-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

The taxation sounds like BS.

If it were true then the value would need to be estimated every year and he could take a gain or loss on it accordingly.
Every person holding stocks would need to declare the value every year.

That whole idea doesn't wash.

I actually heard this on a sports talk show (might've PTI) a few days ago. Apparently, the US government can assign value to something of this nature and charge taxes on it - similar in a way to how they charge taxes on lottery winnings (i.e. - charging taxes on found money basically and catching that ball is basically like finding money in their eyes). The whole concept of taxing a baseball perceived to be $XX in the government's eyes is totally stupid IMO but they apparently can/will do it.

Bobblehead · 08-22-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bench Warmer

I actually heard this on a sports talk show (might've PTI) a few days ago. Apparently, the US government can assign value to something of this nature and charge taxes on it - similar in a way to how they charge taxes on lottery winnings (i.e. - charging taxes on found money basically and catching that ball is basically like finding money in their eyes). The whole concept of taxing a baseball perceived to be $XX in the government's eyes is totally stupid IMO but they apparently can/will do it.

But there is no idea of the value of the item.

With a lottery winning (whether it be cash or goods) there is an easy value that can be attached.

This ball would need to be appraised, but with the Bonds steroid controversy I'm not sure any appraisal will be anything more than a wild guess.

Besides, EVERY HR Barry hits from this point out is the new record-breaking ball. Bonds' finall HR ball will be the one that keeps its value (until A-Rod beats it)

Burninator · 08-22-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bench Warmer

I actually heard this on a sports talk show (might've PTI) a few days ago. Apparently, the US government can assign value to something of this nature and charge taxes on it - similar in a way to how they charge taxes on lottery winnings (i.e. - charging taxes on found money basically and catching that ball is basically like finding money in their eyes). The whole concept of taxing a baseball perceived to be $XX in the government's eyes is totally stupid IMO but they apparently can/will do it.

So those people on antique roadshow that find out there piece of crap tea set they've owned for 2 generations is worth $50,000 they own the government 60 years of back taxes?

Like I said before, groin cash grab by the greedy government, or GCGGG for short.

ken0042 · 08-22-2007, 03:44 PM

Yeah, I heard about the taxation thing and I couldn't believe it. OK, in this case IIRC the guy wasn't a fan of Bonds' team, so it wouldn't mean as much. But what if it was caught by some 57 year old garbage man who took balogna sandwiches to work every day for 37 years so he could still afford cheap season tickets. To have that type of souvineer would mean more to him than any amount of money. But then to be told that he has to suddenly pay $100K in taxes.

It's like when I thought about selling a pair of tickets to game 4 of the SCF. I had offers of over $2K for the pair. But I went to the game because to me, I realized that I had never been to a SCF game, and selling these would have cost me my chance to go to any of them.

HOOT · 08-22-2007, 06:04 PM

If he sells it he should have to pay tax but if he never sells then he has not gained anything from it for them to tax.

What a stupid tax law in the US. Technically its worth $5 its just a baseball.

return to the red · 08-24-2007, 09:44 AM

I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about the U.S. Tax system but I can't figure out how an object like a baseball caught at a game can be taxed?

Will he be taxed on it when he sells it?

Do you get taxed on selling personal property like the old beater that you've been driving?

ken0042 · 08-24-2007, 09:52 AM

The one thing that is missing from this story- any comments by an accountant or the IRS. I've heard this story from several sources, and they all say "people have told him he will have to pay taxes."

It almost sounds like he is trying to not look like a schmuck for selling the ball.

FanIn80 · 08-24-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

It almost sounds like he is trying to not look like a schmuck for selling the ball.

That's been my impression of this story all along.

nfotiu · 08-24-2007, 02:25 PM

I believe this to be true, here's a quote from a tax lawyer from an AP story at the time:

Quote:

Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would owe the taxes based on a reasonable estimate of its value, according to John Barrie, a tax lawyer with Bryan Cave LLP in New York. Capital gains taxes also could be levied in the future as the ball gains value, he said.
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.

flambers · 08-24-2007, 02:29 PM

Personally if I caught the Ball I would have sold it right away.... not worth the risk waiting to see what will happen.

Bobblehead · 08-24-2007, 02:38 PM

I think it is kind of funny that he hopes somone gives the ball to the Hall Of Fame because that is where it should be.

Then why don't you give it to the HOF? Oh yeah, because you want the money that comes from the ball. But it would be nice if some rich philanthropist gave me some money.

I agree - he's a schmuk.

Bobblehead · 08-24-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I believe this to be true, here's a quote from a tax lawyer from an AP story at the time:

That may be the way tax law works in the US, but that is nuts.

I could, perhaps, be persuaded that this law makes sense if he were to attempt to use the ball as collateral towards a loan. Otherwise, this is a flawed policy.

(Could Todd McFarlane file for a huge loss, since the value of the McGuire baseball has now plummeted? Somebody breaks a priceless vase? Crazy policy)

burn_baby_burn · 08-24-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I think it is kind of funny that he hopes somone gives the ball to the Hall Of Fame because that is where it should be.

Then why don't you give it to the HOF? Oh yeah, because you want the money that comes from the ball. But it would be nice if some rich philanthropist gave me some money.

I agree - he's a schmuk.

If he donates it to Copperstown. Does the HOF have to pay taxes?

HOOT · 08-24-2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

If he donates it to Copperstown. Does the HOF have to pay taxes?

That is a good question I was wondering that too, I think that he would still be stuck paying the taxes. Its funny how everyone is calling him a schmuk....would you keep the ball and owe $220,000? Or would you sell it, pay the taxes and get ahead in life?

Personally if making a free $250-350K makes me a schmuk, then I will take it!