Bonds' 756th ball going to auction...owner cant afford to keep it

[Save Us Sutter]

Everyone involved hopes the buyer of the historic balls is willing to at least share them for a period of time

Please tell me I wasn't the only one who giggled at that part?

On topic, tax or no tax, the moment that ball hit my glove, I'd have been making plans to sell it. Does that make me a shmuck? Or a recent graduate with a pile of debt who could use a half million?? This kid is 21! He's in a position to start off his adult life with a nice chunk in his bank account. He'd be a shmuck not to take the opportunity in my mind.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by HOOT

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?

Me, personally? Well, first off I didn't call him a schmuk, I chose my wording quite carefully. Many people might think he's a scmuk for selling it; however I would also be selling it- having no ties to baseball whatsoever.

But let's look at another scenario. The year is 2019 and I'm watching the Kansas City Penguins play the Flames. It's game 37 of the season, and a vetran Sidney Crosbey scores not only his 50th goal of the season, but his 895th career goal- shattering two of Gretzky's records with one shot. Calgary's goalie is mad and takes the puck out of the net and shoots it down the ice, going out of play. I happen to catch said puck. At that point I'm either keeping the damn thing, or giving it back to Crosby in exchange for a whack of other collectables. (And possibly an appearance at my Friday night shinney game.)

For this baseball to be valuable, there has to be a lot of people who would never consider selling it. Including many blue collar people for whom selling it would pay off their mortgage; they would rather have that one piece of history.

A year from now if he sold it- more understandable. Selling it on April 14th next year; also understandable. (The day before IRS taxes are due.) Selling it immediately after catching it, not quite so smooth IMHO.

[Azure]

He is only a shmuck to all the people who did NOT catch the ball. Good on him if he wants to sell it. I would have too.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Me, personally? Well, first off I didn't call him a schmuk, I chose my wording quite carefully. Many people might think he's a scmuk for selling it; however I would also be selling it- having no ties to baseball whatsoever.

A year from now if he sold it- more understandable. Selling it on April 14th next year; also understandable. (The day before IRS taxes are due.) Selling it immediately after catching it, not quite so smooth IMHO.

I wasn't saying you called him a schmuk just funny how others were. Also comparing Sidney Crosy to Barry "I didn't use stediods, i just got really really big in three months" Bonds is a little different scenerio.

As for the last part, I can understand that but maybe that would be the case if it was anyone but Bonds hitting that ball. What happens if he holds on to it until the next tax date but by then they find some evidence that links Bonds to knowing he was taking steriods and then the ball's value falls to the ground.

Well its great he doens't have to pay as much taxes but he may also lose out on 100's of thousands of dollars. Personally I would be doing what he is doing. Not very many people can afford to pay $220K in taxes just so they can keep a piece of history. What is stupid is the tax law, he should only be taxed if he sells it or uses it as insurance on a loan.

[Bobblehead]

I called him a schmuk because he's selling it and saying the person who buys it should give it to the HOF. If he is that concerned about it, he should give it to the HOF. He's selling the ball, I have no problem with that, but lobbying the buyto to then give it away makes him a shmuck.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I called him a schmuk because he's selling it and saying the person who buys it should give it to the HOF. If he is that concerned about it, he should give it to the HOF. He's selling the ball, I have no problem with that, but lobbying the buyto to then give it away makes him a shmuck.

Question: Does he still have to pay the taxes if he gives it away?

[Jason14h]

Question: Does he still have to pay the taxes if he gives it away

I believe he would get a charitable donation credit in the amount the ball is valued at, but would still be required to pay the taxes on the ball

[corporatejay]

in Canada you are not taxed for windfalls (lottery winnings "found" money, this baseball) in the states you can be.

Also, in Canada generally, capital gains are not calculated until the gain is realized, I'm not sure how that works in the states. If the tax lawyers says it is true, then it's probably true, their tax system is messed up with stuff like that.

Also, if you sell your old beater for more than you paid for it, then technically you have a capital gain. there is something loosely known as the "garagae sale rule" which off the top of my head I can't remember but it allows you about 1,000 dollar leeway or something (i'd have to check my notes).

[fredr123]

Sports Law Blog comments on the taxation issue.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

in Canada you are not taxed for windfalls (lottery winnings "found" money, this baseball) in the states you can be.

Also, in Canada generally, capital gains are not calculated until the gain is realized, I'm not sure how that works in the states. If the tax lawyers says it is true, then it's probably true, their tax system is messed up with stuff like that.

Yeah, although there's some fairly murky stuff going on around capital gains in Canada. Wilderness artist Tony Onley once had a huge and public fight with revenue over capital gains regarding artwork that he had painted. Because he had painted artwork valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, but which he still owned, Revenue Canada wanted him to pay tax on them. Only when Onley stagged a public protest in which he threatened to burn several pieces rather than pay tax on them did RC relent. Not sure if the law was changed permanently, or if a special exception was made for Onley. A really backwards law, regardless.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, although there's some fairly murky stuff going on around capital gains in Canada. Wilderness artist Tony Onley once had a huge and public fight with revenue over capital gains regarding artwork that he had painted. Because he had painted artwork valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, but which he still owned, Revenue Canada wanted him to pay tax on them. Only when Onley stagged a public protest in which he threatened to burn several pieces rather than pay tax on them did RC relent. Not sure if the law was changed permanently, or if a special exception was made for Onley. A really backwards law, regardless.

It's also important to note that sometimes RevCan can be wrong. While I would never want to go toe to toe with them and it's often in your best interest just to listen to them, they can be wrong on the law sometimes. That being said i'm no tax lawyer (or any lawyer for that matter) but my tax knowledge is VERY basic.

[Bobblehead]

I work for a tax firm.

CRA makes lots of mistakes. It is amazing how many people simply assume the Notice of Reassessment is correct, when in fact it is not (phone them up, actually most of the people on the phones this time of year are helpful).

Artists have special rules for their works, specifically because they may sell a few pieces for a lot of money one year and none the next. Those are types of rules I would need to look up, but I know they exist because I've flipped past them in tax guides.

corporatejay - you are referring to Personal Use Property. A quaint little section that says if you sell personal property for more than $1000 you need to declare the Capital gain on it, but if it decreased in value that is a personal expense and you aren't allowed to claim a capital loss (or even use it to offset other capital gains).

And I 100% agree with that opinion on Sports Law Blog. It is property whose value has not been realized.

[fredr123]

http://www.theroadtohistory.com/auction.cfm

Hurry! Only 16 days left (as of right now) in the auction! Minimum bid of $100,000. Current high bid? $110,000.

[HOOT]

Thats it! Well I will go check how much money I have inbetween my matresses when i get home

So here is a question for all those tax guys out there, once he sells it will he be taxed on what he sells it for or what they believe it is worth?