NationStates Jolt Archive

I still get mad when I think of this (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns). The IRS apparently can tax the kid that caught the Barry Bonds home run ball, whether he sells the ball, or even if he just puts it on a shelf to admire as he grows old.

"Part of me wants to keep it. It's the greatest American sports accomplishment in history," Murphy said Thursday on NBC's "Today Show." "Part of me might want to sell it, but I really am leaning towards keeping it. It's just too valuable, sentimental."
...
Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still 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.

If you receive a stock as a gift, do you pay taxes on it before you sell it? Same thing with a valuable antique?

How in the world can the IRS levy a tax on something that has made no income for anyone? If they do tax Murphy and he pays to keep the ball, will he get a refund if the value diminishes?

This whole episode just goes to show how stupid the IRS is and how they should be dismantled, along with the tax code that allows atrocities like this to happen.

If presented with those options, I'd destroy the ball publicly, most likely.

How will they be able to prove the ball is actually the one hit?

He should have kept quiet about it

If presented with those options, I'd destroy the ball publicly, most likely.
But would you still owe tax on the ball? Actually the WSJ has an interesting discussion going on about the same question. There is a precedent for treatment if the ball is returned. In McGuire's case, the IRS commissioner decided not to tax the fan that returned the ball...

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/07/25/tax-law-final-exam-question-barry-bondss-ball/

How will they be able to prove the ball is actually the one hit?
I suspect there is a unique mark of some sort on the ball.

I still get mad when I think of this (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns). The IRS apparently can tax the kid that caught the Barry Bonds home run ball, whether he sells the ball, or even if he just puts it on a shelf to admire as he grows old.

"Part of me wants to keep it. It's the greatest American sports accomplishment in history," Murphy said Thursday on NBC's "Today Show." "Part of me might want to sell it, but I really am leaning towards keeping it. It's just too valuable, sentimental."
...
Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still 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.

If you receive a stock as a gift, do you pay taxes on it before you sell it? Same thing with a valuable antique?

How in the world can the IRS levy a tax on something that has made no income for anyone? If they do tax Murphy and he pays to keep the ball, will he get a refund if the value diminishes?

This whole episode just goes to show how stupid the IRS is and how they should be dismantled, along with the tax code that allows atrocities like this to happen.
I'm afraid this is something I'm going to have to agree with you on, Myrmi...this is nuts. If he sells the ball, it makes sense, but not if he just keeps it!

Indeed. He should be taxed if and when it is sold.

This whole episode just goes to show how stupid the IRS is and how they should be dismantled, along with the tax code that allows atrocities like this to happen.


Let's form an angry mob and burn it down! Who's with me?! :p

But would you still owe tax on the ball? Actually the WSJ has an interesting discussion going on about the same question. There is a precedent for treatment if the ball is returned. In McGuire's case, the IRS commissioner decided not to tax the fan that returned the ball...

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/07/25/tax-law-final-exam-question-barry-bondss-ball/

I might, and the government might bring a judgment against me. But if they can't take the ball, owing to its destruction, the most they could do would be to garnish my income to the tune of about %20. It would take them about 12,000 years to collect at that rate. :p

If you receive a stock as a gift, do you pay taxes on it before you sell it? Same thing with a valuable antique?


If it's over $10,000, yah, you do.

I still get mad when I think of this (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns). The IRS apparently can tax the kid that caught the Barry Bonds home run ball, whether he sells the ball, or even if he just puts it on a shelf to admire as he grows old.

"Part of me wants to keep it. It's the greatest American sports accomplishment in history," Murphy said Thursday on NBC's "Today Show." "Part of me might want to sell it, but I really am leaning towards keeping it. It's just too valuable, sentimental."
...
Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still 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.

If you receive a stock as a gift, do you pay taxes on it before you sell it? Same thing with a valuable antique?

How in the world can the IRS levy a tax on something that has made no income for anyone? If they do tax Murphy and he pays to keep the ball, will he get a refund if the value diminishes?

This whole episode just goes to show how stupid the IRS is and how they should be dismantled, along with the tax code that allows atrocities like this to happen.

Like all sports memorabilia - it doesn't have a fixed value - they only have a value as what is offered at reasonable market price - if the ball is not assessed then it holds no value other than what the IRS describes it. But it really does have no monetary value. Much like a peice of art painted by an artist - it holds only the value that is paid for it.

I wouldn't pay the taxes AT ALL until the item "actually" has a value. If this is the case he should be able to write off his trips to the games as "a business expense" etc..

It's a ball. that probably can be bought for $5 or 10$ until it is "for sale" it holds no value. It is a ball. If it were for sale then whatever.

That is like saying because madonna layed on sand I collected I need to pay taxes on the value of the sand as "madonna sand"

total crackjob whoever things just because someone hit a ball it's worth money at default.

it has no fixed value - the IRS does not have fixed values on sports memorabilia it is hogwash.

It has no set value.

I pitty the garbage collection agencies around hollywood and sports stadiums now they must be in debt huge to the IRS for all the junk they collect. Or sewage companies --- but it's not Phil Donahue piss really!!!

Artificial value

it is a memory for the kid - for a collector --- it is a ball.

I still get mad when I think of this (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns). The IRS apparently can tax the kid that caught the Barry Bonds home run ball, whether he sells the ball, or even if he just puts it on a shelf to admire as he grows old.

"Part of me wants to keep it. It's the greatest American sports accomplishment in history," Murphy said Thursday on NBC's "Today Show." "Part of me might want to sell it, but I really am leaning towards keeping it. It's just too valuable, sentimental."
...
Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still 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.

If you receive a stock as a gift, do you pay taxes on it before you sell it? Same thing with a valuable antique?

How in the world can the IRS levy a tax on something that has made no income for anyone? If they do tax Murphy and he pays to keep the ball, will he get a refund if the value diminishes?

This whole episode just goes to show how stupid the IRS is and how they should be dismantled, along with the tax code that allows atrocities like this to happen.
For once, I competely agree with you.

Here in Canada, if anyone wins anything in a lottery or a casino, we don't pay taxes. Paying tax on a found item is totally ludicrous!!

Here in Canada, if anyone wins anything in a lottery or a casino, we don't pay taxes. Paying tax on a found item is totally ludicrous!!

Well there is something that makes sense.

The US system is buggered to say the least. I agree with other posters that a tear down of the IRS and a new fairer and easier system needs to replace it.

If it's over $10,000, yah, you do.

Never having received or made gifts of that amount, I'm not all that familiar with the process... But some long ago recollection I have is that the donor of the gift being obligated to pay the tax on the gift. I don't know where that comes from, so it's probably wrong.

And then there's the cost basis of the ball... How many tickets did Murphy buy to get this chance, do the crab sandwiches count as a cost in obtaining the ball, how many ballpark beers are allowed...

Indeed. He should be taxed if and when it is sold.
WHY????

If presented with those options, I'd destroy the ball publicly, most likely.
And get charged with income tax evasion? :p

WHY????
In the current paradigm, this would be a capital gain. Stupid idea though, since Murphy never set out to collect the record-breaking ball. I don't see it as much of a process of investing, which is where capital gains should come from.

I guess the biggest question to me is if the kid gave the ball back to Bonds lets say. Now the kid could still be legally taxed and then could Bonds???

I still get mad when I think of this (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns). The IRS apparently can tax the kid that caught the Barry Bonds home run ball, whether he sells the ball, or even if he just puts it on a shelf to admire as he grows old.

"Part of me wants to keep it. It's the greatest American sports accomplishment in history," Murphy said Thursday on NBC's "Today Show." "Part of me might want to sell it, but I really am leaning towards keeping it. It's just too valuable, sentimental."
...
Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still 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.

If you receive a stock as a gift, do you pay taxes on it before you sell it? Same thing with a valuable antique?

How in the world can the IRS levy a tax on something that has made no income for anyone? If they do tax Murphy and he pays to keep the ball, will he get a refund if the value diminishes?

This whole episode just goes to show how stupid the IRS is and how they should be dismantled, along with the tax code that allows atrocities like this to happen.

Precisely. Ditto here. I couldn't agree more.

Never having received or made gifts of that amount, I'm not all that familiar with the process... But some long ago recollection I have is that the donor of the gift being obligated to pay the tax on the gift. I don't know where that comes from, so it's probably wrong.

Either party can pay the gift tax, I believe, but if the donor does not, and the recipient accepts, my understanding is that the obligation falls on the recipient.

I think a lot of times people tend to ignore it when it comes to non-cash untraceable gifts (like jewelery) though.

And then there's the cost basis of the ball... How many tickets did Murphy buy to get this chance, do the crab sandwiches count as a cost in obtaining the ball, how many ballpark beers are allowed...

Only the cost of his ticket I imagine. It's so insignificant as not to matter though. Anyway, the kid will have to sell the ball. The risk of paying the taxes now and then holding are far to great.

US taxes sure are a shitty system.

And get charged with income tax evasion? :p

You're allowed to destroy personal property, even if you owe tax on it, provided it isn't arson or anything. ;) They'd just have extreme difficulty in collecting on it, that's all.

Well there is something that makes sense.

The US system is buggered to say the least. I agree with other posters that a tear down of the IRS and a new fairer and easier system needs to replace it.
Here I am agreeing with Myrmidonisia and Marrakech II all on the same night in the same thread. The sky is falling!!

I guess the biggest question to me is if the kid gave the ball back to Bonds lets say. Now the kid could still be legally taxed and then could Bonds???
Like I said earlier, probably not based on the IRS commissioner's statements about Mark McGuire's 70th. He compared it with the act of declining a prize.

In the current paradigm, this would be a capital gain. Stupid idea though, since Murphy never set out to collect the record-breaking ball. I don't see it as much of a process of investing, which is where capital gains should come from.
So finders/keepers does not apply?

If you found a piece of jewelry and it went unclaimed, you would have to pay tax if you sold it?

This is all too confusing/stupid!!

Anyway, the kid will have to sell the ball. The risk of paying the taxes now and then holding are far to great.

US taxes sure are a shitty system.
This is what burns me the most. From all appearances, he just wants the ball. He wants a souvenir that he can put in a case and when he looks at it, remember the day when ...

My dad had a ball that was signed by the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers. All of them. Now, I've got it. I'd hate to think that it was a taxable memento of his love of baseball.

It's called taking it to court. There is no way they can consider that income. He technically found the ball and that cannot possibly be taxed.

So finders/keepers does not apply?

If you found a piece of jewelry and it went unclaimed, you would have to pay tax if you sold it?

This is all too confusing/stupid!!

Beats the hell out of me. I think you would have to pay taxes on just finding it. The WSJ blog is an interesting read -- opinions are worth what you pay for them, but it's interesting and apparently you do owe tax on found treasure.

Yes. It does suck.

And get charged with income tax evasion? :p

But what if you hit it with a bat and someone else caught it.. would that be theft?

OMG would that be illegal proceeds? proceeds of crime.. all those balls STOLDEN!!!!

Or is it a gift from the stadium or ballpark owner -- and they need to pay gift tax on every ball "caught?"

what about a player who signs a ball would that be a taxable gift as well?


(good hit son - it only cost me $10,000 in depreciated value - but that was atleast a single and that's what matters) good throw - only a tener!!! chewbaca no bite no bite can you get the ball from the dog sam` every second is $15 in depreciated value.

This is what burns me the most. From all appearances, he just wants the ball. He wants a souvenir that he can put in a case and when he looks at it, remember the day when ...

My dad had a ball that was signed by the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers. All of them. Now, I've got it. I'd hate to think that it was a taxable memento of his love of baseball.

The IRS is far to intrusive. That's a large part of the problem. A lot of people on this forum bitch and moan about the loss of privacy and the government poking its nose into everything. What they forget is the government has been doing this since the sixties in the name of catching tax cheats.

So you end up with shit like this. The IRS slapping a kid for catching a baseball.

The IRS is far to intrusive. That's a large part of the problem. A lot of people on this forum bitch and moan about the loss of privacy and the government poking its nose into everything. What they forget is the government has been doing this since the sixties in the name of catching tax cheats.

So you end up with shit like this. The IRS slapping a kid for catching a baseball.


acording to an article I read though congress made the IRS say that baseballs won't be taxed until sold. (stemming from 1998 the mark mcguire issue that is a precedent for tax laws on baseballs)

could bonds be sued for personal damages if the ball hurts someone? or even charged with assualt with a deadly weapon?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1127379914733

I suspect there is a unique mark of some sort on the ball.

When A-Rod was going for his 500th HR, they would switch the game ball (and the ones the ump has) for ones marked with holograms (maybe serialized as well). After his at-bat, they would switch back to the unmarked ones. I assume they did the same for Bonds 756th.

There was a "what-if" on the WSJ blog that is another good topic for discussion.


What if Barry actually legged out a inside the park home run? Would the last player holding the ball "own" it and be liable for taxes?

One other point that was made there was that the ball had no special value after it was caught. Barry could have missed tagging second base and the hit ruled an out. The point being that the ball needs to be valued at the instant it was caught -- about $15. Verification of the home run and the lack or settlement of any protests made the ball increase in value, but only after the initial acquisition.

What if Barry actually legged out a inside the park home run? Would the last player holding the ball "own" it and be liable for taxes?


He doesn't get to keep it though, so probably not.

I still get mad when I think of this (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns). The IRS apparently can tax the kid that caught the Barry Bonds home run ball, whether he sells the ball, or even if he just puts it on a shelf to admire as he grows old.

"Part of me wants to keep it. It's the greatest American sports accomplishment in history," Murphy said Thursday on NBC's "Today Show." "Part of me might want to sell it, but I really am leaning towards keeping it. It's just too valuable, sentimental."
...
Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still 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.

If you receive a stock as a gift, do you pay taxes on it before you sell it? Same thing with a valuable antique?

How in the world can the IRS levy a tax on something that has made no income for anyone? If they do tax Murphy and he pays to keep the ball, will he get a refund if the value diminishes?

This whole episode just goes to show how stupid the IRS is and how they should be dismantled, along with the tax code that allows atrocities like this to happen.
Lots of people posting on the message boards at CBS Sportsline called the story incorrect. They claimed to be accountants--certainly not my line of work, but their arguments sounded right. The ball has no value until it is sold, and therefore cannot be taxed until it is. It's not the same as winning the lottery.

There was a "what-if" on the WSJ blog that is another good topic for discussion.


What if Barry actually legged out a inside the park home run? Would the last player holding the ball "own" it and be liable for taxes?

One other point that was made there was that the ball had no special value after it was caught. Barry could have missed tagging second base and the hit ruled an out. The point being that the ball needs to be valued at the instant it was caught -- about $15. Verification of the home run and the lack or settlement of any protests made the ball increase in value, but only after the initial acquisition.
You could ask Doug Mantkiewiecz (and if I got that right, I'm a fucking genius), the guy who had the ball when the Red Sox made the final out of their World Series victory. That would seem to be the precedent.

You could ask Doug Mantkiewiecz (and if I got that right, I'm a fucking genius), the guy who had the ball when the Red Sox made the final out of their World Series victory. That would seem to be the precedent.

First off, you didn't get that right (it's Doug Mientkiewicz). Of course, I had to google it, otherwise I'd have butchered it. :p

According to what I heard about that situation (with Doug Mientkiewicz and the game-winning ball in the '04 World Series), the ball belongs first to the home team (as they're the ones that purchase the balls for the game), then to the visiting team, and then to the player. The exception is for the balls that are hit out of play (foul balls that make it into the stands, home run balls, etc). I think the only reason Mientkiewicz had a claim was, the Cardinals didn't want the ball, and the Red Sox weren't concerned about it until they learned he had it.

Here I am agreeing with Myrmidonisia and Marrakech II all on the same night in the same thread. The sky is falling!!

Yes sir folks, Hell has frozen over! :p

Beats the hell out of me. I think you would have to pay taxes on just finding it. The WSJ blog is an interesting read -- opinions are worth what you pay for them, but it's interesting and apparently you do owe tax on found treasure.

Yes. It does suck.

You do pay tax on found treasure $1000 or more how ever that treasure may be. From a diamond necklace found on the ground to a treasure ship in US waters you have to pay. What most people do though is just not say anything. The old saying "what they don't know won't hurt them."

Wtf? That seems fuckin' rediculous.

Sans Amour's opinion:

That is ridiculous. What's next? Taxing a ball with a rookie signature for the person who ten or twenty years down the road surpasses Bonds legitimately? Better warn my sister to sell the baseball my nieces got autographed from the minor league's Rockies...

Honestly, they should only tax it if it is sold. Not if it's a mantle piece.

I suspect there is a unique mark of some sort on the ball.

They switched out the baseballs so that he'd be hitting special baseballs each at bat.

By the by, would he still have to pay taxes if he drove the ball to Cooperstown? If he really wanted to keep it as a sentimental token, he could drive it there so he'd recieve recognition for donating it.

I still get mad when I think of this (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns). The IRS apparently can tax the kid that caught the Barry Bonds home run ball, whether he sells the ball, or even if he just puts it on a shelf to admire as he grows old.

"Part of me wants to keep it. It's the greatest American sports accomplishment in history," Murphy said Thursday on NBC's "Today Show." "Part of me might want to sell it, but I really am leaning towards keeping it. It's just too valuable, sentimental."
...
Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still 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.

If you receive a stock as a gift, do you pay taxes on it before you sell it? Same thing with a valuable antique?

How in the world can the IRS levy a tax on something that has made no income for anyone? If they do tax Murphy and he pays to keep the ball, will he get a refund if the value diminishes?

This whole episode just goes to show how stupid the IRS is and how they should be dismantled, along with the tax code that allows atrocities like this to happen.

I don't believe that anyone should be taxed on a piece of property until they either (a) use it to make money, or (b) sell it and make money.

If the kid keeps it on a shelf, there should be no tax.
If the kid gives it freely to someone else, there should be no tax.
If the kid takes it to a convention, sets up a table, and charges money for people to see the ball, there should be a tax based on the money made.
If the kid sells the ball, and gets money, there should be a tax based on the money made.

I see property tax (taxes on property, whether you monetarily gain from the property or not) as a tool where richer people squeeze property out of the hands of poorer people. Property tax can force people out of neighborhoods. It can be used to force the kid to sell the ball, so collectors (most of whom are just waiting to get their hands on the ball) can buy it.

Watch. Collectors will know that the kid has to pay the tax before the year is out. They'll bid low - and stall until the kid is forced to sell the ball for the exact amount of the tax.

They switched out the baseballs so that he'd be hitting special baseballs each at bat.

By the by, would he still have to pay taxes if he drove the ball to Cooperstown? If he really wanted to keep it as a sentimental token, he could drive it there so he'd recieve recognition for donating it.

The better question is "Could he get a deduction for a charitable donation?"

Ah yes. teh IRS 1z eb1l!

Wtf? That seems fuckin' rediculous.many laws are fucking ridiculous, and most Tax Legislations are leading the pack.

maybe he could sell it to his pet dog for $1, pay the IRS their 35 cents and leave them to hound (sorry - couldn't resist) the mutt for the $200k they say is theirs.

So can he claim a loss on investment if the ball accidentally catches fire and gets destroyed?