Mets fan could face big tax bill over Bonds' home run ball

Search

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
By MARCUS WOHLSEN, Associated Press Writer

August 8, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Before he celebrates his windfall, the New York Mets fan who emerged from a violent scrum clutching Barry Bonds' record-setting home run ball should probably call his accountant.

As soon as 21-year-old Matt Murphy snagged the valuable piece of sports history Tuesday night, his souvenir became taxable income in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, according to experts.

"It's an expensive catch," said John Barrie, a tax lawyer with Bryan Cave LLP in New York who grew up watching the Giants play at Candlestick Park. "Once he took possession of the ball and it was his ball, it was income to him based on its value as of yesterday,"

By most estimates, the ball that put Bonds atop the list of all-time home run hitters with 756 would sell in the half-million dollar range on the open market or at auction.

That would instantly put Murphy, a college student from Queens, in the highest tax bracket for individual income, where he would face a tax rate of about 35 percent, or about $210,000 on a $600,000 ball.

Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still owe the taxes based on a reasonable estimate of its value, according to Barrie. 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.

Not everyone concurs on Barrie's interpretation of the intersection between professional sports and the nation's tax code.

But for its part, the IRS seems reluctant to clear up the confusion. With six-figure treasures so rarely falling out of the sky, the agency declined to comment Wednesday on what regulations would apply and whether they would be enforced in the case of the Bonds ball.

History does not provide much of a guide since most fans who have been lucky enough to snag previous long balls have chosen to sell their mementos. And at least one ball was as much a source of embarrassment for the IRS as revenue.

As Mark McGwire chased the mark for most home runs in a season in 1998, IRS officials initially said the ball that broke Roger Maris' long-standing record could be subject to taxes even if it were returned to McGwire. The statements were ridiculed by politicians and quickly disavowed by the agency's top brass.

"All I know is that the fan who gives back the home run ball deserves a round of applause, not a big tax bill," then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti said at the time.

Ultimately, Tim Forneris, a member of the St. Louis Cardinals grounds crew, recovered McGwire's 62nd home run ball. He turned it over to the Cardinals and received a trip to Disney World and a minivan in return.

Phil Ozersky, a Cardinals season-ticket holder, caught McGwire's 70th homer later that season and sold it in 1999 to comic book artist Todd McFarlane for $3 million.

A spokeswoman for the Giants said that as with any ball that enters the stands at AT&T Park, Bonds' 435-foot drive into the right-center field stands belonged to the person who caught it, so the team wouldn't seek its return. Bonds said he also had no interest in retrieving it.

Murphy, who went to the game during a layover from a flight to Australia, grew up near Shea Stadium and was wearing a Mets jersey when he made the charmed grab.

He told the New York Daily News he planned to keep 51 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the ball and would give the rest to his friend, Amir Kamal, 21, of New York, who was also at the game.

"I won the lottery," he told the newspaper. "I'm going to be smart about what I do with it."
 

Rx. Junior
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
4,632
Tokens
cool of the kid to give half the money he makes by selling the ball to his buddy who was with him at the game.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2004
Messages
3,934
Tokens
shouldnt the value of the ball be determined when he actually sells it. Just because somebody says the ball is worth 600k,doesnt mean they can for sure get that price. The irs shouldnt tax the kid until its sold because that would be the same as paying taxes on stocks you havent sold yet.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
4,533
Tokens
sell it fast. value will only go down as hype and attention of this event gets farther away in the rear view mirror.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
80,046
Tokens
unbelievable...he would still owe the tax if he decided not to sell the ball!
 

Active member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
71,780
Tokens
WOW if he does not sell the IRS still takes taxes on a dirty old baseball..


simply pathetic....makes me sick just proves that the DOJ and IRS can do anything they want to anyone at anytime with NO recourse or reason
 

Open your eyes, I'm a blessing in disguise
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
1,137
Tokens
I disgree with the article's statement that he will have to pay taxes on the ball simply for catching it. I am a tax attorney as well, and I believe he does not have an "amount realized" simply by catching the ball. If he sells the ball, he will have an amount realized of $XXX, minus his basis of $0 in the ball, which will give him a realized gain of $XXX. However, if he simply holds on to the ball, if I am representing him, I am arguing he has no amount realized yet, thus he has no gain.

I also think the IRS will not even attempt to go after this. Assume they say he owes $XXX amount of taxes and he refuses to pay and they go after him in court. What jury is going to side with the IRS in this issue? It's like a guy shooting and killing the guy who's robbing him. Even if it's questionable whether it's self-defense or not, no jury is going to convict the guy for shooting a guy who was robbing him, so the state will usually not even bring charges. This is how I see the IRS handling this.

This is just an article to get everyone talking about something, when in fact, I would lay -1000 that he never has to pay a dime until he sells it.

Just my $.02 given my tax background.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
26,300
Tokens
Screw the government...it is just a baseball...should I sue my brother for taking my 1966 Sandy Koufax baseball and playing a pick-up game with it?? When does the madness stop? Tax on this, tax on that, fuk Uncle Sam...
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
28,775
Tokens
I disgree with the article's statement that he will have to pay taxes on the ball simply for catching it. I am a tax attorney as well, and I believe he does not have an "amount realized" simply by catching the ball. If he sells the ball, he will have an amount realized of $XXX, minus his basis of $0 in the ball, which will give him a realized gain of $XXX. However, if he simply holds on to the ball, if I am representing him, I am arguing he has no amount realized yet, thus he has no gain.

That would certainly seem to be much more logical.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
6,929
Tokens
I love how everyone rips the US on this one. First off, I strongly disagree that the tax is due now. Further, taxes in the USA are lower than they are in Canada and in Europe.

There are some people that take every opportunity that they have to rip the USA. That doesn't make them right.
 

Rx. Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
3,699
Tokens
IMO...for tax purposes, the ball is worth $3 or $4, which is the retail shelf price of a major league baseball, until he sells it. The kid caught a $3 baseball, which has an undeterminable value based on it's historical importance, the fact that it was struck by a god, and a few other factors. When he sells it, the tax becomes due. As far as sharing the proceeds with his friend...they probably made a verbal agreement to share it if one of them caught it.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,723
Tokens
shouldnt the value of the ball be determined when he actually sells it. Just because somebody says the ball is worth 600k,doesnt mean they can for sure get that price. The irs shouldnt tax the kid until its sold because that would be the same as paying taxes on stocks you havent sold yet.

I agree. Plus if he has to pay taxes on half a million now, then it goes down in value, and he sells it for 200k, resulting in a 300k capital loss, he can only deduct 3k per year of that capital loss. What a joke.
 

Rx. Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
3,699
Tokens
There are some people that take every opportunity that they have to rip the USA. That doesn't make them right.

LOL...get used to it. There are people that are blaming the bridge collapse in Minneapolis on the Iraq war. I'm not even making that up.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,723
Tokens
Under the whacked out logic in this article, if you buy an old house, and in the attic you find a valuable painting worth a million dollars, you pay taxes on it before you sell it? What horseshit.
 

Self appointed RX World Champion Handicapper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
15,052
Tokens
sell it and pay the taxes... nice problem to have..

i can think of a lot worse things to have to deal with..
 

Rx. Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
3,699
Tokens
Under the whacked out logic in this article, if you buy an old house, and in the attic you find a valuable painting worth a million dollars, you pay taxes on it before you sell it? What horseshit.

...and pay it with what money? LOL...this kid is a student from Queens. I doubt he's going to have 200 dimes laying around to pay taxes so he can keep this miserable ball. He owes taxes when he sells it...bottom line. Anything else isn't practical.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,228
Messages
13,449,769
Members
99,402
Latest member
jb52197
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com