Teams negotiate to get back homerun balls

[drc]

Never been to an in and out. The big deal out here (Seattle) is Jack in the Box, but I've never been their either.

When I lived in Australia it was Hungry' Jacks, which was the Aussie equivalent of Burger King.

[MacDice]

Originally Posted by drc

Never been to an in and out. The big deal out here (Seattle) is Jack in the Box, but I've never been their either.

When I lived in Australia it was Hungry' Jacks, which was the Aussie equivalent of Burger King.

From one Seattle person to another....Jack In The Box really? In Seattle it is without question it's Dicks.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by MacDice

From one Seattle person to another....Jack In The Box really? In Seattle it is without question it's Dicks.

Not that there's anything wrong with that if that's who you are.

[Gary Dunaier]

Bringing an old thread back to life - tomorrow it will be a year since the post that precedes this one - the topic of tax liability on significant game-used baseballs came to mind again.

Am I correct in presuming that the fan who caught Derek Jeter's 3000th hit was immediately subject to taxes based on the presumed value of the ball in the secondary market? Even if he wanted to keep it, he'd still have to pay taxes on it.

I can't help but wonder... if Jeter's 3000th hit was an actual hit and not a home run - that is, the ball had stayed on the field, and was immediately put aside for Jeter - would Jeter have been subject to the same tax liability?

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

Bringing an old thread back to life - tomorrow it will be a year since the post that precedes this one - the topic of tax liability on significant game-used baseballs came to mind again.

Am I correct in presuming that the fan who caught Derek Jeter's 3000th hit was immediately subject to taxes based on the presumed value of the ball in the secondary market? Even if he wanted to keep it, he'd still have to pay taxes on it.

I can't help but wonder... if Jeter's 3000th hit was an actual hit and not a home run - that is, the ball had stayed on the field, and was immediately put aside for Jeter - would Jeter have been subject to the same tax liability?

Gary

I can't comment on the US tax law, but in Canada, there would be no tax on a fan ( non-US citizen anyway) catching the ball and keeping it.

The interesting question (well, as a Canadian tax lawyer, at least interesting to me) is the fan's adjusted cost base on any subsequent sale for capital gains purposes. A gift gives the donee a cost base equal to fair market value; the Canadian tax authorities might argue the acqusition was not a gift and thus the cost base is zero (in Canada, a person gets a deemed minimum cost of $1,000 on personal use property, so the gain would only be on a sale in excess of $1,000)

Employees are taxable on any benefit arising by virtue of their employment. I've never seen an assessment on circumstances similar to your question, however.



Max

[tazdmb]

As a CPA, my personal opinion is this:

The person would not been subject to taxes for just catching the home run, where that was more an act of g-d than an intentional gift with a monetary value. Once he received all those gifts from Jeter and the Yankees with a clear fair value of over $600, he became subject to taxes.