Still reading that last paper -- just so damn amusing; "Two final examples suffice to show the array of situations in which the administrative application of t

Still reading that last paper -- just so damn amusing; "Two final examples suffice to show the array of situations in which the administrative application of the positive definition of income seems confused. The first involves the iconic American game of baseball. When contemporary players began to threaten long established home run records, it was clear that any ball that broke such a record would become a collector's item worth substantial amounts of money. When the records began to be broken and a fan caught the record-breaking ball, the tax controversy erupted. Practitioners, academics, and former IRS Commissioners all agreed that catching the ball, like finding old currency in a used piano, which was held to be income in a case known to virtually every student of taxation, resulted in the realization of income. But the public and Congressional outcry at such a prospect was fierce. How could the joy of catching the record breaking-ball be marred by the prospect of the rapacious IRS pursuing the fan for a cut of the food fortune? Legislation to ensure non-taxation was introduced. One IRS Commissioner, not a lawyer, dissembled. Years later, the Chief Counsel of the IRS, not only a lawyer but a tax lawyer, reportedly covered his head with his hands and captured the difficult position the agency was in when he responded to the question of whether the fan who caught and kept the ball had income by saying, "Please don't ask me that!"