4 ms·
After the record-breaking Mark McGwire home runs years ago, the IRS went after the people who ended up with the balls, arguing that even if they didn't sell the
by mbg721 4y ago
After the record-breaking Mark McGwire home runs years ago, the IRS went after the people who ended up with the balls, arguing that even if they didn't sell them, the balls represented reportable income. Just another thing to think about.
- justin66 4y agoGiven that the guy who caught the Albert Pujols ball donated it to a 501c3, there's really not much to think about.
- renewiltord 4y agoHe gets to deduct the whole value, though, right?
- thaumasiotes 4y agoYes, his income increases by whatever the value of the ball is when he takes ownership of the ball and he deducts the same amount when he donates it to a 501c3. How else could that possibly work? Obviously, the deduction cannot reach any of his other income, because it is, by definition, consumed by the value of the ball.
- justin66 4y agoUnder a truly strict reading of the law, there might be some problems since the guy might not itemize deductions, in which case there's a pretty modest limit to the total value of charitable deductions he can make, which he might not have declared anyhow. Which might or might not be a problem depending on the dollar value of the ball he received and immediately gave away, if the whole thing came to the attention of the IRS. They theoretically might potentially want him to refile and itemize his deductions if they had an opinion about the value of the ball, and that refiling could affect his refund for that year by a small amount. This all falls pretty firmly in the "who gives a shit?" area of tax law.
- renewiltord 4y agoYou’re right. Misremembered the case where the ball had appreciated. Same behavior.