Murphy's Law: A New Twist

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by xsedrinam, Aug 9, 2007.

  1. macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #1
    So Matt Murphy has a decision to make. Catching Barry Bond's record breaking 756th home run has put him in a precarious position. If he sells the ball at an estimated $500,000-600,000, based on current value, he'll owe the IRS one third ~$210,000 in taxes. If he elects to keep the ball, he's still liable for taxes based on the estimated value of the ball. What should Murphy do? What would you do? Maybe he'd been better off to have thrown it back.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Location:
    Hawaii
    #2
    Should've sold it since Bonds hit 757 the day after. Besides, it'll be the final HR that Bonds hits that'll be worth more. From what I understand he and his friends were on their way to Australia when on a whim they decided to attend the game.

    Edit: I would've given the ball back to Barry.
     
  3. macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #3
    this is serisouly the most confusing thread ever. what are yous on about?? selling a game-ball??
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Location:
    Hawaii
    #4
    What's confusing about it? Guy snags the homerun that broke the tie with Hank Aaron for the career homerun record. Now he's in a conundrum as to what he should do with it.
     
  5. macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #5
    hhmm that makes more sense.
    it would also make more sense if i knew anything about baseball haha. never gotten into it.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    #6

    If I caught a bonds HR ball I would hire that guy that Tonya Harding hired to knock out his knees. Then I'll have his final HR ball. :D
     
  7. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #7
    Does the fact that not everyone here is American or follow American baseball confuse you?


    Anyway, I'd sell the ball now. Get rid of it. That, or leave the country and sell it outside of the US. Would he still owe taxes then?
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    steamboat26

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Location:
    Arlington VA
    #8
    ^ I think most Americans (me included) assume that everyone knows about the record, because it has been touted as the greatest record in all of sports in U.S. broadcasts, despite the fact that baseball isn't that big worldwide.

    And he should sell the ball, I wouldn't want to keep a tainted piece of history :p
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    megfilmworks

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Location:
    Sherman Oaks
  10. macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Location:
    Hawaii
    #10
    To be fair the OP pretty much spelt it out with crayons and to top it off provided a link to Sports Illustrated's website. :rolleyes:
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    ezekielrage_99

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #11
    me too :confused:
     
  12. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    Then why did you click on it?
     
  13. Guest

    garybUK

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
  14. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Google and Wiki are your friends:

    Murphy's Law

     
  15. Guest

    garybUK

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    #15
    Google and wiki are not friends they are evil truth distorting, cyber criminals :p

    We call it Sod's Law here

    Why should he be taxed for being lucky enough for catching something valuable that is now his possesion? it's not a taxable income is it??? i find that really weird, i'd be on the next plane out of the country sell it and come back with the cash

    Mind you, seeing as the only other place baseball has any sort of following is japan so it's probably not valuable in another country.
     
  16. macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #16
    haha. i doubt that 90-95% of australians would not know what 'murphey's law' is.
    i thought it was one of those computer laws, such as the law how cpu power doubles every however long it is.
     
  17. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #17
    That would be Moore's Law.
     
  18. macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #18
    it could have been some wierd other law thats out. theres so many that we dont know about. i was intrigued.
     
  19. macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #19
    That's crappy. I understand being taxed if he sold it, (which sucks in its own right but that's how it goes) but to tax him just to KEEP it? WTF?
     
  20. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #20
    Ok. I'm just messing with you. I love it when someone posts something, and then someone else posts about how they don't know what they're talking about or don't want to hear anymore about it.

    I always ask why they bothered to click on the link, let alone post, and I usually don't get a response.
     
  21. macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #21
    hahaha yea i was like....."sugar is he being mean or just kidding around??"
    at least i replied, must mean im something special :p
    i literally had no idea tho lol, now i know.
    i think youll find im not like ordinary people.
    thats why i dont have many friends :p
    kidding
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    Loge

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    England
    #22
    He should sell it, pay the tax, and buy a brand new ball with the money that remains.
     
  23. macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #23
    To clarify -

    1) The plan is to sell the ball and keep 51% of the net, 49% goes to his friend with whom he was at the game

    2) The reason that he might be required to pay taxes is that he has taken investment ownership of the ball and that money can be viewed as income of the fair market value of the ball. He could sell the ball at that FMV price and wouldn't owe taxes on it. But, if the ball sold for more or less, he would owe taxes or could take a write off against the difference. No different than getting stocks or whatnot. Think of it this way - when you buy stocks, you already paid taxes on your income. When you sell the stock, you either take a capital gain or capital loss (this last week it was more loss than gain;)). Same thing here. What really would irk people is that throwing it back wouldn't be a qualifying tax deduction - he could still owe taxes.

    The problem is that memorabilia isn't always sold, so it is possible that it would hold no investment value to the owner - if it was held as a reminder of the game (think of autographs that kids get at ballgames), there is essentially no value difference between that ball and any other that could fly out of the park. But, as he plans to sell this ball, this is irrelevant.

    While the this is fun and exciting, remember that logic is occasionally used by the IRS (see Mark McGwire, #62).
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    Flynnstone

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Location:
    Cold beer land
    #24
    Sell the ball.

    So what about the taxes. Stop looking at the $200K tax and look at the $400K gain. If he didn't catch the ball, gain and taxes = $0.

    Plus perhaps he can claim the cost of the game ticket against the tax!
     
  25. macrumors 68040

    tobefirst

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #25
    The frustrating part though, is that he probably doesn't have a choice. He couldn't keep it on his mantle if he wanted to, since there's a chance it would cost him $210k to do so.

    That being said, I wouldn't be upset with $400k. :)
     

Share This Page