Home Sports Talk

Ohtani vs CA

bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

Anyone have any opinion they want to share on the goings-on regarding CA going after Ohtani and the Dodgers on the tax evasion angle with his deferred contract? This seems like a big deal to me.

Comments

  • tommyrusty7tommyrusty7 Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭✭

    The govt hates to miss out on a dollar that they figure will line their pockets instead of ours.

  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Haha. True. But I pay more tax in CA than Ohtani and I don’t even live there so I prefer he gets squeezed too.

  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think that what the Dodgers did in structuring his contract in this particular situation - Ohtani is a unique superstar who has so much income outside of his baseball contract that he doesn’t need it now - well. It’s impressive but I think they went a bit overboard with this.

    Which means. After his contract is done. He might just return to Japan. Either way he’s going to be stuck with the IRS at the federal level but CA will receive nothing. So I can see their point.

    I would prefer to have more parity in baseball for smaller market clubs. This is just another huge end-around in revenue sharing. The other being the media ownership. This is creating a large dichotomy between the halves and have-nots. Perhaps it’s just my view as a small market team fan. I’m open to convincing arguments.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 28,989 ✭✭✭✭✭

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2024/01/11/california-seeks-tax-law-change-for-ohtani-700m-baseball-contract-pay/?sh=45e7dff4fe12

    Ohtani’s $700 Million Contract Sparks California To Seek Tax Law Change

    "But a change to get a piece of deferred pay deals like Ohtani’s would have to be made to federal tax law, not just California."

  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 3,425 ✭✭✭✭

    @bgr said:
    I think that what the Dodgers did in structuring his contract in this particular situation - Ohtani is a unique superstar who has so much income outside of his baseball contract that he doesn’t need it now - well. It’s impressive but I think they went a bit overboard with this.

    Which means. After his contract is done. He might just return to Japan. Either way he’s going to be stuck with the IRS at the federal level but CA will receive nothing. So I can see their point.

    I would prefer to have more parity in baseball for smaller market clubs. This is just another huge end-around in revenue sharing. The other being the media ownership. This is creating a large dichotomy between the halves and have-nots. Perhaps it’s just my view as a small market team fan. I’m open to convincing arguments.

    They may or not be successful in federal law changes. There arent any small market MLB teams theres just some that act like it. A couple are in a weird spot though losing their local TV contracts from the bankruptcy. In the long run it will probably end up benefiting the teams.

    As far as Othani, there was probably some tax stuff there but more of it was about so they could sign other players wanting to win. Yamamoto was the big one having no differed money

    If CA is successful Idont know how that would play out given that players make their salaries in the states their games are played in.

    Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007

  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I understand how game location taxes are assessed based on prorated income.

    That’s really not relevant. The issue is that he’s earning the income during his contract and being paid under the table later. The bit the states get now is the prorated portion on 2.8% of his annual salary.

    When I land in Reno I can explain if you want but I’ll have to find some crayons first.

  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 3,425 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 21, 2024 8:07PM

    @bgr said:
    I understand how game location taxes are assessed based on prorated income.

    That’s really not relevant. The issue is that he’s earning the income during his contract and being paid under the table later. The bit the states get now is the prorated portion on 2.8% of his annual salary.

    When I land in Reno I can explain if you want but I’ll have to find some crayons first.

    The majority of major contracts have deferred money. Manny is still being paid from the Red Sox on deferred money as one example.

    Deferred money is not being paid under the table and yes it is relevant that the state wouldnt be entitled to money earned in other states

    Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007

  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The contract contains earned income which is deferred. There is $68MM per year not being paid and not being taxed by those states. When you talk about the per state tax revenue you’re only talking about the $2MM per year which is not deferred.

    I am aware of other deferred contracts. Many of those are different scenarios. What I’m referring to here is the massive scope of the deferred salary. If that doesn’t make sense then let it be because i can’t explain it any clearer.

    There are a lot of people who are looking at this and salivating. Me included. We’re all waiting to see what happens.

  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 3,425 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 21, 2024 9:16PM

    Theres nothing different between a team in Boston, NY, FL, MD, DC etc deferring money in a contract for any sport which has all happened.

    Griffey had over 50 million deferred with the Reds. Scherzer had over 100 million deferred from the Nationals, Kevin Garnett has been making 5 million a year from the Celtics with deferred money for 7 years.

    Deferred money is deferred money no matter the amount which is a pay cut to the player since the money will be worth less. Teams love deferring money in contracts

    Its been happening for decades. The Othani situation is unique he makes so much money off the field so they could sign Yamamoto to 300 mil with no deferred money and the Othani deferred money counts less against the cap

    Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007

  • stevekstevek Posts: 28,989 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I can't see Congress changing the law. It just isn't going to happen.

    Changing the law would basically also mean that with capital gains on stocks, taxes would have to be paid at the time of the gains, even if the stock wasn't sold. Rather than waiting to pay taxes in the year the stock was sold at a profit. The American public tolerates a lot these days, but they wouldn't tolerate this.

    Forget about it, it's a dead issue.

  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Realizing investment gains is entirely different than deferred income on a contract.

    I doubt this is a dead issue and going through congress isn’t California’s only option here.

    I think the franchise tax board is going to win this one.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 28,989 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bgr said:
    Realizing investment gains is entirely different than deferred income on a contract.

    I doubt this is a dead issue and going through congress isn’t California’s only option here.

    I think the franchise tax board is going to win this one.

    Yes it's not the same, but it's still taxation on income which hasn't been received yet.

    The government could technically then even tax you on gains in value on your collectibles which you have not even sold.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I paid about 50% of my income back to the government in income, sales, property taxes, fees etc and lived paycheck to paycheck for almost 50 years.
    Really GREAT to see multi millionaires get to live like kings and pay next to nothing in taxes.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:

    @bgr said:
    Realizing investment gains is entirely different than deferred income on a contract.

    I doubt this is a dead issue and going through congress isn’t California’s only option here.

    I think the franchise tax board is going to win this one.

    Yes it's not the same, but it's still taxation on income which hasn't been received yet.

    The government could technically then even tax you on gains in value on your collectibles which you have not even sold.

    I don't see the connection here. This still has nothing to do with capital gains, and especially not unrealized capital gains.

    The fact that CA is looking to Congress here isn't a surprise as Congress is the legislative body which writes the Internal Revenue Code.

    The way this is being worked through somewhat of a loophole (not technically a loophole) violates the intent of the 1996 tax reform specific to this issue, which was intended to allow people with pensions to realize lower tax liability if they were to retire to a low/no income tax state.

    While the Dodgers, and others try to fit within these by providing uniform payments over periods of 10 or more years, it's quite different.

    One example is that private pensions must be funded. They cannot be PAYG like public pensions. This would mean that the Dodgers would need to escrow the amount in tomorrows dollars today.

    Another is that the deferred amount is substantial relative to the salaried amount. While it makes absolute sense that CA starts with Congress if that path fails, they have a much more powerful tool in the doctrine of constructive receipt at their disposal.

    I think this is going to be a big domino, but we'll see.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 28,989 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bgr said:

    @stevek said:

    @bgr said:
    Realizing investment gains is entirely different than deferred income on a contract.

    I doubt this is a dead issue and going through congress isn’t California’s only option here.

    I think the franchise tax board is going to win this one.

    Yes it's not the same, but it's still taxation on income which hasn't been received yet.

    The government could technically then even tax you on gains in value on your collectibles which you have not even sold.

    I don't see the connection here. This still has nothing to do with capital gains, and especially not unrealized capital gains.

    The fact that CA is looking to Congress here isn't a surprise as Congress is the legislative body which writes the Internal Revenue Code.

    The way this is being worked through somewhat of a loophole (not technically a loophole) violates the intent of the 1996 tax reform specific to this issue, which was intended to allow people with pensions to realize lower tax liability if they were to retire to a low/no income tax state.

    While the Dodgers, and others try to fit within these by providing uniform payments over periods of 10 or more years, it's quite different.

    One example is that private pensions must be funded. They cannot be PAYG like public pensions. This would mean that the Dodgers would need to escrow the amount in tomorrows dollars today.

    Another is that the deferred amount is substantial relative to the salaried amount. While it makes absolute sense that CA starts with Congress if that path fails, they have a much more powerful tool in the doctrine of constructive receipt at their disposal.

    I think this is going to be a big domino, but we'll see.

    I'm not going to go back and forth on tax law. Suffice to say I'd rather see Ohtani keep the money than California. Perhaps at that time he may decide to live in America. Perhaps he remains in Japan but buys a second home in America. Perhaps he starts a business in America.

    There are numerous examples of how society benefits, meaning we all benefit, by allowing folks to keep more of the money they earn, and yes that includes millionaires, rather than handing it over to a wasteful spending government.

  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:

    @bgr said:

    @stevek said:

    @bgr said:
    Realizing investment gains is entirely different than deferred income on a contract.

    I doubt this is a dead issue and going through congress isn’t California’s only option here.

    I think the franchise tax board is going to win this one.

    Yes it's not the same, but it's still taxation on income which hasn't been received yet.

    The government could technically then even tax you on gains in value on your collectibles which you have not even sold.

    I don't see the connection here. This still has nothing to do with capital gains, and especially not unrealized capital gains.

    The fact that CA is looking to Congress here isn't a surprise as Congress is the legislative body which writes the Internal Revenue Code.

    The way this is being worked through somewhat of a loophole (not technically a loophole) violates the intent of the 1996 tax reform specific to this issue, which was intended to allow people with pensions to realize lower tax liability if they were to retire to a low/no income tax state.

    While the Dodgers, and others try to fit within these by providing uniform payments over periods of 10 or more years, it's quite different.

    One example is that private pensions must be funded. They cannot be PAYG like public pensions. This would mean that the Dodgers would need to escrow the amount in tomorrows dollars today.

    Another is that the deferred amount is substantial relative to the salaried amount. While it makes absolute sense that CA starts with Congress if that path fails, they have a much more powerful tool in the doctrine of constructive receipt at their disposal.

    I think this is going to be a big domino, but we'll see.

    I'm not going to go back and forth on tax law. Suffice to say I'd rather see Ohtani keep the money than California. Perhaps at that time he may decide to live in America. Perhaps he remains in Japan but buys a second home in America. Perhaps he starts a business in America.

    There are numerous examples of how society benefits, meaning we all benefit, by allowing folks to keep more of the money they earn, and yes that includes millionaires, rather than handing it over to a wasteful spending government.

    Fair enough. I don't have an all-seeing eye like others, so I don't know what's going to happen. I am just following with interest. This came to my attention in an odd way... completely unrelated to sports. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on it, so thanks.

  • bgrbgr Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There are numerous examples of how society benefits, meaning we all benefit, by allowing folks to keep more of the money they earn, and yes that includes millionaires, rather than handing it over to a wasteful spending government.

    I agree with you in principle even though I don't have the understanding to reconcile how an idealistic free-market economy would operate with some of the social programs which seem effectively inalienable.

    Not a topic I can speak intelligently on, but you did remind me of some of my favorite reads on that subject.

    1. Henry Hazlett - Economics in one Lesson.
    2. F.A. Hayek - Road to Serfdom.
    3. Milton Friedman - Capitalism and Freedom.
    4. Milton Friedman - Not a book, but his essay on the social responsibility of business.
    5. Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations - definitely a hard read, but still relevant. I still leverage the broken window fallacy in discussions today.

    I always found Hayek's views to be most salient, especially given the context.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 28,989 ✭✭✭✭✭
Sign In or Register to comment.