DOCSLIB.ORG

Jock Tax”: Players Always Lose in an Unfair Game

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jock Tax”: Players Always Lose in an Unfair Game THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING THE “JOCK TAX”: PLAYERS ALWAYS LOSE IN AN UNFAIR GAME JUSTIN W. TAYLOR FALL 2012 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree in Accounting with honors in Accounting Reviewed and approved* by the following: Rick Laux Assistant Professor of Accounting Thesis Supervisor Orie Barron Professor of Accounting Honors Adviser * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College i ABSTRACT Modern professional athletes are some of the most recognizable and well-paid members of society in the United States. While their biggest fans are the devoted followers that fund the growing professional sports industry, tax administrators from states and cities across the country are also watching their every move. Since the early 1990s, collectors at the state and local level have enforced the “jock tax,” an individual income tax specifically targeting visiting professional athletes. Experts consider the policy to be both inefficient and discriminatory in nature, as it targets athletes based solely on their profession and increases the compliance burden for all affected parties. Still, taxing authorities have found that the additional revenue raised outweighs the cost of enforcement, and there are no signs that any change in policy is imminent. This thesis studies the hypothetical effects of the “jock tax” on NFL personnel during the 2012 season. It seeks to determine how much excess income tax team employees will incur and whether these amounts provide further evidence that the tax is poor policy. In addition, the paper will analyze which teams are the most and least beneficial for athletes to play for from a tax perspective. Lastly, this thesis will test the assertion that fans, media, and perhaps even team members themselves have an incorrect understanding of how taxes should affect the employment decisions of professional sports team personnel. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. v Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2: History of the “Jock Tax” ............................................................................................................. 4 Chapter 3: Application of the “Jock Tax” ...................................................................................................... 7 Key Terms .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Calculation ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Enforcement ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 4: Previous Research ..................................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 5: Development of Hypotheses ..................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 6: Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................ 17 Chapter 7: Design of Model ........................................................................................................................ 18 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Chapter 8: Results ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 9: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 30 Hypotheses Revisited .............................................................................................................................. 30 Related Topics ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Effect on NFL Teams............................................................................................................................ 36 Effect on Other Leagues ...................................................................................................................... 37 Effect on Other States ......................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 10: Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix A: Arizona Cardinals .................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix B: Atlanta Falcons ....................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix C: Baltimore Ravens .................................................................................................................... 45 Appendix D: Buffalo Bills ............................................................................................................................. 46 Appendix E: Carolina Panthers .................................................................................................................... 47 Appendix F: Chicago Bears .......................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix G: Cincinnati Bengals .................................................................................................................. 49 Appendix H: Cleveland Browns ................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix I: Dallas Cowboys ........................................................................................................................ 51 Appendix J: Denver Broncos ....................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix K: Detroit Lions ........................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix L: Green Bay Packers................................................................................................................... 54 Appendix M: Houston Texans ..................................................................................................................... 55 Appendix N: Indianapolis Colts ................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix O: Jacksonville Jaguars ................................................................................................................ 57 Appendix P: Kansas City Chiefs ................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix Q: Miami Dolphins ...................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix R: Minnesota Vikings .................................................................................................................. 60 Appendix S: New England Patriots .............................................................................................................. 61 Appendix T: New Orleans Saints ................................................................................................................. 62 Appendix U: New York Giants ..................................................................................................................... 63 Appendix V: New York Jets ......................................................................................................................... 64 Appendix W: Oakland Raiders .................................................................................................................... 65 Appendix X: Philadelphia Eagles ................................................................................................................. 66 Appendix Y: Pittsburgh Steelers .................................................................................................................. 67 iii Appendix Z: St. Louis Rams ......................................................................................................................... 68 Appendix AA: San Diego Chargers .............................................................................................................. 69 Appendix BB: San Francisco 49ers .............................................................................................................. 70 Appendix CC: Seattle Seahawks .................................................................................................................. 71 Appendix DD: Tampa Bay Buccaneers ........................................................................................................ 72 Appendix EE: Tennessee Titans..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Jock Tax
    The Jock tax All Americans pay Federal income tax on the money that they earn each year. Some states charge an additional state income tax. So, all people pay Federal income tax and only some people also pay state income tax. Surely it is better, financially, to live in a state that doesn’t charge state income tax. There are even some cities that charge income tax for money earned in their city. New York City and Detroit, Michigan are among the most expensive, tax-wise, cities to live in. Let’s figure this out. When a professional ball player plays a game in a city or state away from where he lives, that state is allowed to charge him income tax on money earned there. Since professional ball player’s schedules are well known, the state taxing agencies have no trouble figuring out if someone’s income was partially earned in their state. So, professional sports people are taxed from many different states and some cities no matter where they live. The issue is more about where they play. Sounds expensive, doesn’t it? Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington have no state income taxes. Tennessee and New Hampshire only tax individuals on their dividend or interest earnings not their ball playing earnings in their state. So I’m thinking that all professional sports people should probably live in Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, or Washington. Let’s see how it might work. Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan live in Jupiter, Florida. Alex Rodriguez lives in Miami Beach, Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxation of Income on Professional Team Athletes
    Running head: INCOME TAXATION FOR ATHLETES 1 Taxation of Income on Professional Team Athletes Crystal Williamson A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2017 INCOME TAXATION FOR ATHLETES 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Melanie Hicks, D.B.A. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Beth Koss, CPA, M.B.A Committee Member ______________________________ Phillip Blosser, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Marilyn Gadomski, Ph.D. Honors Assistant Director ______________________________ Date INCOME TAXATION FOR ATHLETES 3 Abstract Taxation of income for the average person can be a daunting task. However, for professional athletes, this task becomes even more tedious. Professional athletes face the jock tax. This means that athletes have to pay taxes in every state in which they play a game, practice, and perform a service that is part of their contract. Professional athletes, like every United States (U.S.) citizen, are required to pay both federal and state income taxes. Since professional athletes are constantly traveling, their state of residence becomes even more important when allocating their income to the respective state. Many question the constitutionality of the jock tax. Nonetheless, professional athletes need to strategically plan to maximize their profits, while factoring in the implementations of the jock tax. INCOME TAXATION FOR ATHLETES 4 Taxation of Income on Professional Team Athletes The Chicago Cubs versus the Cleveland Indians. Game 7 of the World Series. It all comes down to this one game.
    [Show full text]
  • Jock Tax”: Fair Play Or Unsportsmanlike Conduct
    THE “JOCK TAX”: FAIR PLAY OR UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT John DiMascio* Just as the players of the Seattle Seahawks began to settle into their off- season routines following the 2005 season, April 171 brought an unpleasant reminder of the loss they suffered in Super Bowl XL. Although it may not have set in entirely by then for many of the players, each of them likely realized the exact nature of his loss in Detroit. Of course the loss referred to is not the team’s 21-10 defeat at the hands of the Pittsburgh Steelers.2 Rather, it is the income that each player was forced to surrender to the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit in compliance with the “jock tax”3 levied by those jurisdictions.4 It has been estimated that Michigan’s 3.4% tax on nonresident athletes cost the Seahawks nearly $300,000 just to play at Ford Field.5 In addition to that, the city of Detroit imposes its own 1.275% tax on the earnings of the athletes.6 In the end, Seattle quarterback Matt Hasslebeck was forced to pay out an estimated $10,000 of his salary to a city and state where he has no residence and no affiliation.7 Perhaps fed up with seeing his state’s athletes fund the budgets of other states and cities, Washington State Representative Chris Strow recently proposed what some have called a “retaliation tax” on nonresident athletes.8 House Bill 3104 would impose a surcharge on out-of-state professional * J.D., 2007, University of Pittsburgh School of Law; B.S., 2004, West Virginia University.
    [Show full text]
  • Multistate Tax Report®
    Tax Management Multistate Tax Report® VOL. 23, NO. 2 FEBRUARY 26, 2016 HIGHLIGHTS ALSO IN THE NEWS Amazon to Start Collecting Colorado Sales Tax February 1 ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: Appeals Amazon.com LLC said it will start collecting Colorado sales tax for the first court tosses Wisconsin sales tax time. A spokesman told Bloomberg BNA that the online retailer ‘‘will be re- assessment against Orbitz quired to collect sales tax in Colorado’’ beginning Feb. 1. Page 116 Page 115 What Will the Future of State Tax Law Look Like Without Scalia? EXEMPTIONS: Challenge to Princ- With the sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, the empty seat on the U.S. eton’s tax-exempt status will Supreme Court is a reminder of a three-decade era marked by an originalist proceed, New Jersey tax judge jurist whose ‘‘bigger than life’’ presence reshaped the highest court’s dis- rules Page 131 course, but whose absence may have a material impact on future state tax cases. Page 158 PROPERTY TAX: Wind turbine Airbnb Agrees to Collect Alabama Lodging Tax ruled exempt from property tax in Rhode Island Page 135 Airbnb Inc. will begin collecting Alabama lodging taxes for its room rental list- ings in the state March 1, under an agreement reached with the Alabama De- PROCEDURE: Legally sound path- partment of Revenue. ‘‘This agreement will increase compliance in this area, way exists to exempt state’s hos- and I commend Airbnb’s willingness to take the steps necessary to ensure that pital fee from revenue limits the appropriate taxes are being remitted,’’ Alabama Revenue Commissioner Page 154 Julie P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Accounting, Financial, and Taxation Aspects of Sports Robyn Francis Long Island University, [email protected]
    Long Island University Digital Commons @ LIU Undergraduate Honors College Theses 2016- LIU Post 2019 The Accounting, Financial, and Taxation Aspects of Sports Robyn Francis Long Island University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/post_honors_theses Recommended Citation Francis, Robyn, "The Accounting, Financial, and Taxation Aspects of Sports" (2019). Undergraduate Honors College Theses 2016-. 49. https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/post_honors_theses/49 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the LIU Post at Digital Commons @ LIU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors College Theses 2016- by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ LIU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Accounting, Financial, and Taxation Aspects of Sports An Honors College Thesis By Robyn Francis Fall, 2018 Accountancy Advisor: Michael Abatemarco ​ Reader: Carol Boyer ​ Abstract The anticipation of sports and its urgency in society leaves companies in awe over the mass affect that sports have on society. It's a great time for everyone involved and a lot goes into account on behalf of the fans, players, and coaching staff for their hard work. Many might not be aware about the procedures that go on behind the scenes to provide the marvelous events that bring society together every day. Some of these procedures can be damaging to teams and players, such as the infamous jock tax or unstable contracts. But overall there are rules set in place to protect players rights over exploitation and abuse. Players are also free to negotiate their own contracts and are able to hire people who deal with the legal issues on their behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2003.Book
    NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Summer 2003 Vol. 16, No. 2 Articles Brazil and the MST: Land Reform and Human Rights Kevin E. Colby..........................................................................................1 Was the Supreme Court Right? A Closer Look at the True Nature of Removal Proceedings in the 21st Century Michelle Rae Pinzon...............................................................................29 The Other Side of the Coin: A Look at Islamic Law as Compared to Anglo-Amercican Law—Do Muslim Women Really Have Fewer Rights Than American Women? Kathleen A. Portuán Miller....................................................................65 Trademarks Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) With References to the New Trademark Law of Spain, Effective July 31, 2002, and the Current Mexican Law Roberto Rosas.......................................................................................147 Recent Decisions Europe Movieco Partners Limited v. United Pan-Europe Com. N.V...191 Expedited appeal in bankruptcy denied on issue of extraterritoriality. Wimmer Canada, Inc. v. Abele Tractor & Equipment Co., Inc. ..........197 Canadian court may have jurisdiction, even if no basis under New York Uniform Foreign Country Money- Judgments Recognition Act. Nedagro B.V. v. Zao Konversbank........................................................203 Motion to defer granted because of international comity, and to avoid an inconsistent result. Newbridge Acquisition v. Grupo Corvi ................................................211
    [Show full text]
  • 10279388 Cover for C&I Article
    March/April 2015 Credits & Incentives talk with Deloitte The Home Field Advantage of Credits and Incentives by Kevin Potter, Deloitte Tax LLP Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of mem- ber firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see www. deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of DTTL and its member firms. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives (Thomson Reuters/Tax & Accounting) Volume 25, Number 1, March/April 2015 CREDITS & INCENTIVES TALK WITH DELOITTE The Home Field Advantage of Credits and Incentives KEVIN POTTER is a Director in Deloitte's National Credits & Incentives practice. Kevin currently manages all aspects of statutory credit and negotiated incentive reviews and other similar projects for large and mid-size multistate corporations. You can follow Kevin on Twitter at @Kevin_S_Potter. JASON FEINGERTZ is a Tax Consultant in Deloitte's New York Multistate practice. Jason works with clients across various industries on their multistate tax issues, including income & franchise, sales/use and credits and incentives. Jason is currently a member of the Sports Lawyers Association and Deloitte's Sports Business Group.
    [Show full text]
  • How Personal Income Taxes Impact NHL Players, Teams and the Salary Cap
    HOME GUEST 0 10 HOME ICE TAX DISADVANTAGE? How personal income taxes impact NHL players, teams and the salary cap Jeff Bowes Research Director Canadian Taxpayers Federation November 2014 The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is a federally ABOUT THE incorporated, not-for-profit citizen’s group dedicated to lower taxes, less waste and accountable government. CANADIAN The CTF was founded in Saskatchewan in 1990 when the Association of Saskatchewan Taxpayers and the Resolution TAXPAYERS One Association of Alberta joined forces to create a national taxpayers organization. Today, the CTF has 84,000 FEDERATION supporters nation-wide. The CTF maintains a federal office in Ottawa and regional offices in British Columbia, Alberta, Prairie (SK and MB), Ontario and Atlantic. Regional offices conduct research and advocacy activities specific to their provinces in addition to acting as regional organizers of Canada-wide initiatives. CTF offices field hundreds of media interviews each month, hold press conferences and issue regular news releases, commentaries, online postings and publications to advocate on behalf of CTF supporters. CTF representatives speak at functions, make presentations to government, meet with politicians, and organize petition drives, events and campaigns to mobilize citizens to affect public policy change. Each week CTF offices send out Let’s Talk Taxes commentaries to more than 800 media outlets and personalities across Canada. Any Canadian taxpayer committed to the CTF’s mission is welcome to join at no cost and receive issue and Action Updates. Financial supporters can additionally receive the CTF’s flagship publication,The Taxpayer magazine published four times a year. The CTF is independent of any institutional or partisan affiliations.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax My Ride: Taxing Commuters in Our National Economy Morgan Holcomb Mitchell Hamline School of Law, [email protected]
    Mitchell Hamline School of Law Mitchell Hamline Open Access Faculty Scholarship 2008 Tax My Ride: Taxing Commuters in Our National Economy Morgan Holcomb Mitchell Hamline School of Law, [email protected] Publication Information 8 Florida Tax Review 885 (2008) Repository Citation Holcomb, Morgan, "Tax My Ride: Taxing Commuters in Our National Economy" (2008). Faculty Scholarship. Paper 375. http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/facsch/375 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tax My Ride: Taxing Commuters in Our National Economy Abstract States constitutionally impose individual income taxes on two bases: (1) Residency: a state of residence can tax its residents and domiciliaries and (2) Source: the state in which income is earned can tax the individual earner. At present, there is no articulated constitutional barrier to "double taxation" of individual income. That is, there is no requirement that the source state and residence state collaborate to tax no more than 100% of an individual's income, and there is no requirement that only one state consider itself the "source" of a particular item of income. In the realm of corporate income taxation the Commerce Clause has been interpreted as requiring each state to tax only the income fairly apportioned to that state. This article argues that the commerce clause applies to check the discriminatory taxation of individual income as well. In addition, the article synthesizes the goals of the Privileges and Immunities Clause with those of the dormant Commerce Clause, and demonstrates that the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not occupy the field to the exclusion of the dormant Commerce Clause.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Taxes: the Taxation of Professional Athletes
    WHY COME TO TRAINING CAMP OUT OF SHAPE WHEN You CAN WORK OUT INTHE OFF-SEASON AND LOWER YOUR TAXES: THE TAXATION OF PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES I. INTRODUCTION Professional athletics have long been a part of North American culture. Throughout the United States and Canada, fans have been attending sporting events in the four major sports' for decades. However, when your favorite team loses on a last second goal by the opposing team's star player, fans can take comfort in the fact that the opposing player will be paying the price for his success back to the fan in the form of taxes.2 With the increase in players' salaries over the past couple of decades, the "jock tax"3 has been an increasingly popular measure among taxing jurisdictions as an attempt to apply income taxes to the salaries of visiting professional baseball, basketball, hockey, and football players.4 In addition, 1.For purposes ofthis Note, the four major sports include: baseball, basketball, hockey, and football. 2. See Larry Williams & Sean Horgan, From Rock Icon to Ice King, State Wants Taxes From the Stars,THE HARTFORD CoURATr, Aug. 17, 1995, at Al. 3. Thejock tax refers to the "concept ofmultiple income taxation ofprofessional athletes .ElizabethC. Ekmekjian, The Jock Tax: State and Local Income Taxation of Professional Athletes, 4 SETON HALL J.SPORT L. 229, 230 (1994). 4. See Karen Pierog, Players on Both Sides Take a Look at the Jock Tax Contest: Taxes on Salaries of Professional Athletes, THE BOND BUYER, Aug. 14, 1992, at 5. Reasons why athletes are being singled out for
    [Show full text]
  • Changing the Face of College Sports One Tax Return at a Time
    Oklahoma Law Review Volume 73 Number 3 2021 Changing the Face of College Sports One Tax Return at a Time Kathryn Kisska-Schulze Adam Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr Part of the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Kathryn Kisska-Schulze & Adam Epstein, Changing the Face of College Sports One Tax Return at a Time, 73 OKLA. L. REV. 457 (2021), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol73/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oklahoma Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHANGING THE FACE OF COLLEGE SPORTS ONE TAX RETURN AT A TIME KATHRYN KISSKA-SCHULZE* & ADAM EPSTEIN** Abstract On September 30, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the Fair Pay to Play Act (FPTPA), allowing student-athletes to hire agents and financially benefit from their college sports activities by permitting commercialized use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). California’s law circumvented the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) historic injunction on student-athletes receiving compensation outside of scholarships; however, after its passage, the NCAA reformed its stance to allow student-athletes to profit from the use of their NIL. With the NCAA’s approval, and with numerous states pushing legislation similar to the FPTPA, the face of college sports is changing. However, as quickly as the NCAA transformed its posture on student- athletes being compensated, the term tax emerged.
    [Show full text]
  • Don't Tax Yourself
    www.bowditch.com/estateandtaxplanningblog DON’T TAX YOURSELF A Publication of Bowditch & Dewey's Estate, Financial & Tax Planning Group Understanding the “Jock Tax” BY SCOTT C. CASHMAN • JANUARY 24, 2019 In addition to preparing and playing at a high level, professional athletes face a bewildering complexity when it comes to filing their income taxes. As a general rule, nonresident athletes pay the so-called “jock tax” in every state (and some cities) that they play a game in, and if their state of residence has an income tax in their home state as well. So a player such as Tom Brady of the New England Patriots will pay income taxes in every state that the Patriots play a game in, such as division rivals New York, New Jersey and Indianapolis. However, some states such as Florida do not have a state income tax, so games played in Miami are not taxed by the state of Florida. Athletes who are residents of a state with a state income tax pay tax to their resident state. A resident will include in their resident state all their income earned. So, for example, an athlete who resides in Massachusetts or California (two states with an income tax) will pay tax on all of their income earned within and outside of those state to their home state. In moving to and signing with the Los Angeles Lakers, LeBron James likely added significantly to his state income tax bill. However, athletes who are nonresidents will only pay tax on their in-state source income. So, for example, an athlete who is a resident of Florida (no income tax) who is a member of the New England Patriots or Boston Red Sox will only pay tax on their Massachusetts source income.
    [Show full text]