Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oscar Guests May Be Hit with Taxes
IMDB.com ^ | 3/6/06

Posted on 03/07/2006 1:05:38 AM PST by paudio

Guests who took home gift-packed bags from Sunday's 78th Annual Academy Awards ceremony may have to pay $30,000 in taxes on their new acquisitions. The bags, which included a $7,000 Victoria's Secret underwear set and a coupon for Lasik surgery, are worth approximately $100,000 each. And unfortunately for the celebrities present, the Unites States Inland Revenue Service has declared that the bags given to Oscar attendees count as taxable income. IRS commissioner Mark Everson quips, "We want to make sure the stars 'walk the line' when it comes to these goody bags."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: hollywood; oscars; tax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: kingu

good point..


41 posted on 03/07/2006 5:20:24 AM PST by wafflehouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Days old repeat.


42 posted on 03/07/2006 5:36:57 AM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fooman
IRS Website FAQ on gifts...

Q: What is the gift tax?

The gift tax is a tax on the transfer of property by one individual to another while receiving nothing, or less than full value, in return. The tax applies whether the donor intends the transfer to be a gift or not. The gift tax applies to the transfer by gift of any property. You make a gift if you give property (including money), or the use of or income from property, without expecting to receive something of at least equal value in return. If you sell something at less than its full value or if you make an interest-free or reduced-interest loan, you may be making a gift.

Q: Who pays the gift tax?

The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead. Please visit with your tax professional if you are considering this type of arrangement.

Seems pretty clear cut there; the donor pays the tax on the item, not the one receiving the item. The only thing that would make sense to me is if the IRS is determining that these aren't gifts, but instead, are prizes. It'd make an interesting court case.
43 posted on 03/07/2006 5:43:32 AM PST by kingu (Liberalism: The art of sticking your fingers in your ears and going NANANANA..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: maggief
Those were the presenters, right?

So, this is the "payment" to ensure those very, very prominent people would show up and make their presentations and say their lines in public while handing out the envelopes and prizes.

Seems very clear to me that if 2 dozen people make speeches on TV, and those same 2 dozen people get very very expensive 100,000.00 "gifts" in return for making for making short presentations on TV to a national audience, then those gifts are actually income.
44 posted on 03/07/2006 5:52:18 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kingu

you are right about gifts. I still think it was an appearance fee. I hope they are taxed.


45 posted on 03/07/2006 6:08:31 AM PST by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: fooman

Any time my husband 'won' a 'free' anything (trip, tv or other toy) in a sales contest, we pay taxes on the value of the 'freebie'. ALways have.

That's why often folks who win cars, or the HGTV home contest, often sell the prize because they cannot afford the taxes.

I understand that the last couple winners of that home (I think it was HGTV contest, not positive) sold the home because they could not afford the taxes and probably not the upkeep either -

I think it is grand that they are finally getting the recipients of the oscar freebies. After all, if you hit a jackpot in Vegas, the IRS is right there to collect its share of the prize.


46 posted on 03/07/2006 6:49:09 AM PST by SusaninOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: son of caesar
babs streisand is also famous for demanding such pay off the books.

Does she also demand you supply the RV she has follow her everywhere she goes, so she has a place to use the restroom?

47 posted on 03/07/2006 8:47:01 AM PST by CFC__VRWC ("Anytime a liberal squeals in outrage, an angel gets its wings!" - gidget7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: skr

My, my, they had to pay the guests a lot to make them come.

There's a joke in there someplace....:D


48 posted on 03/07/2006 9:40:44 AM PST by gimme1ibertee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sun Descending
Does it's value increase when it's owned? :P

I don't know... how much do you think someone would pay on Ebay for a pair of panties worn by Angelina Jolie?

Remember the old Chevy Chase joke about a new stamp commemorating prostitutes? It costs a dime, but if you lick it it's a quarter. The panties are $7,000, but if you wear it...

-PJ

49 posted on 03/07/2006 9:50:37 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Some liberals are about to get "mugged."


50 posted on 03/07/2006 9:52:17 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu
Absolute bunk. That's not income, that's a gift.

There is a lot of case law about "gifts" under the Internal Revenue Code. If you give a gift to a friend or family member out of "disinterested generosity," it's not income to the recipient; but if you give someone something out of a business motivation, it is legally considered income to the recipient even if it's a "gift" in the sense that you had no legal obligation to give it to them.

51 posted on 03/07/2006 9:59:44 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dblack

FYI


52 posted on 03/07/2006 10:00:16 AM PST by dware (3 prohibited topics in mixed company: politics, religion and operating systems...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
but if you give someone something out of a business motivation, it is legally considered income to the recipient even if it's a "gift" in the sense that you had no legal obligation to give it to them.

So the telephone book that just got dropped off on my doorstep is now income? The junk mail in my box? I got some calendars in the mail as well; those must be income as well.

I'm not jumping down your throat, it just seems absolutely idiotic on the part of the IRS. If they don't want to let companies write off these things as 'advertising' - then fine, don't let them. Crud like this will get me to support the NRST.
53 posted on 03/07/2006 3:07:29 PM PST by kingu (Liberalism: The art of sticking your fingers in your ears and going NANANANA..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: kingu
So the telephone book that just got dropped off on my doorstep is now income? The junk mail in my box? I got some calendars in the mail as well; those must be income as well.

In theory, yes, but the fair market value of those things is so miniscule that the IRS ignores them. But win a car on a TV game show, and they will come knocking.

I'm not jumping down your throat, it just seems absolutely idiotic on the part of the IRS. If they don't want to let companies write off these things as 'advertising' - then fine, don't let them. Crud like this will get me to support the NRST.

The idiocy is not on the part of the IRS but of Congress. Congress writes the tax laws; the IRS just enforces them.

Actually, the principle is not entirely idiotic, once you accept the idea of an income tax; otherwise, everyone would "volunteer" to work at their office and their boss would give them "gifts" for coming in.

54 posted on 03/07/2006 3:12:25 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: paudio
Inland Revenue Service?
55 posted on 03/07/2006 3:13:48 PM PST by Xenalyte (Numba one in tha hood, G!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Fair enough!


56 posted on 03/07/2006 5:32:17 PM PST by Sun Descending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

Got it. Thanks. I was always bad at story problems :P.


57 posted on 03/07/2006 5:37:10 PM PST by Sun Descending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

Got it. Thanks. I was always bad at story problems :P.


58 posted on 03/07/2006 5:37:13 PM PST by Sun Descending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

Interesting. Thanks :)


59 posted on 03/07/2006 5:38:35 PM PST by Sun Descending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bondjamesbond

But the stars can donate what they don't want to a charity, taking it back off their tax return. Useless items (like a coupon for Lasix for someone who has normal vision already and nontransferrable) should count for being worth $0.


60 posted on 03/15/2006 2:52:46 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson