EBAY Auction hits $100,000: Original Harry Reid/Rush Limbaugh Smear Letter

EBay - Limbaugh ^ | Oct 17, 2007 | Ebay / Limbaugh

[Vision]

I’m ashamed to say both my idiotic Senators signed it.

[America_Right]

Mega-dittos (I know dittos doesn't mean you agree, but I had to say it) to EVERYTHING you just said. I totally agree with all of it, especially the last sentence. Congress can't do this. If they can, then the whole concept of the good ol' USA is out the proverbial window.

Wrongthinking will be punished.

This is double-plus bad for us...(Sorry, my Newspeak is a little rusty. Everybody better start brushing up on it.)

[Shortstop7]

You are right....it is driving them nuts. Unbelievable that people could be so full of hatred.

Thanks for the link!

Go Rush!

[America_Right]

We ship all of our liberals to Austin to remind our State government how ridiculous things can get if liberals have power.

What a great idea!

Both of my senators signed..Boxer and Feinstein. Ya I know, don’t say it.

I’ve gotta tell you ... we Texans have a lot of laughs at the expense of you Californians. You’ve got a bunch of crazy people out there.

Boxer and DiFi... Not bad, but I will do ya one better. I have Larry Craig! Bwahahahaha!!! I WIN!!!

[athelass]

I wonder if Alan did this, would he also challenge the 41 airheads (oops, I mean Senators) to match a donation to the ACLU.

LOL!! Heck no! They only spend our money. They'd pass a radio tax or an SUV tax or a "People who buy their own health insurance" tax and put the ACLU on the National Endowment for the Arts list!

[mware]

Current bid: US $117,100.00

[armydoc]

I’m not sure I understand why the winning bid will be considered tax deductible, since the winner will in fact own a document that is “worth” the winning bid (or something approximating it, depending on how much the winning bid topped the previous bids). Seems to me, the only person that could be in a position to take a deduction is Rush himself. Any comments?

[longtermmemmory]

FNC is reporting ebay is trying to woo back customers by cutting listing prices 33%. The implication that ebay has competition.

Why is a story about ebay has competition on the air but the Rush Limbaugh Auction not covered? This is a DBM effort to sabotage from FNC?!

(dog adoption story is news but senators, two of them presidential candidates, having a public humiliation is not?)

[longtermmemmory]

no.

one was a direct reaction to a provable specific advertisement.

the other was a artificial reaction due to a totally fabricated statement.

It would be like somebody producing a flamed reply to a posting you never actually made. Just that somebody said you made.

[longtermmemmory]

FNC reported ebay has cut rates for listings due to lost business....from competition.

Just waiting for the Rush / ebay link.

See Snapple, Florida Orange Juice...

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

I’m willing to bet $100 that the dems are right now putting pressure on Ebay’s top exec to squash the auction.

[mathluv]

I liked the idea of the mail carrier who called in yesterday - all federal employees are given the option to donate in their paychecks, and this charity is one of the options. He emphasized ALL federal employees have that option, including senators.

[longtermmemmory]

HEADS UP!

FNF said they are going to talk about the “Rush Letter”

Nothing from CNN or MSNBC.

[longtermmemmory]

The MSM is already squashed this story.

nothing on CNN or MSNBC (but the dog story is number 1)

only John Gibson did a good independent editorial on this.

anyone hear a comment on c-span?

[rface]

seems to me that since all the money is going to an IRS determined not-for-profit org, then the money is a tax deduction. This seems easy for any brain to figure out.

Any tax deduction that Rush gets has minute....almost indetectable .... impact on his income taxes. He makes his charitable donations because he likes the charities - not so much for tax deductions.

[armydoc]

seems to me that since all the money is going to an IRS determined not-for-profit org, then the money is a tax deduction. This seems easy for any brain to figure out.

You sell a piece of art at an auction. I have the winning bid at $100k. You donate the $100k to a charity. I have $100k of equity in the piece of art, assuming my bid was something approximating fair market value. It doesn't matter that you donated your $100k; I can't keep the art and declare the $100k as a tax write-off. You have effectively lost the $100k and therefore can take the write-off. Can your brain figure this out?

[rface]

sorry for being "snippy"

You may have a point - but, this is not how this is set up.

maybe this is how it works:

The document is sold for ...let's say...$100k.Maybe Rush says...I donated a document worth $100k, so I get a $100k deduction.

The buyer also has donated $100k to a tax-deductable charity so he gets $100k deduction...(this is done all the time at "Charity auctions")... I don't think it matters if the "artwork" or the document has an intrinsic value....

Here's a link to the entity that is auctioning off the document:

[rednesss]

Donations are only tax deductible if you received no "goods or services" for your donation. Since you are buying something that now has intrinsic value, like buying a famous baseball, you have an asset. The buyer can not take a tax deduction for purchasing an asset.

[rface]

what does this mean?

TAX INFORMATION · Payment of the winning bid made through this auction may be tax deductible. We make no representations as to tax treatment. Consult with your tax advisor for more information, as we do not provide tax consulting.

[rednesss]

Rules Applicable To Auction Bidders

Probably the most common misconception bidders have about charitable auctions is that any payment they make for items purchased constitutes a charitable contribution to the sponsoring charity. In fact, a charitable contribution results only if the amount paid for the item exceeds its fair market value. The fact that the item was donated to the charity does not change the result. The buyers have entered into a quid pro quo transaction in which they received value for the payment they made. A quid pro quo transaction is not a gift.

The Internal Revenue Service addressed this issue as early as 1967 in Revenue Ruling 67-246.20 The following paragraphs, taken from that ruling are instructive. (Emphasis has been added.)

"As a general rule, where a transaction involving a payment is in the form of a purchase of an item of value, the presumption arises that no gift has been made for charitable contribution purposes, the presumption being that the payment in such case is the purchase price.

Thus, where consideration in the form of admissions or other privileges or benefits is received in connection with payments by patrons of fund raising affairs of the type in question, the presumption is that the payments are not gifts. In such case, therefore, if a charitable contribution deduction is claimed with respect to the payment, the burden is on the taxpayer to establish that the amount paid is not the purchase price of the privileges or benefits and that part of the payment, in fact, does qualify as a gift.

In showing that a gift has been made, an essential element is proof that the portion of the payment claimed as a gift represents the excess of the total amount paid over the value of the consideration received therefor. This may be established by evidence that the payment exceeds the fair market value of the privileges or other benefits received by the amount claimed to have been paid as a gift.

Another element that is important in establishing that a gift was made in such circumstances, is evidence that the payment in excess of the value received was made with the intention of making a gift. While proof of such intention may not be an essential requirement under all circumstances and may sometimes be inferred from surrounding circumstances, the intention to make a gift is, nevertheless, highly relevant in overcoming doubt in those cases in which there is a question whether an amount was in fact paid as a purchase price or as a gift.

Regardless of the intention of the parties, however, a payment of the type in question can in any event qualify as a deductible gift only to the extent that it is shown to exceed the fair market value of any consideration received in the form of privileges or other benefits."

It seems clear then, that only to the extent the amount paid exceeds the fair market value of an auction item will the successful bidder be entitled to a charitable contribution deduction. While this Revenue Ruling does not use the word "auction," the 12 examples in the ruling are broad enough to cover today's charity auctions. The following is example nine.

"The X Charity sponsors a fund raising bazaar, the articles offered for sale at the bazaar having been contributed to X by persons desiring to support X' s charitable programs. The prices for the articles sold at the bazaar are set by a committee of X with a view to charging the full fair market value of the articles.

A taxpayer that purchases articles at the bazaar is not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction for any portion of the amount paid to X for such articles. This is true even though the articles sold at the bazaar are acquired and sold without cost to X and the total proceeds of the sale of the articles are used by X exclusively for charitable purposes."

The 1967 Revenue Ruling did not keep the lid on excess deductions for quid pro quo transactions for very long. In 1988, the Internal Revenue Service mailed Publication 1391, Deductibility of Payments Made to Charities Conducting Fund-Raising Events, to over 400,000 tax exempt charities "asking their help in informing contributors more accurately about the deductibility of contributions made in connection with fund raising events." In this publication, auctions were specifically mentioned as a type of event in which payments made to the sponsoring organization may be totally nondeductible. Others mentioned included charity balls, bazaars, banquets, concerts, athletic events, and solicitations for membership. Other events that have attracted the Service's attention over the years include religious education courses and marriage enrichment seminars, all with the same result: no deduction to the extent of the fair market value of the property received in return.

Consider three examples as to the deductibility of payments by successful bidders for charitable auction items.

Example 1. On the evening of its auction, Royale Museum has a roomful of tables with various auction items. This is to be a silent auction in which patrons place written bids on each item. The items are numbered and the bid list is placed beside each item. A card beside each item on the tables states the estimated fair market value of the item as determined by the auction committee, generally based on representations made by the item donor.

Each patron who bids places his or her name below the name of the previous bidder and is required to raise the previous bid by a specified amount. The last name on the list at the close of the auction (should represent the highest bid) is the successful bidder.

At $150,Tiffany is the successful bidder on a bottle of rare Cabernet Sauvignon. The fair market value as evidenced by the card is represented to be $300.

Tiffany is not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction because she received an item of value in excess of the payment she made. There is no gift and no deduction is allowable.

Example 2. The facts are the same as in the example above except that Tiffany's mother, Vicki, was the successful bidder on a painting of Mount Vernon. The frame was made by the craftsmen who maintain the home from trees actually grown on the plantation. Vicki's bid was $750. The fair market value of the item was represented to be $750.

Vicki is not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction because she received an item of value equal to the payment she made. There is no gift and no deduction is allowable.

Example 3. The facts are the same as in the example above, except that Vicki's friend, Cheryl, was the successful bidder on a football autographed in 1985 by Joe Montana. The contributor of the item was a local sports memorabilia dealer who was an expert in valuing items of this nature. He represented to the Museum that the item had a fair market value of $1,250. Cheryl was buying the football for her 15-year-old son for whom Montana is his idol. Cheryl paid $1,925 for the item.

Cheryl is entitled to a charitable contribution deduction in the amount of $675 because she paid more for the item than the value she received in return. The excess payment is a gift and a deduction is allowable but only to the extent of the excess.