Iron Dukes Better Pay Attention To This

[Atlanta Duke]

Thread still open?!?!?! I'm in!

The most shocking news here to me is that you can take any charitable deduction at all on donations given in exchange for access to sports tickets. I'd love to find out which sports-crazy member of Congress slid that in the tax code once upon a time...and which college he/she was cheering for.

"Mr. Speaker, the Congressman from the University of Kentucky...er, from Kentucky...has a proposed amendment to the tax bill."

(Foghorn-Leghorn voice) "Yes I say...I say...Mr Speakah, it is imperative to the good people of Kentucky, including me, that donations to our fine athletic, er, academic institutions, which may, at times, allow donors priority for such benefits as season tickets to basketball, be given charitable status and eligible for a tax deduction."

And the SEC caucus and Texas delegations roar with approval.

You are pretty close as to what happened with the SEC and Texas references

The provision originally made it into the 1986 tax reform bill after being introduced by Louisiana Senator Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and LSU grad, and Rep. Jake Pickle, a UT grad on the House Ways and Means Committee whose district included Austin. The IRS had ruled that donations required for ticket purchases were not deductible but LSU wanted donations to expand Tiger Stadium to be tax deductible.

Senator Long said he would take care of it but didn't want the amendment to be a "rifle shot" with just one beneficiary and said find another school that would benefit to put in the amendment.

The amendment allowed LSU and UT season ticket buyers to deduct 100 percent of donations linked to their seats. It described the schools eligible for the tax break in such a way that no others could qualify...

When the identities of the two schools later became known, other colleges complained. Rather than repeal the provision, Congress voted in 1988 to extend the benefit to all of them, while reducing the deduction to 80 percent of contributions.

http://www.lockportjournal.com/footb...a29d62735.html

[left_hook_lacey]

You are pretty close as to what happened with the SEC and Texas references

The provision originally made it into the 1986 tax reform bill after being introduced by Louisiana Senator Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and LSU grad, and Rep. Jake Pickle, a UT grad on the House Ways and Means Committee whose district included Austin. The IRS had ruled that donations required for ticket purchases were not deductible but LSU wanted donations to expand Tiger Stadium to be tax deductible.

Senator Long said he would take care of it but didn't want the amendment to be a "rifle shot" with just one beneficiary and said find another school that would benefit to put in the amendment.

The amendment allowed LSU and UT season ticket buyers to deduct 100 percent of donations linked to their seats. It described the schools eligible for the tax break in such a way that no others could qualify...

When the identities of the two schools later became known, other colleges complained. Rather than repeal the provision, Congress voted in 1988 to extend the benefit to all of them, while reducing the deduction to 80 percent of contributions.

http://www.lockportjournal.com/footb...a29d62735.html

My money says there are too many big shots with lots of money that use this tax break for this to ever get passed.

I'm with Packman, I don't have a problem it, but then again, I don't donate large chunks of money to any school.

[davekay1971]

You are pretty close as to what happened with the SEC and Texas references

The provision originally made it into the 1986 tax reform bill after being introduced by Louisiana Senator Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and LSU grad, and Rep. Jake Pickle, a UT grad on the House Ways and Means Committee whose district included Austin. The IRS had ruled that donations required for ticket purchases were not deductible but LSU wanted donations to expand Tiger Stadium to be tax deductible.

Senator Long said he would take care of it but didn't want the amendment to be a "rifle shot" with just one beneficiary and said find another school that would benefit to put in the amendment.

The amendment allowed LSU and UT season ticket buyers to deduct 100 percent of donations linked to their seats. It described the schools eligible for the tax break in such a way that no others could qualify...

When the identities of the two schools later became known, other colleges complained. Rather than repeal the provision, Congress voted in 1988 to extend the benefit to all of them, while reducing the deduction to 80 percent of contributions.

http://www.lockportjournal.com/footb...a29d62735.html

Thank you for the info! That's awesome! I feel so happy that my shot-in-the-dark speculation wasn't far from the truth.

[OZ]

My money says there are too many big shots with lots of money that use this tax break for this to ever get passed.

I'm with Packman, I don't have a problem it, but then again, I don't donate large chunks of money to any school.

Just wondering... for those who might be critical of this tax break... how many of them enjoy the fruits of those "big shots" gifts?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Just wondering... for those who might be critical of this tax break... how many of them enjoy the fruits of those "big shots" gifts?

Thread closing in 3... 2... 1...

[brevity]

You are pretty close as to what happened with the SEC and Texas references

The provision originally made it into the 1986 tax reform bill after being introduced by Louisiana Senator Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and LSU grad, and Rep. Jake Pickle, a UT grad on the House Ways and Means Committee whose district included Austin. The IRS had ruled that donations required for ticket purchases were not deductible but LSU wanted donations to expand Tiger Stadium to be tax deductible.

Senator Long said he would take care of it but didn't want the amendment to be a "rifle shot" with just one beneficiary and said find another school that would benefit to put in the amendment.

The amendment allowed LSU and UT season ticket buyers to deduct 100 percent of donations linked to their seats. It described the schools eligible for the tax break in such a way that no others could qualify...

When the identities of the two schools later became known, other colleges complained. Rather than repeal the provision, Congress voted in 1988 to extend the benefit to all of them, while reducing the deduction to 80 percent of contributions.

http://www.lockportjournal.com/footb...a29d62735.html

Thread closing in 3... 2... 1...

Well, in that case I should quickly point out that Congress somehow managed to stop laughing long enough to pass the Long-Pickle bill.

[OldPhiKap]

Well, in that case I should quickly point out that Congress somehow managed to stop laughing long enough to pass the Long-Pickle bill.

To be fair, the Short Pickle lobby is pretty impotent. Or so I am told.

[rasputin]

To be fair, the Short Pickle lobby is pretty impotent. Or so I am told.

Or effective only in spurts.

[budwom]

Irrespective of what party proposes a tax bill, the tsunami of lobbyists is sure to roar into town tearing apart proposals which adversely affect them.
Few deductions will disappear without a Texas Death Match level fight.

[arnie]

Irrespective of what party proposes a tax bill, the tsunami of lobbyists is sure to roar into town tearing apart proposals which adversely affect them.
Few deductions will disappear without a Texas Death Match level fight.

And that’s the problem with hoping for any reasonable tax reform - and as you said, irrespective of party.

[duke79]

You are pretty close as to what happened with the SEC and Texas references

The provision originally made it into the 1986 tax reform bill after being introduced by Louisiana Senator Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and LSU grad, and Rep. Jake Pickle, a UT grad on the House Ways and Means Committee whose district included Austin. The IRS had ruled that donations required for ticket purchases were not deductible but LSU wanted donations to expand Tiger Stadium to be tax deductible.

Senator Long said he would take care of it but didn't want the amendment to be a "rifle shot" with just one beneficiary and said find another school that would benefit to put in the amendment.

The amendment allowed LSU and UT season ticket buyers to deduct 100 percent of donations linked to their seats. It described the schools eligible for the tax break in such a way that no others could qualify...



When the identities of the two schools later became known, other colleges complained. Rather than repeal the provision, Congress voted in 1988 to extend the benefit to all of them, while reducing the deduction to 80 percent of contributions.

http://www.lockportjournal.com/footb...a29d62735.html

Not meaning to revive an old thread, but a good discussion on Bloomberg today of the proposal to not allow 80% tax deduction for "seat donations" along with some other suggestions. Includes a mention of Coach K.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...college-sports

[hallcity]

This ended up in the final bill. Expect ticket prices for Cameron to soar.
https://t.co/6PoVwQzgoo

[Reilly]

This ended up in the final bill. Expect ticket prices for Cameron to soar.
https://t.co/6PoVwQzgoo

I guess you mean the total effective price it will cost to attend a Duke game will soar? That seems possibly true if folks are willing to pay, in effect, more by virtue of not getting the tax deduction.

But from the donors'/ticket buyers' perspective, won't it be a wash as to what they are willing to pay in total?

Right now, they donate $8,000 to the Iron Dukes (while getting $6Kish tax deduction for that donation, which lowers the amount of tax they pay by $X) + (pay $X per face value ticket) x (# home games). Add all that up, and that's what they are willing to pay.

If the Iron Dukes do nothing and keep the donation levels and ticket prices at current levels, then some folks will say this (donating, buying tix) is not worth it anymore, given the now effective higher price w/out the lower tax bill. Others will bear the now-effective higher overall price.

If the Iron Dukes lower the donation levels and raise individual ticket prices to make up the lost revenue from the lower non-write-off-able donations, the buyer may be roughly in the same place.

If the Iron Dukes simply raise donation levels and raise ticket prices no matter what the tax laws provide, well, that's what the Iron Dukes do, and some people put up with it.

In short though, serious Q, I don't see how this tax law would necessarily affect the individual ticket price or affect the overall amount that someone is willing to pay for Duke hoops. I guess I see fewer donations or lesser amounts in donations to the Iron Dukes with the tax law change. And so the ID may raise individual ticket prices in an attempt to make up for the lost donations. But the end result for the buyer may not be any different (now, perhaps there will be a lower ID minimum required coupled with higher ticket face value).

[weezie]

^^^ I agree with Reilly above. Plus, that 8k is the baseline donation for right to buy ACC Tourney tix, too. For new members, that is; some grandfathered support levels are much lower.

I don't see IDs raising donation levels more than a thousand, if at all, at least in the foreseeable future.

IDs sent a email out suggesting that members fulfill their pledges before 12/31/17 in order to get the possibly last deduction.

[sagegrouse]

It was to benefit LSU and inserted by powerful Sen. Russell Long, head of finance committee He got an ally from Texas who was an A&M supporter

[RPS]

Not sure exactly how this would work? A 1.4% annual tax on the entire value of the endowment? So a university with a $10 billion endowment would pay the federal government $140 million each year, as a "tax"? Or is it a one-time tax? This seem particularly inane to me and I'm sure many schools would just cut back on financial aid and/or raise the tuition even higher (for those parents paying the full cost)? What would this accomplish?

It's a tax on returns and isn't insignificant. In round numbers (and from memory), Yale's endowment is $27 billion and has averaged about 13.5 percent returns over David Swensen's long tenure. So, assuming this provision sticks, it will cost Yale about $50 million dollars (and more because it keeps growing both due to more gifts and because returns generally exceed expenditures).

[-jk]

The tax bill as applied to the Iron Dukes is relevant (tell me!). Beyond that, it's policy stuff that has no place here on a sports board.

sorry, and thanks!

-jk