BillsBackersChicago Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Hello fire, meet fuel! yes, I do realize that a post on the buffalo.com website does not provide any more credence, but there was an interesting last post that looks like ole' chad boy may have gotten in a bit o' trouble... I enjoy watching other people suffer, especially if said person is about to be famous "Paris Hilton style" by being related to someone who did something, or created something important, and then acting all arrogant and self important about it... I probably shouldn't have shadenfreude over a high school kid..... Ooh, what if jimbo got so pissed off at Chad's tweet that he as new owner, he officially banned him from any Buffalo Bills related event!! ok, I feel bad now, but consider this, if the man who revolutionized the computer and personal electronics dies (Jobs), and then one of the original visionaries of the NFL (Wilson) dies soon after, who is the third?!
papazoid Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Hello fire, meet fuel! yes, I do realize that a post on the buffalo.com website does not provide any more credence, but there was an interesting last post that looks like ole' chad boy may have gotten in a bit o' trouble... I enjoy watching other people suffer, especially if said person is about to be famous "Paris Hilton style" by being related to someone who did something, or created something important, and then acting all arrogant and self important about it... I probably shouldn't have shadenfreude over a high school kid..... Ooh, what if jimbo got so pissed off at Chad's tweet that he as new owner, he officially banned him from any Buffalo Bills related event!! ok, I feel bad now, but consider this, if the man who revolutionized the computer and personal electronics dies (Jobs), and then one of the original visionaries of the NFL (Wilson) dies soon after, who is the third?! this guy ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uluuYz1EoZ0
bbb Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Hello fire, meet fuel! yes, I do realize that a post on the buffalo.com website does not provide any more credence, but there was an interesting last post that looks like ole' chad boy may have gotten in a bit o' trouble... I enjoy watching other people suffer, especially if said person is about to be famous "Paris Hilton style" by being related to someone who did something, or created something important, and then acting all arrogant and self important about it... I probably shouldn't have shadenfreude over a high school kid..... Ooh, what if jimbo got so pissed off at Chad's tweet that he as new owner, he officially banned him from any Buffalo Bills related event!! ok, I feel bad now, but consider this, if the man who revolutionized the computer and personal electronics dies (Jobs), and then one of the original visionaries of the NFL (Wilson) dies soon after, who is the third?! I wouldn't call being one of the top high school quarterbacks in the country being famous Paris Hilton style.
Southtown Tommy Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Funny, when my pops passed away my mom didn't have to pay an estate tax. Mary will not have to pay an estate tax on the proceeds of a sale if the sale occurs in Ralph's lifetime. The capital gains tax applies, but not both in this scenario. I know the gov't likes all of our money, but that would be taking it a bit too far, don't you think???
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 . . . Mary will not have to pay an estate tax on the proceeds of a sale if the sale occurs in Ralph's lifetime. The capital gains tax applies, but not both in this scenario. . . . It is my tentative understanding that federal estate tax law currently does exempt all property left to a surviving spouse from federal estate taxes upon the death of the first spouse. So if you assume that Ralph wants to leave everything he owns solely to his wife Mary, and nothing to his children, then I think your above statement is accurate with respect to federal estate taxes that would be due upon Ralph's death. It is also my tentative understanding, however, that (1) Mary is the step-mother (not the biological mother) of Ralph's children, (2) Mary's sister's daughter is employed very high in the management team of Buffalo Bills, Inc. and (3) Ralph's surviving children are not. I don't have links right now to support these three assertions, but my recollection is that they are true - - If I'm wrong, somebody please let me know. Ralph is certainly free to leave his assets to anyone he wants, but in this situation, I would be surprised if Ralph simply left all of his assets to Mary and nothing to his surviving children. This stuff can get complicated. And we haven't even talked about how any of this would be impacted by the use of a trust, which is likely. But it remains my tentative understanding that at least to the extent that Ralph leaves assets exceeding a combined total of $5 million to his surviving children, the "double taxation" would happen if (1) Ralph sold the team while he was alive, and (2) then upon his death left more than $5 million of the sales proceeds to his children. And even if Ralph DID sell the team during his lifetime and then left all of the sales proceeds to Mary, there is still a double taxation issue. Capital gains taxes would be due for the year of the sale, and whatever was left over (less $10 million) would be subject to estate taxes later when Mary eventually died (assuming she didn't spend it or re-marry and leave it all to her future husband upon her death). Conversely, if Ralph continues to own the team until he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up tax basis in the assets they inherit, and capital gains tax on roughly $800 milliom of appreciation that happened during Ralph's lifetime never has to be paid by anyone. That's a pretty powerful incentive to delay any sale of the team until after Ralph dies.
OvrOfficiousJerk Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Icansleepwhenimdead and everyone else with the tax insights, thanks for all the info. Your double taxation point is well thought out. For you guys though I have a question -- A couple months (maybe even a year) ago, CNBC reported on a football owner that was selling off a significant chunk (~30%) of his team to someone else for "estate planning purposes" (many believed this to be Dean Spanos of the SD Chargers). If selling an asset in one's lifetime would result in double taxation (capital then estate), why would a rationally acting individual attempt to sell off such as asset explicitly for estate planning implications?
GaryPinC Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Funny, when my pops passed away my mom didn't have to pay an estate tax. Mary will not have to pay an estate tax on the proceeds of a sale if the sale occurs in Ralph's lifetime. The capital gains tax applies, but not both in this scenario. I know the gov't likes all of our money, but that would be taking it a bit too far, don't you think??? My understanding from reading the turbotax link provided earlier in this discussion is that gifts to spouse are unlimited and non-taxable. But it is not the same as a will. I'm guessing your parents' estate was in both their names or your dad gifted the entire thing to her before he passed away. Ralph already stated his wife does not want the team, if Ralph sells he will have to pay taxes on the sale.
JTO Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Mr. Wilson has recently fallen at home and had fractured his hip. Not sure how severe the break was but it was enough to make him miss the Patriots game. For an elderly person to break a hip it's never a good thing. It's just a matter of time now before his health plummets faster than Niagra Falls. I hope that he has decided or his wife, that now is the time to move on. Ralph hardly makes sense nowadays and is no longer the speaker he used to be. It's time for the Sabres owner to take over. I think this is what Chad meant.
Zona Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 It is my tentative understanding that federal estate tax law currently does exempt all property left to a surviving spouse from federal estate taxes upon the death of the first spouse. So if you assume that Ralph wants to leave everything he owns solely to his wife Mary, and nothing to his children, then I think your above statement is accurate with respect to federal estate taxes that would be due upon Ralph's death. It is also my tentative understanding, however, that (1) Mary is the step-mother (not the biological mother) of Ralph's children, (2) Mary's sister's daughter is employed very high in the management team of Buffalo Bills, Inc. and (3) Ralph's surviving children are not. I don't have links right now to support these three assertions, but my recollection is that they are true - - If I'm wrong, somebody please let me know. Ralph is certainly free to leave his assets to anyone he wants, but in this situation, I would be surprised if Ralph simply left all of his assets to Mary and nothing to his surviving children. This stuff can get complicated. And we haven't even talked about how any of this would be impacted by the use of a trust, which is likely. But it remains my tentative understanding that at least to the extent that Ralph leaves assets exceeding a combined total of $5 million to his surviving children, the "double taxation" would happen if (1) Ralph sold the team while he was alive, and (2) then upon his death left more than $5 million of the sales proceeds to his children. And even if Ralph DID sell the team during his lifetime and then left all of the sales proceeds to Mary, there is still a double taxation issue. Capital gains taxes would be due for the year of the sale, and whatever was left over (less $10 million) would be subject to estate taxes later when Mary eventually died (assuming she didn't spend it or re-marry and leave it all to her future husband upon her death). Conversely, if Ralph continues to own the team until he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up tax basis in the assets they inherit, and capital gains tax on roughly $800 milliom of appreciation that happened during Ralph's lifetime never has to be paid by anyone. That's a pretty powerful incentive to delay any sale of the team until after Ralph dies. Question-- Why is Capital Gain tax required at all? The Buffalo Bills are not technically an asset. They are a company of some kind, aren't they? Businesses get bought and sold all the time, generating income which tax must be paid on, which is where I think the Bills fall. Assets are stocks, bonds, cars, ie- items of some kind. I am most likely wrong, but still wondering.
Mr. ChumChums Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Hello fire, meet fuel! yes, I do realize that a post on the buffalo.com website does not provide any more credence, but there was an interesting last post that looks like ole' chad boy may have gotten in a bit o' trouble... I enjoy watching other people suffer, especially if said person is about to be famous "Paris Hilton style" by being related to someone who did something, or created something important, and then acting all arrogant and self important about it... I probably shouldn't have shadenfreude over a high school kid..... Ooh, what if jimbo got so pissed off at Chad's tweet that he as new owner, he officially banned him from any Buffalo Bills related event!! ok, I feel bad now, but consider this, if the man who revolutionized the computer and personal electronics dies (Jobs), and then one of the original visionaries of the NFL (Wilson) dies soon after, who is the third?! Wow talk about clairvoyance - you just had the wrong football visionary pegged. RIP Steve and Al... let's hope there's not a third.
Bob in STL Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Hey without St. Joes there would be no rival, what fun with that be??? I always respected Canisius but boy did I love to beat them... It would have been nice to have the $$$ to go to St. Joes or Canisius. At the time Kenmore East was just fine for me.
CBD Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) Funny, when my pops passed away my mom didn't have to pay an estate tax. Mary will not have to pay an estate tax on the proceeds of a sale if the sale occurs in Ralph's lifetime. The capital gains tax applies, but not both in this scenario. I know the gov't likes all of our money, but that would be taking it a bit too far, don't you think??? They'd have to pay the capital gains tax if the sale occurs in Ralphs lifetime, then when Mary passes she'd presumably leave whatever monies are left from the sale to her heirs. The heirs would then have to pay the estate tax on that. So in essence the proceeds from selling the team would be taxed twice. At least that's what I gathered from reading the posts earlier in the thread. Edited October 8, 2011 by Carey Bender
DJasper Probincrux III Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 A couple months (maybe even a year) ago, CNBC reported on a football owner that was selling off a significant chunk (~30%) of his team to someone else for "estate planning purposes" (many believed this to be Dean Spanos of the SD Chargers). If selling an asset in one's lifetime would result in double taxation (capital then estate), why would a rationally acting individual attempt to sell off such as asset explicitly for estate planning implications? Well, if you're looking at the political and finanical climate in the world and the tea leaves tell you that tax rates are going up, perhaps substantially for folks in Ralphs tax bracket, then it makes sense to bite the bullet now.
clancynut Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Didn't Robert Wegman pass his assets (Wegmans Supermarkets) on to his children prior to his death, thereby eliminating them from paying an estate tax for now. I was wondering if Wilson were to divide up the Bills into a specific percentage for each of his heirs now while still alive and then sell the team would the capital gains taxes be much lower than the estate tax? This would appear to make sense on why the team might be sold prior to his death.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 A smart little birdie said the tweet is about very much about ownership,a specific person or group which shall remain nameless, although it has nothing to do with any impending sale, or Ralph's health which is seemingly stable. It may or may not be good for the Bills, but there surely are people with money who wish to keep the team in Buffalo. There is not going to be any announcement (I'm just assuming that myself). I doubt there will be any story in the press or information about it, but I suppose it's possible. It's pretty good news though, if you're worried about the team moving. And it's not the only good news that will be coming out in the next several months. Stay tuned.
DrDawkinstein Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 not sure what he was hinting at, but he was blatantly stating he's a douchebag.
thebillsbiz Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 It has always seemed to me that it would make much more sense for Ralph to die as owner of the team then to sell, which it seems apparent that he is doing. People involved have seemed confident (without detailing specifically) that there is a contigency plan in place. If Ralph has draw up contracts that state his heirs agree to sell their portions of the team to, The Kelly group for example,upon his death, they would avoid the capital gains tax. A portion could be left to his wife, this would avoid estate tax and she could continue to owe a non-operational piece of the franchise. This would eliminate capital gains tax, decrease estate tax and move the team to the kelly group as majority owner. This is something these successful men have obviously discussed at length and would appear to be waiting in the wings for the deal to commence. Ralph would never pay appreciation on over 800 million on the profit of this sale, and then presumably soon after leave the money to his heirs to be taxed heavily once again, it would be much less to pay the inheritance tax and then sales tax, rather than capital gains tax and then inheritance tax....simply due to the fact that the bills currently have by far the largest appreciation value due to the fact they have not yet ever been sold. I believe these wheels will be set into motion immediately upon his death due to diligent end of life planning.
bbb Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 A smart little birdie said the tweet is about very much about ownership,a specific person or group which shall remain nameless, although it has nothing to do with any impending sale, or Ralph's health which is seemingly stable. It may or may not be good for the Bills, but there surely are people with money who wish to keep the team in Buffalo. There is not going to be any announcement (I'm just assuming that myself). I doubt there will be any story in the press or information about it, but I suppose it's possible. It's pretty good news though, if you're worried about the team moving. And it's not the only good news that will be coming out in the next several months. Stay tuned. This seems like good news, although I can't figure out what it is saying.
clancynut Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 A smart little birdie said the tweet is about very much about ownership,a specific person or group which shall remain nameless, although it has nothing to do with any impending sale, or Ralph's health which is seemingly stable. It may or may not be good for the Bills, but there surely are people with money who wish to keep the team in Buffalo. There is not going to be any announcement (I'm just assuming that myself). I doubt there will be any story in the press or information about it, but I suppose it's possible. It's pretty good news though, if you're worried about the team moving. And it's not the only good news that will be coming out in the next several months. Stay tuned. If this the case I will owe you a beer my friend!!!
saundena Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 If this the case I will owe you a beer my friend!!! Who is this Kelly the Dog? Is his info as accurate as NGU?
Recommended Posts