Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="RandomGuy, post: 4118508, member: 6422"]
That depends.  Bagmen $$ was not taxable.   Why the IRS hated it.  Recipient paid no tax.  The bag $$ would have come from disposable income from the giver.  Already taxed.

In the new scenario?  The booster could write off the player $$ as a legitimate biz expense, lessening their own tax burden.  In this case, they could pay more than previously, as long as a service is provided, and write it off.

Even sketchier would be to pay players huge $$ for charity appearances, if it lessened the tax burden of the giver even more.

I think in each scenario,  it provides a currently legal path for the booster to receive a tax benefit, not previously available.  Yes.  The recipient will pay the tax, so the IRS is better off.

Even still. I dunno how the IRS will be fine with that.  Its a condition of EMPLOYMENT at said University.   Some NIL deals should certainly pass the IRS lense.  Many of the new ones?   We all know its to provide a service on the field.  I can't imagine the IRS doesn't subject these to labor law.

NIL is a good thing.  Using it to skirt labor law for providing a service to a particular University, is an employment contract.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?