When will the IRS focus on NIL payments?
- Thread starter cloneonledge
- Start date
Heard it from a friends second cousin on the longhorns 247 page, trust me bro it’s totally legit
Damn my source that won’t be named says you’re full of **** and have no idea. Weird
You know what, your right. You got me.
I joined cyclone fanatic 15 years ago, and have been sitting around waiting for the right time to pretend I have a source on a stale topic. My master plan worked to perfection.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,753
- 33,774
- 113
I think Clone52 explained core of what I was missing.
There's no actual law involved at all, it's just NCAA policy...but correct me if I'm wrong here...NCAA policy they changed because of mounting legit legal threats?
It's actually refreshing for me to think it's just an irrational silly NCAA rule or semantic labeling of payments because it fits their long history of absurd application of rules/discipline/punishment. So it's irrational to pretend it's "NIL" but it's just the NCAA playing this game and they've been doing irrational pretend on any number of things for quite a while.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,753
- 33,774
- 113
It's purely semantics. Yes, it's a loophole for paying players to attend a specific school. That's not illegal. The only reason they have to call it NIL is because NIL is allowed by the NCAA and pay for play isn't. Is it an end around NCAA rules? Sure. But there's not much they can do about it. There's no governing body that puts limits on what people can be compensated for their name image and likeness. It's the free market. Tyrese Hunter's deal with the Texas collective is every bit as legitimate as LeBron James deal with Sprite. It doesn't matter if the ROI is good, bad, or middling. You're worth what someone is willing to pay you. End of story.
I, personally, don't have a problem with college athletes getting paid to play at a specific school. I think that's the way it should be, and the way it has been, for quite a while, even if it's only been above the table in recent years.
To me, the previous amateur model, where athlete values are artificially suppressed, and true competition between schools is disallowed, is the aberration. I'm fine with the pendulum swinging the other direction for a change. And if some schools can't adapt to the new reality, well that's too bad. Plenty of businesses fail all of the time. It sucks, but it's the way the world works.
Honestly I wouldn't worry about the gift thing. It's irrelevant to the student athlete and really irrelevant in general.
Even though you are only allowed to "gift" $XX amount a a person per year there is a lifetime max that allows you to exceed the yearly amount and the gifter still doesn't have to pay taxes.
For example (real example from a gift tax return a did a couple years ago): Your parents gift you a $200,000 house. Essentially the gift value amount over the annual allowed amount just gets allocated to future years against your lifetime allowable gift amount and no taxes will be paid on the transfer of the house.
Yeah, self-employed FICA taxes are for heathens and people with bad accountants.
Quick google search says lifetime allowable gift amount is $12M. Is that about correct?
It was a Supreme Court case the NCAA lost. I believe the plaintiff was Ed O'Obannon and all ncaa athletes
The lifetime gift limit is tied with the inheritance limit. If you give away a million dollar gift, it reduces the amount of your non taxable estate. Was thinking the current limit was enacted under Trump and has a sunset provision that would drop it down to around 3.5MM when it expires.
I could be mistaken, I stopped paying attention once my mom passed, but I should start paying attention since I’m getting older.
Yes, it is. It is set to sunset in '26. I think it is currently $11.75 million per spouse. Set to go to $3 million (??) in '26 without further action from Congress.
Last edited:
