Soldier Field PSL Holders hit with retroactive -tax (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

Daley Tax Sacks Bears Fans

Season-ticket taxes

By STEVE RHODES

Updated 9:08 AM CDT, Fri, May 22, 2009

The city's quest to find tax revenue in every nook and cranny of the city took officials to Soldier Field this week, where they found some pigeons ripe for the plucking: the season-ticket shakedown has begun.

"Personal Seat License" holders will now be retroactively responsible for paying a 9 percent amusement tax on any licenses sold.

Season-ticket holders are livid, but the city says it always intended to levy the tax.

It just coincidentally didn't get around to it until now.

"PSLs were first sold by the Bears prior to the 2003 season to subsidize the cost of a newly renovated Soldier Field," the Tribune reports. "The initial licenses, which applied to nearly half of 61,500 seats, cost between $900 and $10,000, but sales records indicate they have increased in value threefold in some cases."

The licenses give holdes the right to then buy season tickets - which are already subject to the amusement tax.

""We don't consider it double-taxation," revenue department spokesman Ed Walsh told the Sun-Times. "Our position is, the license is part of what you're paying to access the amusement. There's the ticket amount and the PSL. The total is what's subject to the tax."

Yes, but has it ever cost so much to access amusement around here?

"The city of Chicago is strapped for cash and seeks to take advantage of a group that won’t get any sympathy with the public, but it’s flat out wrong to seek taxes years after the fact," boomer writes at Bear Goggles On.

One thing's for certain: Da Mayor must be desparate if he's socking Da Bears with Da Tax.

And that's not amusing at all.

Steve Rhodes is slightly amused, but not enough to be taxed for.

Copyright NBC Local Media

NBC ChicagoSorry, but cough up seven years of amusement tax Bears fans.

 

[BringItOn]

Sure they "intended" to do it, but the fact is they Didn't. too bad, so sad..... Smells like a class-action suit to me..

 

[todisco1]

I would refuse to pay this.

 

[AB in DC]

If the law says they owe the tax, then they owe the tax. If you told the IRS agents, "But you never told me that I had to pay that tax", do you think they'd buy it?

 

[buck naked]

This is precisely the kind of thing we expect out of Chicago and Cook County. We are the most taxed jurisdiction in the country and also one of the worst run. If it looks fishy, it is. Expect the worst, because somebody is paying off somebody somewhere.

 

[todisco1]

If the law says they owe the tax, then they owe the tax. If you told the IRS agents, "But you never told me that I had to pay that tax", do you think they'd buy it?

I don't think it's as clear as that.

 

[Phurfur]

If the law says they owe the tax, then they owe the tax. If you told the IRS agents, "But you never told me that I had to pay that tax", do you think they'd buy it?

What if the IRS came to you and said, "We are going to double your income tax for the last 10 years"? HTH

 

[grantsa4]

Man am I glad the season tickets I use aren't PSL tickets

 

[AB in DC]

If the law says they owe the tax, then they owe the tax. If you told the IRS agents, "But you never told me that I had to pay that tax", do you think they'd buy it?

What if the IRS came to you and said, "We are going to double your income tax for the last 10 years"? HTH

What if the IRS came to you and said, "You hid half your income from his for the last 10 years in some Swiss bank, now you have to pay up"?

 

[thayman]

If the law says they owe the tax, then they owe the tax. If you told the IRS agents, "But you never told me that I had to pay that tax", do you think they'd buy it?

What if the IRS came to you and said, "We are going to double your income tax for the last 10 years"? HTH

What if the IRS came to you and said, "You hid half your income from his for the last 10 years in some Swiss bank, now you have to pay up"?

 

[King of the Wolfies]

I know people that had PSLs and sold them and moved out of state. Is Chicago going to go after them or the current PSL holders? I dont see how a tax can be made retroactive 6 yrs later.

 

[DeCleater]

If the law says they owe the tax, then they owe the tax. If you told the IRS agents, "But you never told me that I had to pay that tax", do you think they'd buy it?

What if the IRS came to you and said, "We are going to double your income tax for the last 10 years"? HTH

What if the IRS came to you and said, "You hid half your income from his for the last 10 years in some Swiss bank, now you have to pay up"?

Do you work for the IRS?You statists have to learn it's not the governments money. You don't have a right to everything we make. Shepple like you give true Americans a bad name.

 

[Sinrman]

Politicians finding a way to tax something to make up for their horrible administrative work... go figure!

Sorry, the Libertarian in me, but how about cutting out thousands of unnecessary government jobs and stop the ever-ballooning government growth? I think that will more than make up for taxing people on PSLs...

 

[two_dollars]

I can't wait to move out of this state.

 

[AB in DC]

If the law says they owe the tax, then they owe the tax. If you told the IRS agents, "But you never told me that I had to pay that tax", do you think they'd buy it?

What if the IRS came to you and said, "We are going to double your income tax for the last 10 years"? HTH

What if the IRS came to you and said, "You hid half your income from his for the last 10 years in some Swiss bank, now you have to pay up"?

Do you work for the IRS?You statists have to learn it's not the governments money. You don't have a right to everything we make. Shepple like you give true Americans a bad name.

Of course, I forgot...laws are just optional for some people, aren't they?

 

[renesauz]

If the law says they owe the tax, then they owe the tax. If you told the IRS agents, "But you never told me that I had to pay that tax", do you think they'd buy it?

What if the IRS came to you and said, "We are going to double your income tax for the last 10 years"? HTH

What if the IRS came to you and said, "You hid half your income from his for the last 10 years in some Swiss bank, now you have to pay up"?

Do you work for the IRS?You statists have to learn it's not the governments money. You don't have a right to everything we make. Shepple like you give true Americans a bad name.

Of course, I forgot...laws are just optional for some people, aren't they?

I have no problem with the tax per se...but isn't this type of tax usually levied at POS? IE: Collected by the SELLER to be forwarded to the state/city. (Or are individuals there responsible for keeping track of movie tickets, etc, to pay on their own?) If the Bears screwed up and didn't charge it...then the Bears should be paying the back taxes. In no way should individuals be back-taxed for what was not their own fault/negligance.Easy class action suit...no judge will back up the city on this unless they are going after the team (the SELLER of the PSL's)!

PUT ANOTHER WAY: If a sales clerk neglects to charge you sales tax on a purchase...does the state come after you, or the store/clerk?

ANS: The store...ALWAYS.

 

[GregR_2]

Question for the resident FBG lawyers. The article says that the city "always intended to levy the tax" but didn't get around to it. Assuming this means the tax was not law... then isn't this an example of an ex post facto law which is forbid to States by the US Constitution?

Section 10: Limits on the States

The final section of Article One outlines the limits on the powers of the States:

Section 10, Clause 1 (Contracts Clause): No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Edit to add: Nevermind, the situation seems a bit misrepresented by the original article. See post 19.

 

[ravnzfan]

If the law says they owe the tax, then they owe the tax. If you told the IRS agents, "But you never told me that I had to pay that tax", do you think they'd buy it?

that's the dumbest analogy I've heard in awhile by not charging the PSL owners the tax for 7 yrs, it would be more like (to follow your logic) the IRS including a line on your 2009-1040 for a tax "that they intented to include for the last 7 yrs, but didn't get around to including"

would your response be "well, OK, if that's the law then I owe the tax accrued from the last 7 yrs"

or...

"tough-chit"

 

[GregR_2]

I read a second article which paints a very different picture of the situation. From what I gather from it, the situation is this...

The law (that the price of attending an "amusement" within the city is taxable) was already on the books. People who bought PSLs directly from the Bears have already paid this tax. However, anyone who bought a PSL from someone else who owned it, rather than from the team directly, has not.

The city recently asked the Bears to supply the names of "transferees" since 2004... that is, people who bought a PSL from another PSL owner rather than from the team directly.

The city then sent a letter to these people that said, "You were party to a transaction wherein a ... permanent seat license was transferred to you. Such a transaction is subject to the Chicago amusement tax as the amount paid was for the privilege of witnessing an amusement in the city."

The letter asked the PSL holders to complete and return an attached affidavit "that will assist us in determining the amount to bill for this transaction."

If the affidavit is returned within 45 days and the debt is paid 30 days after billing, "The amount ... will include only the tax amount due," the letter states. If not, a 12 percent annual interest and penalties will be applied.

It doesn't sound like the situation is as bad as the article in the OP makes it out to be. This isn't a case of ex post facto taxation, the tax was previously levied and was being charged to people. But sales between private citizens were made without the tax being paid. I'd say the city/county is in the right in being able to go collect this. One can argue the seller is responsible and maybe there's a case there, though as far as what is "right" it would be the buyer who should be paying it, so I think situation is already about as just as can be with them contacting the buyers for the payment.

One can still argue whether a PSL should be taxed under this amusement law in the first place, but that seems a separate argument.

 

[Chadstroma]

Disgusting.

 

[Jason Wood]

I read a second article which paints a very different picture of the situation. From what I gather from it, the situation is this...

The law (that the price of attending an "amusement" within the city is taxable) was already on the books. People who bought PSLs directly from the Bears have already paid this tax. However, anyone who bought a PSL from someone else who owned it, rather than from the team directly, has not.

The city recently asked the Bears to supply the names of "transferees" since 2004... that is, people who bought a PSL from another PSL owner rather than from the team directly.

The city then sent a letter to these people that said, "You were party to a transaction wherein a ... permanent seat license was transferred to you. Such a transaction is subject to the Chicago amusement tax as the amount paid was for the privilege of witnessing an amusement in the city."

The letter asked the PSL holders to complete and return an attached affidavit "that will assist us in determining the amount to bill for this transaction."

If the affidavit is returned within 45 days and the debt is paid 30 days after billing, "The amount ... will include only the tax amount due," the letter states. If not, a 12 percent annual interest and penalties will be applied.

It doesn't sound like the situation is as bad as the article in the OP makes it out to be. This isn't a case of ex post facto taxation, the tax was previously levied and was being charged to people. But sales between private citizens were made without the tax being paid. I'd say the city/county is in the right in being able to go collect this. One can argue the seller is responsible and maybe there's a case there, though as far as what is "right" it would be the buyer who should be paying it, so I think situation is already about as just as can be with them contacting the buyers for the payment.

One can still argue whether a PSL should be taxed under this amusement law in the first place, but that seems a separate argument.

These are two very different things, and I applaud you for making the distinction. If the tax was justly levied by the Bears to season ticket holders directly, then the only folks who are in arrears should be those who transferred the rights. In that case this a situation of people not paying a tax they should have been; 100% different than the way the first article paints it as though Bears fans are being levied a retroactive tax that would cripple many ticket holders ability to hold onto the seats.

 

[cobalt_27]

I read a second article which paints a very different picture of the situation. From what I gather from it, the situation is this...

The law (that the price of attending an "amusement" within the city is taxable) was already on the books. People who bought PSLs directly from the Bears have already paid this tax. However, anyone who bought a PSL from someone else who owned it, rather than from the team directly, has not.

The city recently asked the Bears to supply the names of "transferees" since 2004... that is, people who bought a PSL from another PSL owner rather than from the team directly.

The city then sent a letter to these people that said, "You were party to a transaction wherein a ... permanent seat license was transferred to you. Such a transaction is subject to the Chicago amusement tax as the amount paid was for the privilege of witnessing an amusement in the city."

The letter asked the PSL holders to complete and return an attached affidavit "that will assist us in determining the amount to bill for this transaction."

If the affidavit is returned within 45 days and the debt is paid 30 days after billing, "The amount ... will include only the tax amount due," the letter states. If not, a 12 percent annual interest and penalties will be applied.

It doesn't sound like the situation is as bad as the article in the OP makes it out to be. This isn't a case of ex post facto taxation, the tax was previously levied and was being charged to people. But sales between private citizens were made without the tax being paid. I'd say the city/county is in the right in being able to go collect this. One can argue the seller is responsible and maybe there's a case there, though as far as what is "right" it would be the buyer who should be paying it, so I think situation is already about as just as can be with them contacting the buyers for the payment.

One can still argue whether a PSL should be taxed under this amusement law in the first place, but that seems a separate argument.

So, this clearly means they will be refunding portions of the taxes paid by the original PSL purchasers.

 

[Christo]

Question for the resident FBG lawyers. The article says that the city "always intended to levy the tax" but didn't get around to it. Assuming this means the tax was not law... then isn't this an example of an ex post facto law which is forbid to States by the US Constitution?

Section 10: Limits on the States

The final section of Article One outlines the limits on the powers of the States:

Section 10, Clause 1 (Contracts Clause): No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Edit to add: Nevermind, the situation seems a bit misrepresented by the original article. See post 19.

Even if it wasn't, the courts have interpreted the prohibition of ex post facto laws to only relate to criminal acts and the related penalties.

 

[Christo]

These are two very different things, and I applaud you for making the distinction. If the tax was justly levied by the Bears to season ticket holders directly, then the only folks who are in arrears should be those who transferred the rights. In that case this a situation of people not paying a tax they should have been; 100% different than the way the first article paints it as though Bears fans are being levied a retroactive tax that would cripple many ticket holders ability to hold onto the seats.

 

[Balance]

that is what you get for being a Bears fan...

 

[tbglog]

I read a second article which paints a very different picture of the situation. From what I gather from it, the situation is this...

The law (that the price of attending an "amusement" within the city is taxable) was already on the books. People who bought PSLs directly from the Bears have already paid this tax. However, anyone who bought a PSL from someone else who owned it, rather than from the team directly, has not.

The city recently asked the Bears to supply the names of "transferees" since 2004... that is, people who bought a PSL from another PSL owner rather than from the team directly.

The city then sent a letter to these people that said, "You were party to a transaction wherein a ... permanent seat license was transferred to you. Such a transaction is subject to the Chicago amusement tax as the amount paid was for the privilege of witnessing an amusement in the city."

The letter asked the PSL holders to complete and return an attached affidavit "that will assist us in determining the amount to bill for this transaction."

If the affidavit is returned within 45 days and the debt is paid 30 days after billing, "The amount ... will include only the tax amount due," the letter states. If not, a 12 percent annual interest and penalties will be applied.

It doesn't sound like the situation is as bad as the article in the OP makes it out to be. This isn't a case of ex post facto taxation, the tax was previously levied and was being charged to people. But sales between private citizens were made without the tax being paid. I'd say the city/county is in the right in being able to go collect this. One can argue the seller is responsible and maybe there's a case there, though as far as what is "right" it would be the buyer who should be paying it, so I think situation is already about as just as can be with them contacting the buyers for the payment.

One can still argue whether a PSL should be taxed under this amusement law in the first place, but that seems a separate argument.

So, this clearly means they will be refunding portions of the taxes paid by the original PSL purchasers.

Unfortunitly alot of states tax the sale of used items. If you sell a used car in a lot of states from 1 individual to another you are responsible to pay sales tax on the sale amount of the car. I assume Cook county is looking at it in similar fashion. Either way it is a screw job. Eve nthe IRS has a set amouint of time that they can after you on back taxes. If you pull the wool over their eyes for 10 years, they will only go back so many years not the full 10 years. Ask our Sec of Tresuary about that.

 

[cstu]

I think they deserve a tax break for having to go to Bears games.