Usc Lincoln contract | Page 2 | The Platinum Board

Usc Lincoln contract

Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Welcome to tPB!

Welcome to The Platinum Board. We are a Nebraska Husker news source and fan community.

Sign Up Now!
  • Welcome to The Platinum Board! We are a Nebraska Cornhuskers news source and community. Please click "Log In" or "Register" above to gain access to the forums.

Usc Lincoln contract

100% a feeling thing. But the guy has never built a program - walked in for the winning run from 3rd base as a pinch runner at OU.

USC is in a very bad spot. To have their base and be where they are as a program...I just think it's a much bigger build, and I don't know that Lincoln is a builder. I think LSU would've been a much more successful spot for him, but there's no beaches, less fame, and more Christian women who tattle when they get hit on...

I think there are much bigger issues at USC. They may get there and then have everything vacated after the fact again, but that's the only way I can see it being "successful" (?)
It helps when you have Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg and Will Farrell helping you recruit. Offer a 5* a marketing opportunity with Dre Beats = 💰💰💰💰
 
I mean you ain't gonna fuck randoms in your guest room
college gameday sport GIF
 
Still taxable income.


All sources derived bruh, all hail the great and mighty Glenshaw Glass
IRS doesn’t tax the first $500k of gains on real estate for married couples assuming the property has been their primary residence for 2 years. Will see a pretty good tax bill still with the $500k gain from one property and the appreciation on both of them.

 
IRS doesn’t tax the first $500k of gains on real estate for married couples assuming the property has been their primary residence for 2 years. Will see a pretty good tax bill still with the $500k gain from one property and the appreciation on both of them.



Section 121 doesn’t apply here.


USC is buying the property as part of payment = income.

Same thing as people trading services, it’s still taxable income.


The service is about to audit 3-5 million Americans who make $75,000 or below… soon many of you will also learn the joys of tax court.

ADDF7-A20-03-BC-45-C4-8-DD1-FB764-C29-DE4-C.jpg
 
There’s got to be some sort of advantage here doesn’t there? Why do it if there isn’t ?


The only advantage I can see is nobody wanting to buy the “traitor’s” homes now he left Oklahoma. Those homes would probably just sit there, this way you have a buyer who is a neutral party and can then sell off to another buyer and “wash” this dirty heretic’s stain from the properties. Boomer sooner!


He could of course argue Section 121 applies and thus up to $500,000 is excludable… but given the high dollar amount and high publicity of this I would assume his return would immediately be held as under pay and an audit ordered.
 
The only advantage I can see is nobody wanting to buy the “traitor’s” homes now he left Oklahoma. Those homes would probably just sit there, this way you have a buyer who is a neutral party and can then sell off to another buyer and “wash” this dirty heretic’s stain from the properties. Boomer sooner!


He could of course argue Section 121 applies and thus up to $500,000 is excludable… but given the high dollar amount and high publicity of this I would assume his return would immediately be held as under pay and an audit ordered.
The devil will be in the details of how the 500k over fmv is structured. If its spelled out that way I'd agree. Thats going to get taxed as compensation. If the contract is a price that someone is interpreting it as 500k over fmv he might be ok.
 
The devil will be in the details of how the 500k over fmv is structured. If its spelled out that way I'd agree. Thats going to get taxed as compensation. If the contract is a price that someone is interpreting it as 500k over fmv he might be ok.


We see similar tax issues like this all the time in agriculture when farmers are always scheming to try and show little to no income. The biggest trap is when 1 party doesn’t claim income but the other party deducts the amount they paid them…IRS algorithm will always catch it.

I’d never let a client do something so obvious like this.

The tax court will look at if this is compensation or if it is a normal purchase that just happened to involve employment related parties.
Ex: Would the University of Southern California buy 2 houses in Norman Oklahoma but for Lincoln Riley’s new employment? No, so it’s compensation and taxable income.
 
We see similar tax issues like this all the time in agriculture when farmers are always scheming to try and show little to no income. The biggest trap is when 1 party doesn’t claim income but the other party deducts the amount they paid them…IRS algorithm will always catch it.

I’d never let a client do something so obvious like this.

The tax court will look at if this is compensation or if it is a normal purchase that just happened to involve employment related parties.
Ex: Would the University of Southern California buy 2 houses in Norman Oklahoma but for Lincoln Riley’s new employment? No, so it’s compensation and taxable income.
Farmers are always good fun.

My point is this is some rando journalist saying its 500k over asking. That could mean the price in the contract is appx 500k over what he paid for it in 2012 or if it's for sale currently and they explicitly say 500k over the asking price.

Hypothetically if its the former and USC turns around and sells it for the same price they bought it for I don't see any reason 121 wouldn't apply.

Probably moot point though because its probably the latter.
 
We see similar tax issues like this all the time in agriculture when farmers are always scheming to try and show little to no income. The biggest trap is when 1 party doesn’t claim income but the other party deducts the amount they paid them…IRS algorithm will always catch it.

I’d never let a client do something so obvious like this.

The tax court will look at if this is compensation or if it is a normal purchase that just happened to involve employment related parties.
Ex: Would the University of Southern California buy 2 houses in Norman Oklahoma but for Lincoln Riley’s new employment? No, so it’s compensation and taxable income.
When did this turn into a fucking nerd convention?
 
Back
Top