Trump Bill Advances as Team Owner and College Tax Breaks in Peril
The omnibus 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed by the House of Representatives Thursday morning takes aim at team owners' coveted ability to write off most of the purchase price of a sports team, with a clause that would remove billions of dollars from being deducted on taxes.
'The bill itself, vis-a-vis sports teams ownership, isn't really a great thing,' Irwin Kishner, a partner at the law firm of Herrick, Feinstein, said on a phone call. 'You could argue the valuations of sports teams would be less than they were prior to that tax treatment.'
More from Sportico.com
Baseball America the Latest to Be Target of 'Bork Bill'
Congress May Have to Settle NCAA Athlete Eligibility Issue
Coffey Talk: Donn Davis on PFL's Rise and Sports 'Ego Money'
The bill, now numbered H.R. 1, covers a multitude of spending priorities including border security, defense and taxation, among others. The legislation also takes a hatchet to amortization, which is the depreciation of non-tangible assets often termed goodwill. Typically, 90% or more of a team's purchase price is goodwill, which excludes physical assets a team might possess, such as its stadium and weight room equipment.
'Team owners were allowed to deduct 100% of the purchase price over 15 years, and now they're only allowed to deduct 50% over 15 years, if it comes to law,' Robert Raiola, director of the sports and entertainment group at PKF O'Connor Davies accounting firm, said on a phone call.
Amortization is an accounting principle meant to assess a decline in value over time, like its cousin depreciation, which is meant to account for physical assets wearing out, such as machinery. In sports, values don't typically decline. The 1973 New York Yankees sale to George Steinbrenner is believed to be the last time a franchise from the big four U.S. leagues traded hands at a loss.
The amortization of team values is an under-the-radar tax benefit that is a key part of the calculus used in the decision to buy a U.S. sports franchise—and it plays a role in the skyrocketing prices paid for franchises in recent years. For example, under existing law, a team owner paying $1.6 billion for a franchise where $1.5 billion is intangible goodwill could deduct that $1.5 billion over 15 years. That $100 million annual deduction of taxable income probably saves the average team owner $40 million in actual taxes, assuming a 40% blended federal and state tax rate. Those deductions do raise the taxable income if and when the team is sold—all $1.5 billion would be a gain to be taxed—but not paying taxes today is preferable to paying them in the distant future.
The proposed law, which now moves to the Senate, means team owners would still get a $20 million annual tax savings under the example above. As drafted, it would cover all professional sports teams, and specifies football, hockey, soccer, baseball and basketball as examples. The amortization reduction applies only to new purchases after the bill becomes law, so any revenue bump to the federal government would be muted by the fact current team owners will be exempt under the proposal.
'The general public doesn't really feel sorry for these people either way, but for the owners themselves, it has a huge impact,' Kevin Thorne, managing partner of tax-focused Thorne Law Group, said on a phone call. 'I think it's going to be changed by the time it goes fully through [the Senate and reconciliation process]. A lot of people are going to be getting phone calls on The Hill.'
Two years ago Congress eliminated the ability of team owners to immediately depreciate the value of tangible assets of their franchises.
Tax benefits 'are a big part of the calculus' of buying a team, Kishner said. 'But it's still a regulated asset in that supply is less than demand and people have historically done very well owning these franchises.'
H.R. 1 also seeks to tax college athletic department licensing revenue. Typically, all nonprofits must pay income tax on revenue from activities not central to their tax-exempt status to avoid giving charities a competitive advantage over for-profit businesses.
Yet under current law, income from the sale or licensing by a college of its name and logo is exempt from unrelated business income taxation. This money can be significant: Ohio State University's athletic department for example, made $34.1 million in licensing and advertising revenue in the latest reported year, according to the Sportico College Sports Finances Database. Athletic department logos of seemingly every college in the U.S. are widely licensed for apparel and other goods. That money would now be subject to the 21% corporate tax rate—at the same time the NCAA is proposing expanded scholarship limits and direct payments to athletes.
Another clause in the budget as passed would allow health savings account money to be used to pay for gym membership, capped at $500 a year per person and $1,000 per family. Publicly traded gym operators Planet Fitness (PLNT) and Life Time Group Holdings (LTH) were up modestly in trading today, outpacing the broader market.
H.R. 1 passed the full House by a vote of 215-214 with one abstention, and it will likely see changes in the Senate, despite the Republicans' six-seat advantage. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has set a July 4 target date to pass the legislation. The bill, weighing in at more than 1,100 pages, will now be referred to the Senate finance and budget committees, which may propose amendments that will need to be reconciled with the House version. Both bodies will need to approve by majority vote a final version before it can be sent to President Trump to be signed into law.
With assistance from Michael McCann
Best of Sportico.com
Most Expensive Sports Memorabilia and Collectibles in History
The 100 Most Valuable Sports Teams in the World
NFL Private Equity Ownership Rules: PE Can Now Own Stakes in Teams
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
a day ago
- Fox News
Senate GOPs carefully weighing controversial tax provisions before bringing Big, Beautiful Bill to the floor
Fox has learned that it is doubtful that Senate Republicans will put the Big, Beautiful Bill on the floor for debate and a vote next week. That likely waits until the week of June 22. This potentially jeopardizes final passage of the measure through the Senate AND House by July 4. The Senate Finance Committee is expected to release its text of the bill as early as Monday. That section of the legislation is the most expansive and probably most controversial. Key tax provisions like SALT (state and local tax reductions), potential spending cuts and changes to Medicare/Medicaid all appear in this section of the legislation. Senators and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough will then begin a process of weeding out provisions which do not comport with strict Senate Budget provisions. That's why the plan probably isn't ready for debate and a "vote-a-rama" until the week after next. If the Senate advances the bill, the House will have a tight window to either accept the Senate changes and greenlight the bill before July 4 - or bounce it back to the Senate with yet ANOTHER set of changes. Such a scenario would most certainly stretch out the process beyond the July 4 deadline. It would also compel the Senate to take a 4th vote-a-rama in just a matter of months. That's where the Senate votes for hours on end with one roll call after another. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPKeep in mind that July 4 is merely an aspirational deadline. Not a hard one. The true deadline is early August. That's when the Treasury Department says the U.S. will collide with the debt ceiling. A debt ceiling increase is part of the Big, Beautiful Bill.

Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
SNAP user's testimony causes backlash, cruel feedback
After President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the House, it introduced new fears for millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to survive. The bill proposed an estimated $300 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next decade. If that portion of the bill passes the Senate as it is currently written, it would leave 12.6% of Americans potentially unable to afford shelter and food. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The way it currently works is that states would begin to pay at least 5% of food benefit costs, and up to 25% if they have higher error rates, forcing states to choose between raising taxes, cutting other programs, or limiting SNAP access, per the Food Research & Access Center. Related: Scott Galloway sends bold statement on Social Security, US economy Republican senators pushed back hard on the cuts, leading to June 10 reports that the SNAP changes were being scaled down. The reworked plan cuts the state penalty for error from 25% to 15%, but Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) told Politico that they are "still negotiating." Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota took to social media on June 11 to share a video she surely thought would be of help to advocate for keeping SNAP intact. But her efforts have backfired. The video Klobuchar shared is of a SNAP recipient named Felecia talking about her experience as a mother of four living on SNAP benefits. Klobuchar said, "Today, we heard from Felecia, a single mom of four who works up to three jobs at a time to make ends meet. She counts on SNAP to help put food on the table. This is who Republicans in Congress are trying to take food away from. Listen to her story." In the video, Felecia says, "I would like to tell you my story on how SNAP benefit has helped me," becoming visibly emotional. "When I had my oldest daughter 21 years ago, I was working three jobs," Felecia said. "One job alone, I had to pay childcare. Another one to pay food, which wasn't enough. And one to pay the bills, and I still struggled alive." Related: Social Security income tax deduction hits major roadblock Felecia went on to say that she now has a full-time job as a bus monitor, but she only gets paid once a month, which is why she still needs SNAP. "By the time I get my bills paid, I have nothing left to pay for food and other basic needs. If it wasn't for SNAP benefits, I wouldn't be able to feed my children," she said. The comments on the video exploded, causing it to rake in 75,000 views and make the terms "SNAP" and "Felecia" go viral on X. But instead of garnering empathy, it achieved the opposite effect. People in the thread savagely attacked the mother of four, mostly with comments about her weight. "I'm not saying take her SNAP benefits, but what I'm saying is she doesn't need as much as she's getting," X user currermell said. "Either she's eating it all and her kids are already going hungry, or the handouts meant to sustain her life are having the opposite effect." Related: Walmart issues urgent message about the alarming cost of food "Do you know how many calories it takes to look like her? She's doing fine," X user Rafester said. Some opted to attack Felecia's relationship choices instead of her weight, saying, "Why does she have 4 children and no husband? Life choices matter. Sorry but 4 unplanned pregnancies and no partner present is absolute nonsense," X user fictitiousfruit said. A few rare voices in the thread abstained from insults. "Not a single person wants SNAP taken away from Felecia. Every single person wants SNAP revoked for people who aren't trying or aren't contributing to the country they take advantage of," user Zac DiSalvo said. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.