[Farm93]

Uhh, guys, this is totally and only about the $$$$. Not saying the AD hasn't done some stupid things before, but I'm sure some very highly paid consultants have signed off on this making more money than the previous way of doing things.

I know many Stanford fans live in the Stanford AD bubble, but this particular pricing model is not some new scheme.  It may be an unpopular scheme for those that enjoy watching Stanford at below market price points, but it is a pricing model known across the FBS landscape.

One can try to pick any of the ticket seating charts apart, still they are widespread and easy to find.  Texas has this model.  UCLA has this model.  Arizona does it too.  Stanford is way behind the curve.  The trick is not to maximize attendance, but to maximize revenue from just 6-8 games.

There certainly would be a long-term loyalty counterpoint.  The $1000 today might alienate someone that might donate $1,000,000 in the future.  That long-term fear is likely why Stanford is late to this party, since it has much to lose.  However many schools are bringing in a lot of priority/donation money from less affluent fans while Stanford ticket holders cruise to the stadium in Teslas.  Someone had to realize that maybe the Stanford AD could get quite a bit more money from its base as the base appears to have ample discretionary income and significant net worth.

The letter was just part of the PR program for the masses.  Keep it short and simple and then distribute.  Certainly some will be alienated, but that is generally part of the revenue maximizing equation with pricing increases.

[Farm93]

Uhh, guys, this is totally and only about the $$$$. Not saying the AD hasn't done some stupid things before, but I'm sure some very highly paid consultants have signed off on this making more money than the previous way of doing things.

I know many Stanford fans live in the Stanford AD bubble, but this particular pricing model is not some new scheme.  It may be an unpopular scheme for those that enjoy watching Stanford at below market price points, but it is a pricing model known across the FBS landscape.

One can try to pick any of the ticket seating charts apart, still they are widespread and easy to find.  Texas has this model.  UCLA has this model.  Arizona does it too.  Stanford is way behind the curve.  The trick is not to maximize attendance, but to maximize revenue from just 6-8 games.

There certainly would be a long-term loyalty counterpoint.  The $1000 today might alienate someone that might donate $1,000,000 in the future.  That long-term fear is likely why Stanford is late to this party, since it has much to lose.  However many schools are bringing in a lot of priority/donation money from less affluent fans while Stanford ticket holders cruise to the stadium in Teslas.  Someone had to realize that maybe the Stanford AD could get quite a bit more money from its base as the base appears to have ample discretionary income and significant net worth.

The letter was just part of the PR program for the masses.  Keep it short and simple and then distribute.  Certainly some will be alienated, but that is generally part of the revenue maximizing equation with pricing increases.

[pefloresjr]

I obviously don't have any issue with the reasons others have for deciding whether or not to buy tickets or otherwise support Stanford.  However, when I first bought my tickets at the new stadium, my level of "engagement" with Stanford was the basis used to determine the priority for seat locations.  That engagement included buying season tickets to other sports, donations to athletics, and total donations to Stanford.  That same priority was used when I changed seats and is still used for bowl game tickets.  I sit on the sunny side in a non premium section, but my donations were part of getting me there. 

I don't have any problem with the expanded donation requirements because they seem reasonable.  I stayed out of the premium section initially because it was obvious that over time the required donation would increase.  Even so, I'm considering upgrading my seats since my donation level already meets the level required for the expanded sections.  It's still a quandary because I will definitely have better seats on the sunny side, but the heat on the occasional early day games and the sun in my eyes at the late afternoon games are a pain.  In any event, there are plenty of locations with good sight lines in Stanford Stadium and I hope that most fans can find a section that meets their budget. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I obviously don't have any issue with the reasons others have for deciding whether or not to buy tickets or otherwise support Stanford.  However, when I first bought my tickets at the new stadium, my level of "engagement" with Stanford was the basis used to determine the priority for seat locations.  That engagement included buying season tickets to other sports, donations to athletics, and total donations to Stanford.  That same priority was used when I changed seats and is still used for bowl game tickets.  I sit on the sunny side in a non premium section, but my donations were part of getting me there. 

I don't have any problem with the expanded donation requirements because they seem reasonable.  I stayed out of the premium section initially because it was obvious that over time the required donation would increase.  Even so, I'm considering upgrading my seats since my donation level already meets the level required for the expanded sections.  It's still a quandary because I will definitely have better seats on the sunny side, but the heat on the occasional early day games and the sun in my eyes at the late afternoon games are a pain.  In any event, there are plenty of locations with good sight lines in Stanford Stadium and I hope that most fans can find a section that meets their budget. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[Goose]

However many schools are bringing in a lot of priority/donation money from less affluent fans while Stanford ticket holders cruise to the stadium in Teslas.  Someone had to realize that maybe the Stanford AD could get quite a bit more money from its base as the base appears to have ample discretionary income and significant net worth.

"Maybe" isn't quite good enough. I just want to see the predictive model that the AD used to decide to do this. The Stanford fan base, as you point out, is much different than the fan base for other PAC-12 schools, as probably all the fan bases are from each other. If Stanford can raise prices and that actually brings in more revenue, that would be good. However, the opposite could also happen. I am suggesting that the fan base would respond better if there was a model presented showing how much each year they expect to make, and each year to show us how that model worked. They don't have to do this, for sure. But it would be nice to see, because I, for one, am not convinced that it exists.

The letter was just part of the PR program for the masses.  Keep it short and simple and then distribute.  Certainly some will be alienated, but that is generally part of the revenue maximizing equation with pricing increases.

Or, maybe the letter is what the department believes for no good reason. That is my guess. Yes, when you raise prices, you expect to lose customers. But you hopefully have made some study into how many you will lose, and if you lose more than expected, you can re-think your prices. However, if you just guessed it wouldn't be too many, or relied on what happened at, say Texas, as a guide, quite possibly you will actually lose revenue. Then, many organizations choose to raise prices again, because revenue is down, creating a negative spiral. Does anyone know about a survey, or questionnaire, or anything about ticket prices?
I just want to see some study that shows they aren't just guessing. Granted, you can do all sorts of things to predict the marginal propensity to buy, and still be wrong. However, it is a lot easier to pay a higher price when you have some reason to believe it is justified, especially when "optional" spending is concerned. Right now, it doesn't affect me. I am concerned that if/when it doesn't work, and revenue drops, they will expand the program, not reduce it.

[Goose]

However many schools are bringing in a lot of priority/donation money from less affluent fans while Stanford ticket holders cruise to the stadium in Teslas.  Someone had to realize that maybe the Stanford AD could get quite a bit more money from its base as the base appears to have ample discretionary income and significant net worth.

"Maybe" isn't quite good enough. I just want to see the predictive model that the AD used to decide to do this. The Stanford fan base, as you point out, is much different than the fan base for other PAC-12 schools, as probably all the fan bases are from each other. If Stanford can raise prices and that actually brings in more revenue, that would be good. However, the opposite could also happen. I am suggesting that the fan base would respond better if there was a model presented showing how much each year they expect to make, and each year to show us how that model worked. They don't have to do this, for sure. But it would be nice to see, because I, for one, am not convinced that it exists.

The letter was just part of the PR program for the masses.  Keep it short and simple and then distribute.  Certainly some will be alienated, but that is generally part of the revenue maximizing equation with pricing increases.

Or, maybe the letter is what the department believes for no good reason. That is my guess. Yes, when you raise prices, you expect to lose customers. But you hopefully have made some study into how many you will lose, and if you lose more than expected, you can re-think your prices. However, if you just guessed it wouldn't be too many, or relied on what happened at, say Texas, as a guide, quite possibly you will actually lose revenue. Then, many organizations choose to raise prices again, because revenue is down, creating a negative spiral. Does anyone know about a survey, or questionnaire, or anything about ticket prices?
I just want to see some study that shows they aren't just guessing. Granted, you can do all sorts of things to predict the marginal propensity to buy, and still be wrong. However, it is a lot easier to pay a higher price when you have some reason to believe it is justified, especially when "optional" spending is concerned. Right now, it doesn't affect me. I am concerned that if/when it doesn't work, and revenue drops, they will expand the program, not reduce it.

[Snorlax94]

#1) I definitely feel bad for the old-timers. I purchased season tickets for the first time this year (my section narrowly missing the required donations), and far and away, in my section, the longstanding season ticket holders around me are the core of Stanford's support in the stands. They are the ones welcoming the new fans. They are the ones screaming, on occasion even standing in the shady side, and bringing the energy. So, I think it would be a dear loss if the new "donations" led to losing these fans.

#2) Although required donations do look like a common practice,  I would be upset if it affected my section also. I don't like how it's a new, surprise fee. The idea that new fees could spring out of nowhere is troubling and it makes loyalty feel unappreciated.

#3) In terms of whether I think this will work, of course, I don't know and who knows. But from my experience, I recall that I was interested in trying to get seats in 111-112,114-115 but they were already sold out, even in an even year. So, if the donation was reasonable, I think I would have tried to get seats in 111,112,114 or 115. I wonder if this is something they've been planning and were waiting for an odd-numbered year to try it. I don't have any charts to prove this, but I would guess this ends up working OK in the short-run, for 2017.

In the long-run, to my understanding, all stadiums -- not just Stanford's -- have decreasing attendance (on average) due to constantly-evolving HD broadcasts. I would imagine this move will magnify the dramatic number of season ticket pick-ups during odd years and drop-offs during even years. It  kills the incentive I think many long-term fans have to maintain their subscriptions during lean years. Why stick with and cheer for a losing team when you can easily pick up great seats with a small donation during the good times?

So I worry that this is a short-sighted business decision that will boost the bottom line in 2017, maybe for a few years, but could be a costly move and could even threaten the program if things ever got Buddy-Ball bad again.

And in terms of generating more revenues, I could just think of other ways to make more money and so many untapped opportunities. For example, I think there is significant untapped upside in merchandising, in food and beverages, and in other events and services. Oh yeah, and how about getting the Pac-12 Network on DirecTV? Or even Netflix?

But in the end, I have to say, if anything really makes me stop getting season tickets, it's going to be the last-minute kick-off times and that damn Pac-12 After Dark. I would pay more for seats if it meant more attractive kickoff times that I could actually plan for.

[Snorlax94]

#1) I definitely feel bad for the old-timers. I purchased season tickets for the first time this year (my section narrowly missing the required donations), and far and away, in my section, the longstanding season ticket holders around me are the core of Stanford's support in the stands. They are the ones welcoming the new fans. They are the ones screaming, on occasion even standing in the shady side, and bringing the energy. So, I think it would be a dear loss if the new "donations" led to losing these fans.

#2) Although required donations do look like a common practice,  I would be upset if it affected my section also. I don't like how it's a new, surprise fee. The idea that new fees could spring out of nowhere is troubling and it makes loyalty feel unappreciated.

#3) In terms of whether I think this will work, of course, I don't know and who knows. But from my experience, I recall that I was interested in trying to get seats in 111-112,114-115 but they were already sold out, even in an even year. So, if the donation was reasonable, I think I would have tried to get seats in 111,112,114 or 115. I wonder if this is something they've been planning and were waiting for an odd-numbered year to try it. I don't have any charts to prove this, but I would guess this ends up working OK in the short-run, for 2017.

In the long-run, to my understanding, all stadiums -- not just Stanford's -- have decreasing attendance (on average) due to constantly-evolving HD broadcasts. I would imagine this move will magnify the dramatic number of season ticket pick-ups during odd years and drop-offs during even years. It  kills the incentive I think many long-term fans have to maintain their subscriptions during lean years. Why stick with and cheer for a losing team when you can easily pick up great seats with a small donation during the good times?

So I worry that this is a short-sighted business decision that will boost the bottom line in 2017, maybe for a few years, but could be a costly move and could even threaten the program if things ever got Buddy-Ball bad again.

And in terms of generating more revenues, I could just think of other ways to make more money and so many untapped opportunities. For example, I think there is significant untapped upside in merchandising, in food and beverages, and in other events and services. Oh yeah, and how about getting the Pac-12 Network on DirecTV? Or even Netflix?

But in the end, I have to say, if anything really makes me stop getting season tickets, it's going to be the last-minute kick-off times and that damn Pac-12 After Dark. I would pay more for seats if it meant more attractive kickoff times that I could actually plan for.

[Goose]

#2) Although required donations do look like a common practice,  I would be upset if it affected my section also. I don't like how it's a new, surprise fee. The idea that new fees could spring out of nowhere is troubling and it makes loyalty feel unappreciated.

I don't like it being a surprise either, but my main concern is how well it will actually work.

#3) In terms of whether I think this will work, of course, I don't know and who knows.

I don't know either, and it is impossible to determine experimentally because there can be no "control group". However, the AD should have done all the appropriate research to show there is a good likelihood that it will. I have no confidence that they have, and how will they measure "working"? If you have no idea how to measure success, how will you know you have failed? Show us these projections and tell us why they are valid. Then I will shut up. This behavior by the AD looks a lot like a pointy-haired boss move to me.

[Goose]

#2) Although required donations do look like a common practice,  I would be upset if it affected my section also. I don't like how it's a new, surprise fee. The idea that new fees could spring out of nowhere is troubling and it makes loyalty feel unappreciated.

I don't like it being a surprise either, but my main concern is how well it will actually work.

#3) In terms of whether I think this will work, of course, I don't know and who knows.

I don't know either, and it is impossible to determine experimentally because there can be no "control group". However, the AD should have done all the appropriate research to show there is a good likelihood that it will. I have no confidence that they have, and how will they measure "working"? If you have no idea how to measure success, how will you know you have failed? Show us these projections and tell us why they are valid. Then I will shut up. This behavior by the AD looks a lot like a pointy-haired boss move to me.

[Farm93]

The Stanford AD does have a few control groups it can study.

Maples - The attendance looks bad, but hard to isolate the attendance from the product on the court.
A few dozen other D1 schools - These schools revenue models are not big secrets.  These ADs talk all of the time and even have conferences on things like compliance and revenue generation.  I am not that worried about it, but I suspect one could go and attend the next NACDA conference and learn all about the risks and benefits associated with adopting a mandatory donation model. 

One could argue it the big donor class might not have the same program passion and love for the athletes.  And yet our loyal local supporters are often in their 70s and 80s, so I am not sure they jump up and scream throughout the game.

No doubt this was implemented in an odd year on purpose.  Lots of business and psychology work has been done on consumer behavior and this 2017 home schedule is ideal for this type of pricing increase.

FWIW - there is another reason for donations over ticket prices beyond the federal subsidy angle.  In the Pac-12 the visitor gets a large percentage (used to be 50%) of the ticket revenue, but 0% of the donations. 

[Farm93]

The Stanford AD does have a few control groups it can study.

Maples - The attendance looks bad, but hard to isolate the attendance from the product on the court.
A few dozen other D1 schools - These schools revenue models are not big secrets.  These ADs talk all of the time and even have conferences on things like compliance and revenue generation.  I am not that worried about it, but I suspect one could go and attend the next NACDA conference and learn all about the risks and benefits associated with adopting a mandatory donation model. 

One could argue it the big donor class might not have the same program passion and love for the athletes.  And yet our loyal local supporters are often in their 70s and 80s, so I am not sure they jump up and scream throughout the game.

No doubt this was implemented in an odd year on purpose.  Lots of business and psychology work has been done on consumer behavior and this 2017 home schedule is ideal for this type of pricing increase.

FWIW - there is another reason for donations over ticket prices beyond the federal subsidy angle.  In the Pac-12 the visitor gets a large percentage (used to be 50%) of the ticket revenue, but 0% of the donations. 

[82lsju]

Uhh, guys, this is totally and only about the $$$$. Not saying the AD hasn't done some stupid things before, but I'm sure some very highly paid consultants have signed off on this making more money than the previous way of doing things.

maybe the same highly paid consultants that told UCB that they could recover the cost of their stadium upgrade with required donations/seat licenses.....

[82lsju]

Uhh, guys, this is totally and only about the $$$$. Not saying the AD hasn't done some stupid things before, but I'm sure some very highly paid consultants have signed off on this making more money than the previous way of doing things.

maybe the same highly paid consultants that told UCB that they could recover the cost of their stadium upgrade with required donations/seat licenses.....

[M T]

Can someone explain to me how the IRS allows any portion of the money that MUST be paid, and is publicly documented as required, in order to receive a particular product to be considered tax deductible at any non-zero rate?  Especially if that "donation" requirement is seemingly widespread in the industry and not a trivial amount.

Why doesn't the state consider this part of the purchase price and tax it accordingly?  For that matter, why doesn't the state or federal attorney general's office consider this practice to be a conspiracy to avoid taxes.

[M T]

Can someone explain to me how the IRS allows any portion of the money that MUST be paid, and is publicly documented as required, in order to receive a particular product to be considered tax deductible at any non-zero rate?  Especially if that "donation" requirement is seemingly widespread in the industry and not a trivial amount.

Why doesn't the state consider this part of the purchase price and tax it accordingly?  For that matter, why doesn't the state or federal attorney general's office consider this practice to be a conspiracy to avoid taxes.

[Phogge]

Disagree totally re Tucson. Plenty to do but you have to like the desert. Plenty to explore around Douglas, Bisbee, Tombstone, Sierra Vista. Some of the world's best birdwatching in and around Portal. Great desert hunting. Lots of places just to take out a .45 or .30-30 and blast away without interference. One of the great Mexican restaurants in Miami. A Tahoe/SF length drive to the mountains around Show Low. Rodeos, plenty of horseback country, elk hunting. Maybe not many good Thai or Chinese restaurants however.

[Phogge]

Disagree totally re Tucson. Plenty to do but you have to like the desert. Plenty to explore around Douglas, Bisbee, Tombstone, Sierra Vista. Some of the world's best birdwatching in and around Portal. Great desert hunting. Lots of places just to take out a .45 or .30-30 and blast away without interference. One of the great Mexican restaurants in Miami. A Tahoe/SF length drive to the mountains around Show Low. Rodeos, plenty of horseback country, elk hunting. Maybe not many good Thai or Chinese restaurants however.

[CowboyIndian]

Disagree totally re Tucson. Plenty to do but you have to like the desert. Plenty to explore around Douglas, Bisbee, Tombstone, Sierra Vista. Some of the world's best birdwatching in and around Portal. Great desert hunting. Lots of places just to take out a .45 or .30-30 and blast away without interference. One of the great Mexican restaurants in Miami. A Tahoe/SF length drive to the mountains around Show Low. Rodeos, plenty of horseback country, elk hunting. Maybe not many good Thai or Chinese restaurants however.

I agree, Phog, but if anyone's looking for things to do in and around Tucson that don't involve NRA membership or a 4-hour drive, let me know.

[CowboyIndian]

Disagree totally re Tucson. Plenty to do but you have to like the desert. Plenty to explore around Douglas, Bisbee, Tombstone, Sierra Vista. Some of the world's best birdwatching in and around Portal. Great desert hunting. Lots of places just to take out a .45 or .30-30 and blast away without interference. One of the great Mexican restaurants in Miami. A Tahoe/SF length drive to the mountains around Show Low. Rodeos, plenty of horseback country, elk hunting. Maybe not many good Thai or Chinese restaurants however.

I agree, Phog, but if anyone's looking for things to do in and around Tucson that don't involve NRA membership or a 4-hour drive, let me know.

[Phogge]

I've got cousins everywhere down there. Hell K you can build fence, play bocce, explore the 24x12 mile Forest Service lease, check the windmills, round up calves, butcher an elk and shoot Gamble quail all in the same day on my cousin's ranch. Don't have to have an NRA card.

[Phogge]

I've got cousins everywhere down there. Hell K you can build fence, play bocce, explore the 24x12 mile Forest Service lease, check the windmills, round up calves, butcher an elk and shoot Gamble quail all in the same day on my cousin's ranch. Don't have to have an NRA card.

[fullmetal]

Go say hi to SUBuddha over in edit: Tucson.  And after the El Paso roadtrip, I might get to thinking that edit: Tucson isn't that far away...

[fullmetal]

Go say hi to SUBuddha over in edit: Tucson.  And after the El Paso roadtrip, I might get to thinking that edit: Tucson isn't that far away...

[CowboyIndian]

Go say hi to SUBuddha over in Tuscon.  And after the El Paso roadtrip, I might get to thinking that Tuscon isn't that far away...

Only another 4.5 hours beyond El Paso. And I know this is small-minded but my mind is small this way: it's Tucson....'cs' as in computer science or,,,ummm, other stuff.

[CowboyIndian]

Go say hi to SUBuddha over in Tuscon.  And after the El Paso roadtrip, I might get to thinking that Tuscon isn't that far away...

Only another 4.5 hours beyond El Paso. And I know this is small-minded but my mind is small this way: it's Tucson....'cs' as in computer science or,,,ummm, other stuff.

[fullmetal]

Guilty!  I should have known better...

[fullmetal]

Guilty!  I should have known better...

[CompSci87]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16439.msg186616#msg186616 date=1484594975]
Go say hi to SUBuddha over in Tuscon.  And after the El Paso roadtrip, I might get to thinking that Tuscon isn't that far away...

Only another 4.5 hours beyond El Paso. And I know this is small-minded but my mind is small this way: it's Tucson....'cs' as in computer science or,,,ummm, other stuff.
[/quote]

Paging me? My niece lived in Tucson for a while, so I definitely could have corrected that one. And I'm small minded about spelling too. 😀

[CompSci87]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16439.msg186616#msg186616 date=1484594975]
Go say hi to SUBuddha over in Tuscon.  And after the El Paso roadtrip, I might get to thinking that Tuscon isn't that far away...

Only another 4.5 hours beyond El Paso. And I know this is small-minded but my mind is small this way: it's Tucson....'cs' as in computer science or,,,ummm, other stuff.
[/quote]

Paging me? My niece lived in Tucson for a while, so I definitely could have corrected that one. And I'm small minded about spelling too. 😀

[Snorlax94]

Can someone explain to me how the IRS allows any portion of the money that MUST be paid, and is publicly documented as required, in order to receive a particular product to be considered tax deductible at any non-zero rate?  Especially if that "donation" requirement is seemingly widespread in the industry and not a trivial amount.

Why doesn't the state consider this part of the purchase price and tax it accordingly?  For that matter, why doesn't the state or federal attorney general's office consider this practice to be a conspiracy to avoid taxes.

This is a common practice for non-profits. It's how many fundraise. For example, if a person purchases a table at a charity dinner for $2,500, they get a table with 10 seats for dinner. $500 of that money ($50 dinner x 10 people) is not-deductible, it's considered a donation in anticipation of a gift received, but the other $2,000 is deductible. Now, the more you or a company donates ($5,000 a table, $10,000 a table) you get a better table (more centered, closer to the speaker), but it's still only $500 that is non-deductible for the food. So the $25,000 table is like sitting on the 50-yard-line,where $24,500 is tax-deductible and $500 is not deductible because of the food.

If you donate like $250 to a film festival, you might get 2 tickets to a gala, 4 free tickets, and not have to pay any ticket processing fees, so maybe only $100 of the $250 is tax-deductible.

I don't think what Athletic Depts are doing is out-of-line with the general practice.

[Snorlax94]

Can someone explain to me how the IRS allows any portion of the money that MUST be paid, and is publicly documented as required, in order to receive a particular product to be considered tax deductible at any non-zero rate?  Especially if that "donation" requirement is seemingly widespread in the industry and not a trivial amount.

Why doesn't the state consider this part of the purchase price and tax it accordingly?  For that matter, why doesn't the state or federal attorney general's office consider this practice to be a conspiracy to avoid taxes.

This is a common practice for non-profits. It's how many fundraise. For example, if a person purchases a table at a charity dinner for $2,500, they get a table with 10 seats for dinner. $500 of that money ($50 dinner x 10 people) is not-deductible, it's considered a donation in anticipation of a gift received, but the other $2,000 is deductible. Now, the more you or a company donates ($5,000 a table, $10,000 a table) you get a better table (more centered, closer to the speaker), but it's still only $500 that is non-deductible for the food. So the $25,000 table is like sitting on the 50-yard-line,where $24,500 is tax-deductible and $500 is not deductible because of the food.

If you donate like $250 to a film festival, you might get 2 tickets to a gala, 4 free tickets, and not have to pay any ticket processing fees, so maybe only $100 of the $250 is tax-deductible.

I don't think what Athletic Depts are doing is out-of-line with the general practice.

[Mick]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16439.msg186616#msg186616 date=1484594975]
Go say hi to SUBuddha over in Tuscon.  And after the El Paso roadtrip, I might get to thinking that Tuscon isn't that far away...

Only another 4.5 hours beyond El Paso. And I know this is small-minded but my mind is small this way: it's Tucson....'cs' as in computer science or,,,ummm, other stuff.
[/quote]

Maybe he was thinking of Tuscany, essentially the Italian Tucson.

[Mick]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16439.msg186616#msg186616 date=1484594975]
Go say hi to SUBuddha over in Tuscon.  And after the El Paso roadtrip, I might get to thinking that Tuscon isn't that far away...

Only another 4.5 hours beyond El Paso. And I know this is small-minded but my mind is small this way: it's Tucson....'cs' as in computer science or,,,ummm, other stuff.
[/quote]

Maybe he was thinking of Tuscany, essentially the Italian Tucson.

[fullmetal]

I did take Latin for many years  ::)

[fullmetal]

I did take Latin for many years  ::)

[terry]

Can someone explain to me how the IRS allows any portion of the money that MUST be paid, and is publicly documented as required, in order to receive a particular product to be considered tax deductible at any non-zero rate?  Especially if that "donation" requirement is seemingly widespread in the industry and not a trivial amount.

Why doesn't the state consider this part of the purchase price and tax it accordingly?  For that matter, why doesn't the state or federal attorney general's office consider this practice to be a conspiracy to avoid taxes.

The IRS allows a deduction because Congress passed a law saying that 80% of this type of donation is deductible.

Section 170(l) of the Internal Revenue Code deals with precisely this issue. That subsection says that when somebody donates money to a college or university, and the donor receives "the right to purchase tickets for seating at an athletic event in an athletic stadium of such institution," and the donation otherwise would be a fully deductible charitable donation, then the donor is allowed to deduct 80% of the total amount.

Congress apparently made the somewhat arbitrary decision that 20% of the donation is deemed to have been given in exchange for the right to buy tickets, and therefore is not really a gift. The advantages of the 80/20 rule are that it's easy to apply and it avoids the difficult question of trying to put a fair market value on the right to buy tickets for various sports at various universities.

[terry]

Can someone explain to me how the IRS allows any portion of the money that MUST be paid, and is publicly documented as required, in order to receive a particular product to be considered tax deductible at any non-zero rate?  Especially if that "donation" requirement is seemingly widespread in the industry and not a trivial amount.

Why doesn't the state consider this part of the purchase price and tax it accordingly?  For that matter, why doesn't the state or federal attorney general's office consider this practice to be a conspiracy to avoid taxes.

The IRS allows a deduction because Congress passed a law saying that 80% of this type of donation is deductible.

Section 170(l) of the Internal Revenue Code deals with precisely this issue. That subsection says that when somebody donates money to a college or university, and the donor receives "the right to purchase tickets for seating at an athletic event in an athletic stadium of such institution," and the donation otherwise would be a fully deductible charitable donation, then the donor is allowed to deduct 80% of the total amount.

Congress apparently made the somewhat arbitrary decision that 20% of the donation is deemed to have been given in exchange for the right to buy tickets, and therefore is not really a gift. The advantages of the 80/20 rule are that it's easy to apply and it avoids the difficult question of trying to put a fair market value on the right to buy tickets for various sports at various universities.

[TreesAndBirds]

The whole charitable deduction issue has lots of complexity. Do donors get value from having their name on a building, or endowing a scholarship in their family name, or an increased likelihood of getting their children into a school, or from being put on an organization's board where they can meet influential people? And if they get value should that prevent/limit getting a charitable deduction? Lots of times there arent clear answers. Of course you could question why we have the deduction to begin with, and while I support it, that's a whole other discussion.

[TreesAndBirds]

The whole charitable deduction issue has lots of complexity. Do donors get value from having their name on a building, or endowing a scholarship in their family name, or an increased likelihood of getting their children into a school, or from being put on an organization's board where they can meet influential people? And if they get value should that prevent/limit getting a charitable deduction? Lots of times there arent clear answers. Of course you could question why we have the deduction to begin with, and while I support it, that's a whole other discussion.