After his sixth consecutive second place award at the U.S. Open, Phil Mickelson may not have been thinking about the tax benefits of his loss, but according to a recent Forbes article that takes a more humorous look at Mikelson’s recent loss, he should have been.
While he may not have won the golf game, Forbes Contributor makes the sly argument that he may have won the tax game, as he goes on to enumerate the various ways in which Mikelson would have accrued a larger tax bill. He points out that Mikelson announced, with controversy following, that he would do what he could to reduce his California tax bill substantially.
Analyzing the outcome if he had won, Mikelson would have earned the generous sum of $ 1.44 million; instead, as a second place finisher, he earned $696,000. By failing to win the big prize and score the extra $743, 896 in winning revenue, Mikelson also avoided having to pay $76,100 in his state of California income tax.
Last fall, voters approved an increase of 3% to the tax rate, solidifying its place as the highest rate in the country.
In addition to the tax rate issue, the Forbes contributor pointed out that such a win would possibly have included opportunities for lucrative sponsorship deals. High taxes would have inevitably been imposed on any earnings from his sponsors.
Although he may not have won the big prize on the golf course, he can (possibly) take solace in his tax bill.Segal, Cohen & Landis, LLP 9100 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 601E Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (310) 285-3999