[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not interesting, and it's not complex. If Gold says he owes Leyser a share, then it's Leyser's tax liability on that share. The IRS has a standard form for Gold to fill out documenting this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are addressing a different question. It is Gold's position that he doesn't owe Leyser anything and that if he does give Leyser something then it is a gift. This would be subject to gift taxes if he was correct. Additionally, under that theory, Gold would owe taxes on the full $12 million.

Had Gold agreed to give $6 million to Leyser and filled out a 5754, then one would expect Leyser to owe the taxes. Gold includes in his filings a declaration from a tax lawyer with a LLM in tax and 25 years of tax practice that it is his professional opinion that Gold could still be subject to tax on the full amount "based upon various tax theories." He also stated that if Leyser didn't pay his tax Gold had "greater tax liability exposure." He also stated that the fact that Leyser was not a US citizen might raise withholding issues for Gold.

The lawyer also claims that he offered to pay Leyser his share as long as he agreed to hold an offset for the tax in escrow and that Leyser's lawyer (Seif) refused. "He was very belligerent in his response."

I'm not an expert on the tax issues. I know that it is conventional wisdom here that if you file a 5754, that is the end of your exposure and that each person is now liable for their own taxes. This may in fact be the case. But Gold's response has a tax lawyer (Sam Israel) who declares in a court filing that it is his professional opinion that considerable tax risks remained for Gold even if he did file a 5754.

Perhaps you are a tax expert with better information that Israel. I am not.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are wrong. Leyser has documentation of their oral agreement via the Jamie Gold voicemail (which as the other poster said, contradicts the most important parts of Gold's claims). As far as the court is concerned Leyser has presented compelling evidence that it's his money and Jamie needs to show some compelling evidence to prove otherwise, and so far he hasn't been able to.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to secure an injunction of this type you must prove two things. One is that you are likely to prevail on the merits. Most of your argument addresses this issue. I tend to agree with you that Leyser has a good case on this front. However, there is a critical second thing that you must prove: you must prove that if Gold is allowed to have access to the money that Leyser would suffer irreparable harm. This is the point that is on shaky legal ground, in my opinion. In general, that Leyser is afraid that Gold would spend the money is not sufficient to freeze his accounts. Otherwise, every plaintiff could sue someone and freeze up their assets while the case was litigated. The courts generally hold that there adequate ways to ensure that the plaintiff gets the money after the case is done so that the money does not have to be frozen until that time.

[ QUOTE ]
What does "I promise you that you will get your half and you can use this voicemail as documentation to prove it" actually mean? I think it means that Jamie Gold is one of the biggest scumbags to ever win a major tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we pretty much completely agree.