Gold responds in some detail to allegations

[NoSoup4U]

Discovery ends in March and there will motions for the judge to settle it without trial in April. It could end there (but that is not the most likely scenario). If it goes to trial, it will depend on the docket in Nevada, which I'm not familiar with, but I'd guess a trial in the August/September, 2007 time frame would be a reasonable estimate.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Discovery ends in March and there will motions for the judge to settle it without trial in April. It could end there (but that is not the most likely scenario). If it goes to trial, it will depend on the docket in Nevada, which I'm not familiar with, but I'd guess a trial in the August/September, 2007 time frame would be a reasonable estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that seems like a long time to settle a gambling debt...I assume Gold doesn't have to pay taxes on the part that was frozen? Any chance they strike a deal between now and the prospective trial date?

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, that seems like a long time to settle a gambling debt...I assume Gold doesn't have to pay taxes on the part that was frozen? Any chance they strike a deal between now and the prospective trial date?

[/ QUOTE ]

The wheels of justice turn slowly. Gold's position is that he has no deal with Leyser -- it was just a promise of a gift.

There is always a chance that they will settle. The system is absolutely designed to encourage that. It might not settle if one side is convinced that they will certainly prevail. The most frequent time for a case like this to settle is between discovery and trial, so March-April time frame for that.

The question of tax liability is an interesting and complex one. I really don't know what the answer is. It seems to me that if Gold's position is that it is his money, he owes taxes on it. The fact that it is tied up in litigation is not going to change that.

I also think there is a pretty good chance that the court releases the $6 million that Harrah's is currently holding to Gold. In essence, Leyser's argument is that if the court lets Gold get to the money, he might spend it all. That usually isn't good enough to persuade the court to tie up the money. Defendants usually get to do what they wish with their money until the plaintiff wins.

If the court lets Gold get the cash, Leyser might be more inclined to settle. After all, the lawyers are eating up a lot of the potential money.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]


The question of tax liability is an interesting and complex one. I really don't know what the answer is. It seems to me that if Gold's position is that it is his money, he owes taxes on it. The fact that it is tied up in litigation is not going to change that.


[/ 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 ]

I also think there is a pretty good chance that the court releases the $6 million that Harrah's is currently holding to Gold. In essence, Leyser's argument is that if the court lets Gold get to the money, he might spend it all. That usually isn't good enough to persuade the court to tie up the money. Defendants usually get to do what they wish with their money until the plaintiff wins.



[/ 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.

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.

[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.

[dogdrool]

I don't think Leyser will get much. If his strongest piece of evidence is a voicemail left by a manic poker player making an outragous clame, I can't see him getting far. Gold's lawyers will just say something like "look, he called and left that message just to get the guy off his back so he could focus on the tournyment. Of course he didn't intend to give him half for no reason."

[Hey_Porter]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Leyser will get much. If his strongest piece of evidence is a voicemail left by a manic poker player making an outragous clame, I can't see him getting far. Gold's lawyers will just say something like "look, he called and left that message just to get the guy off his back so he could focus on the tournyment. Of course he didn't intend to give him half for no reason."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a prediction on what will happen, Leyser will realize the above points, but the threat of losing at trial (and the cost of trial) will lead to a settlement in the 1-2 million range.

[juris]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Leyser will get much. If his strongest piece of evidence is a voicemail left by a manic poker player making an outragous clame, I can't see him getting far. Gold's lawyers will just say something like "look, he called and left that message just to get the guy off his back so he could focus on the tournyment. Of course he didn't intend to give him half for no reason."

[/ QUOTE ]

And in the jury of 2+2 how well is that argument doing? Survive summary judgment and I think Gold is toast. And Gold should not be able to win a summary judgment because it is a he said, she said type case.

This is all about Gold seeking leverage to cut a better deal. The taxes are a total smokescreen.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gold wants to give him a "gift, but instead of filling out a form 5754, Gold prefers to pay taxes on the amount first? It doesn't make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
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."


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you can get a lawyer to say anything is "possible". The fact that hundreds of tourney winners make this 5754 election every year, and most of the recent ME winners, without adverse consequences, says that this is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]

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."


[/ QUOTE ]

Jamie said he doesn't owe Leyser a share, but his lawyer claims they offered to pay Leyser his share? Contradictory, eh?

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

Jamie said he doesn't owe Leyser a share, but his lawyer claims they offered to pay Leyser his share? Contradictory, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'd call that compromise. They cannot agree so Gold is smart enough to know that once Crispin files suit he is in his best interest to only pay what the court decides is fair, or based on the strength of the case evidence when Crispin comes to the table with a reasonable settlement offer.

My guess - he settles for 1 million. Not a penny more (and he might have gotten more if he wasn't so litigious). The plaintiff's case is mighty thin, Gold has great supporting evidence for his statements, even with the answering machine message. Reading through his BoDog contract is very enlightening... remember BoDog employees can't easily be forced to testify, thats a huge advantage for Gold, leaving the BoDog contract (which was never signed by the marketing company, oddly a common enough scenario in these situations) as a tough hurdle to jump over.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]