Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
[ 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.
|