Baseball Star Shohei Ohtani's New Contract Is a Massive Tax Avoidance Scheme. Nice!
He could save $98 million by dodging California's state income taxes with his unusual, eye-popping contract.

Baseball superstar Shohei Ohtani signed a new 10-year contract this week with the Los Angeles Dodgers, who have promised to pay an eye-popping $700 million.
But unlike most sports contracts, that $700 million won't be doled out over the 10-year term of the deal—and, as a result, both Ohtani and the Dodgers are poised to dodge (sorry) some of the taxes they might be otherwise obligated to pay on the record-breaking deal.
The 29-year-old Ohtani will collect $2 million in each of the next 10 years. The rest of Ohtani's $68 million salary will be deferred for a decade, and the Dodgers will owe it to him in annual installments starting in 2034. By the time Ohtani collects the last of those payments in 2043, he'll be 49 years old (and almost certainly well into retirement).
Because he'll be playing most of his games in high-tax California, taking most of his pay via what's effectively a fixed annuity gives Ohtani the possibility of avoiding some massive tax payments. "By the time he starts receiving the $68 million payments, he may be able to avoid state income taxes by living someplace like Florida without an income tax, or by moving back to Japan," The Wall Street Journal reported this week.
(Ohtani won't have to get by on a mere $2 million per year, of course, as he earns an estimated $40 million annually via endorsements.)
California has the country's highest state income tax rates. The top marginal rate is currently 13.3 percent, including a special 1 percent tax on income over $1 million, and the rate is set to rise to 14.4 percent next year.
By taking most of his pay in what's effectively a fixed annuity rather than getting it all in his paycheck, Ohtani could save as much as $98 million in state taxes if he relocates out of California by 2034, according to an analysis by the California Center for Jobs & the Economy.
That report also highlights how dependent California is on high-earning individuals—you know, the same people the state seems determined to keep driving away by hiking taxes. According to the analysis, "the amount of income tax Ohtani could save annually by changing his residence in 2033 is equivalent to the total tax liability of the bottom 1.78 million tax filers in 2021."
It's a uniquely structured contract for a uniquely talented ballplayer. Ohtani has excelled as both a pitcher and a hitter during his career, which has included time in the Japanese and American major leagues. He's certainly the best two-way player the world has seen since Babe Ruth—and arguably the best ever (though comparisons are difficult given how much the game has changed since the Bambino's days, the rarity of two-way players in professional baseball, and the lack of certainty about whether Ohtani will continue pitching after suffering a serious arm injury this year).
If Ohtani retires after his new contract expires in 2033, he'll be able to claim that the deferred payments from the Dodgers are retirement income—and the federal tax code explicitly forbids states from trying to tax the retirement income of individuals who no longer reside in the state where they once worked. In other words, Ohtani could move to one of the nine states without an income tax and likely avoid paying taxes on those future $68 million annual payments, explains Sportico, a trade publication focused on the business side of professional sports.
California might try to contest that, however. The California Franchise Tax Board tells Sportico that its determination about future tax liability would depend "upon the unique facts and circumstances of a taxpayer as well as the terms of any compensation agreement." Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that California's "complicated rules" for determining state tax liability include regulations allowing the state to tax "non-resident actors, singers, performers, entertainers, wrestlers, boxers" and others based on the gross amount they are paid for activities that occurred in the state. That could be construed to give the state a chance to go after Ohtani's deferred payments.
Regardless of how all that shakes out, there's another wrinkle to the brilliant tax avoidance scheme built into Ohtani's record-breaking deal. By deferring a large portion of his compensation, the Dodgers might also reduce their own tax burden—not to the state government, but to Major League Baseball (MLB).
That's because of the MLB's so-called "luxury tax," a redistributionist scheme that is meant to limit how much money richer clubs spend on players in the name of maintaining competitive balance. Implemented in 2002, the luxury tax applies to teams with payrolls that exceed a level determined annually by the MLB. Teams that exceed the threshold pay a 22.5 percent tax on every payroll-dollar above the threshold, and the percentage of the tax escalates for teams that exceed the threshold in consecutive seasons.
The luxury tax threshold for next season is $237 million. If Ohtani's contract was structured in a more typical way, the $70 million owed to him would account for nearly one-third of what the Dodgers could spend on payroll before hitting the tax threshold. However, with the deferments in place, Ohtani's contract will count as $46 million in the eyes of the MLB's luxury tax accounting system, according to ESPN's Jeff Passan. That means the team will have the chance to spend more money on other players before triggering the luxury tax punishment.
That's not a matter of public policy, since the luxury tax is an internal MLB matter that all the clubs have agreed to follow. And the MLB's collective bargaining agreement is clear: There is no limit to how much money a player and team can agree to defer.
Still, there's a lesson there about how taxes warp incentives for individuals and corporations. In some ways, it's like how historical taxes on windows created weird incentives for architects and homeowners. If attics are exempt from taxes, more houses will have attics. If there are ways to avoid a punitive tax that comes with signing expensive ballplayers, teams will find new ways to sign expensive ballplayers.
And if California is going to tax wealth at an exorbitant rate, wealthy people will find ways to avoid earning money in California.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
future tax liability would depend "upon the unique facts and circumstances of a taxpayer as well as the terms of any compensation agreement.
IOW , how we feel at the time.
I need some help from the commentariat for a little research project I'm doing.
I ran across this video, called "PlannedOpolis". It seems to have come from some project ~2010 and I'm trying to honestly figure out if it's parody. It's so awful, that I'm fearing that I'm looking at this and being fooled into "arguing with someone in my head" because I'm not spotting the ironic sarcasm. But... I keep digging into it, and it seems to have come from a group called "forum for the future" and everywhere I go to find the ultimate source, it seems to be memory holed.
There are unironic references from the New York Times in 2011, and many times when you find these WEF type think-tank sites which linked the video, it's always deleted or you get a 404 error.
Anyhoo, here's the video.
Description in the video has one of the source links I alluded to above, and it's gone if you try to see the source.
Forumforthefuture.org Is clearly a real thing, and they're definitely focused on the subject area of climate change, sustainability, etc. They seemingly had an actual project called "Megacities On The Move," because if you go to their youtube channel and sort by "oldest," you can find some videos where they're talking about it (But not the Planned-opolis video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8QKDPcjM60
They were clearly talking about some of the same things shown in the Planned-Opolis video.
That's not to say that someone wasn't making fun of this organization specifically. I agree that it's extremely on point, especially with the commentary about "freedom enclaves" and the idea that only rich people have cars, or that you'll only eat meat on your birthday. But when WEF is actually saying this sort of thing unironically now, I think it's fair they were saying it then.
Oh, wait, I just found the full version of that short video you saw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2--HYvLmrqk
You apparently found only the first third of it, it's even longer. And I think it's real. I think they realized just how shitty the messaging and marketing in the video was and intentionally scrubbed it. If it was just a parody, it would be much easier to find the original sourcing of it.
Okay, wait, there's a bit more context. They're laying out 4 visions for how future cities will look, based on their (admittedly stupid) ideas of the world of 2040.
Scenario 1: Fossil fuels remain the primary energy source and energy is extremely expensive, so people live in very planned and dense urban conclaves. (I think we're supposed to agree that this isn't ideal)
Scenario 2: Alternative Energy sources, like biofuels, create a world in which travel is extremely personalized and there's a ton of transport options competing for road space. I think we're supposed to like this version?
Scenario 3: Fossil-fuel powered cars are dominant but it sucks to be poor because poor people can't afford cars or gas. There's basically no public transit options. This is their idea of a libertarian dystopia and is clearly supposed to suck.
Scenario 4: Better high-tech transportation technology, and everything is completely easy and renewable. For some reason the types of technologies developed in this version, like VR, aren't available in some other scenarios. We're supposed to think this is the good version that everyone should aspire to, despite the fact that it has tons of central planning.
I assume it's not parody but nor is it anything to be taken seriously. People speculate about the future. They draw cartoons to visualize it - see the Jetsons. Maybe they can even produce TV shows to 'make it real' - see Star Trek. But neither of those make anything real. Nor are they real 'plans' a la Planopolis.
Those sorts of things probably do have a bigger impact in how ideas are communicated because people can understand a different way (say visualization) of presenting an idea. But what that means is if you have a different idea than they do, maybe you should try to visualize that idea if you want to communicate it better.
What's disturbing about this one is that it's unclear whether it's parody or their ideal vision for the future.
You have to love Boehm's double standard. Ohtani reduces the amount that he pays in taxes and Boehm touts how smart he and his lawyers are. If somebody like Trump were to do something similar to this then Boehm would be the first to write about how he's not paying his fair share and is using loopholes for the rich to scam California out of it's justly deserved tax money.
Trump is the victimest victim in Victimtown.
Just like you’re the drunkiest drunk in drunktown.
You realise you had to invent "Boehm's double standard", or you would have had nothing to say, right?
So - you're the only one to mention Trump in order to talk about someone else's supposed TDS.
You people are a fucking cult. And Trump sucks at baseball.
I see your three other responses didn’t deny your point.
His fake point?
When they can't dispute the message, they attack the messenger.
California has the country's highest state income tax rates. The top marginal rate is currently 13.3 percent, including a special 1 percent tax on income over $1 million, and the rate is set to rise to 14.4 percent next year.
Why settle for the good when you can move to California and have the perfect?
Cool. Love it. But won't the world have boiled over by then? Get it and spend it now before it's too late.
And Florida will be under water by then, so he'll have to move to Wyoming instead.
The state isn't going to take as much interest in the income of a pan-handler as it does the income of the world's most highly compensated athlete. Life is so unfair!
Assuming Ohtani's not a US citizen, all he has to deal with is the one-time, Green Card exit tax and move to Monaco or someplace like that. Why the hell would a billionaire want to settle in a low-tax US state? You'd almost have to be an American to think that's the most desirable place to live out your billionaire lifestyle...
Wyoming is full of billionaires.
Some people aren’t Marxist trash and really value what America stands for when it isn’t being perverted by the aforementioned Marxist trash.
Ohtani threw the tax man a curveball.
This deal is a home run!
CA tax authorities struck out
The rest of Ohtani's $68 million salary
I mean, clearly that's $680 million, and not $68 million. Clearly the edit function is broken for the editors as well.
Annually.
It's $680 million payed out annually over ten years. The first time he writes it, he just says $68 when talking about the whole sum, and after that, he's talking about the $68 million annual payments. He just left the zero off the first one.
The IRS won't make that mistake.
It's done poorly, separated over two sentences, requiring some mental math and the assumption that "salary" implies "annual" in context.
"...that $700 million won't be doled out over the 10-year term of the deal...
[$700M over 10 ten years...$70M per year]
"The 29-year-old Ohtani will collect $2 million in each of the next 10 years. The
rest of Ohtani's[remaining] $68 million [of Ohtani's annual] salary will be deferred for a decade, and the Dodgers will owe it to him in annual installments starting in 2034.Thus, his $700M deal is to be paid out as
2024, $2M, $68M deferred
...
2033, $2M, $68M deferred
And then, even if he has retired,
2034, $68M
...
2043, $68M
Ohtani and his agent worked this beautifully.
No objection to Ohtani maximizing his contract and minimizing his taxes.
It's just, with that kind of money, he and the Dodgers will look silly if he spends his mid to late 30s as a 1.0 - 2.0 WAR player like some aging post-steroid-era sluggers.
Are you suggesting that the Dodgers should have balked at this deal?
If he ages like Ryan Howard, LA will have a financial mess to cleanup.
Whoever gave the Dodgers advice to ink this deal provided a foul tip.
I think you might be stealing a base there.
Or the lawyers just whiffed.
He’s just calling balls and strikes.
Well also, his immediate value isn't there either. He'll be 30 years old next season and he's coming off of a second Tommy John surgery. They're paying for a two-way player who won't be pitching in 2024, and TJ comebacks are always a little sketchy. If you take out his pitching, you're paying for the name value when he's maybe a 5-WAR DH, at best. Plus he way outperformed his career averages last year as a hitter, so you can't really project that for him going forward.
Ohtani is a bit unique like Michael Jordan. MJ didn't earn his money playing basketball. He earned it selling shoes. Ohtani will earn a ton of money for the Dodgers by selling tickets and jerseys and spreading their brand in Japan and such.
Yeah, I made that comment elsewhere. He carries name value for the team that exceeds his on-field value, especially for West Coast teams where they have larger Japanese and East Asian populations.
The thing is, if he turns out to be worth, say, $250 million on the field, I'm not sure if he's earning them $450 million on jerseys and other merch. Plus they're going to have a Bobby Bonilla situation at some point where they're paying a guy $68 million to not play baseball, and it may interfere with their ability to pay other players they'd like to pursue.
I read a bit more about the contract, and apparently the deferrments are interest-free. That's what incentivized the Dodgers to agree to it, since they won't be paying Ohtani well into his 60s.
The media deal impact - esp games in Japanese (likely a new offering) - will far outweigh Ohtani's contract - with a tail that lasts for decades.
Esp in a city like LA which is actually a poor sports town. How many sports teams have failed in LA? Japanese loyalty to Ohtani/Dodgers will likely be stronger than LA loyalty to Dodgers on a good beach day.
Most players - including even players like Trout - don't deliver off-field franchise value. Ohtani does.
Don’t worry, after the democrats cheat and reinstall Biden’s corpse for a second term, our currency will become so devalued that the remainder of his contract payments won’t be worth all that much. Of course, by 2034 we will be in a civil war anyway. So none of this will matter.
I don't follow MLB as closely as I did pre-pandemic. So I had a tough time thinking of how he could possibly live up to the contract, especially in the second half. Which successful late career starting pitcher *and* slugger does he have to combine?
Does he have to pitch like late 30s Justin Verlander while hitting like late 30s ....... who, exactly? Barry Bonds won't work since he was chemically enhanced.
There's a few mid-late thirties standouts who have a couple really good years. Chipper Jones springs to mind. Jim Edmonds didn't fall off the cliff until 37. But I can't name a lot of them who were consistently good hitters into their mid thirties that were free of steroid allegations. Palmeiro, for instance, was a good hitter late in his career but was definitely juiced.
I mentioned Mike Schmidt the other day who was a feared slugger into his late 30s. But guys like him and Edmonds are definitely the exceptions, and none of them were reliable starters in the pitching rotation.
My main thing with Ohtani is that he's had two Tommy John surgeries now, and he's about to hit 30, which traditionally is not kind to big-swinging hitters, much less pitchers with elbow issues.
If he can't pitch, Ohtani won't be stuck as only a DH. He's one of the best athletes to ever play pro baseball, in the top 10% of the league in sprint speed. He could easily play outfield (he has a cannon arm). Or learn first base as he gets older. He has been known to work hard at stuff.
I don't think he would be saving much on taxes by moving back to Japan - the income tax rate on annual salaries over 40 million yen is 45% federal, plus another 10% to state and local. 55% total.
$68 million annually is almost 10 billion yen.
https://www.jetro.go.jp/en/invest/setting_up/section3/page7.html
US top bracket: 37% now (41% with Medicare surtax.) Plus 14% in Cali, so close to 55% as well.
I didn’t even know that Louisiana had an MLB team.
(Ohtani won't have to get by on a mere $2 million per year, of course, as he earns an estimated $40 million annually via endorsements.)
Marshawn Lynch did something like this, I believe, where he actually lived on his endorsement money and set aside his football salary in savings.
MLB players don't earn much in endorsements. Among 'top 15 players' in different sports:
Basketball - $350 million in endorsements/sponsorship
Tennis - $300 million
Golf - $250 million
Soccer - $200 million
Football - $150 million
Baseball - $40 million (more than half is Ohtani)
Ohtani does.
It’s enough to keep him in skittles and saki.
Ohtani said shohmei the money.
The lawyers said, "Bonzai!"
They will get the tax because it was earned playing in CA.
You're not going to sneak a fastball past Newsom.
The California government should be overthrown.
Is that where Hunter played while earning?
I doubt California will let it go like that. They could claim he is earning the money now, regardless of when it is actually paid out. His AAV (annual average value) on his contract is around 47M a year, after the 70M is discounted for being paid so far in the future.
But I'm following the same strategy (minus approximately 699M) for my 401k. Dodge the 10% California tax now, move to a no-income tax state when I retire, and see an automatic 10% boost in my withdrawals.
They may actually ask for the state tax now. Democrats are going all in on taxing unrealized gains. As unconstitutional as that is.
Still, there's a lesson there about how taxes warp incentives for individuals and corporations.
No, there isn't. That is because the tax implications of his deal had nothing to do with it. The luxury tax internal to MLB is intended to be a balancing feature so that the few clubs in very high-revenue cities don't dominate the whole league by simply buying the talent to be considered favorites to make it to the playoffs every year. (Which they do anyway, because the luxury tax is no where near as restrictive for that purpose than the salary cap system that the NFL and NBA use.)
Ohtani structured his deal that way because he wanted the Dodgers to not have to give such a huge portion of their yearly payroll to him and thus limit their ability to find other top players to support him. Basically, he wants to win more than he wants bragging rights on the biggest contract or to buy more mansions or sports cars. As you point out, he'll have plenty of money to do that anyway given his endorsement earnings.
Making this about CA taxes is just libertarian bias showing its face. The reporting I read suggested that he was going to look to do the same kind of deal with any club he ended up with due to the unprecedented nature of his talent and the amount of money involved.
You're right, it should probably have been about him being part of a government-protected cartel.
Well, that's assuming that the OWS/BLM/Antifa/Democrat pirates don't come to eat the rich before then.
This makes little sense for California tax avoidance alone. Sure, California's rates are obscenely high at 13.3%. But simply deferring compensation for 10 years means you lose 10 years of inflation and return on investment, and there are lots of other risks associated with deferring compensation.
Nice blog. Check Synthetic Gems for gems purchase
IF the ball club exists when he retirees he may get something. If they do this 10 times over the next ten years the ball club can go into receivership under Bankruptcy, guess what, he may get NOTHING!
Meanwhile, "And if California is going to tax wealth at an exorbitant rate, wealthy people will find ways to avoid earning money in California"
Frankly I do not mind if they tax exorbitant wealth at exorbitant rates. The idea that someone makes 17 lifetime incomes per year means that they can afford 17 lifetimes of tax of the average family per year and then some. And they would never even NOTICE the difference.
How about: his money is not your money?
How about: for the government to take and redistribute that money in itself is harmful?
How about: you're a vile greedy prick?
The idea among free-market philosophies seems to be that competition is the ultimate decider of worth. He performs well, his teams value his contribution, so the owners of the teams pay him a lot of money. Sounds great. But then notice that the team that landed him is one of those in one of the largest media markets in the country, giving the owners of that team a decided advantage in their ability to compete on salary for players. It doesn't matter how well or poorly the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox and a couple others are managed and coached, they can afford to pay more top players more money than other clubs. They won't always win it all or even make the playoffs, but they can essentially buy competitiveness where small-market teams have to be exceptionally well-run by very smart people to do that.
That doesn't live up to the idea of competition being a measure of worth when the playing field isn't level, right?
Life isn't fair, of course. Some people are born with greater abilities, some are born into families with the resources to provide them everything they could ever need to develop their inherent gifts and the emotional support needed to flourish, while others are born poor and into single parent homes or to abusive parents, etc. Thus, there will always be people that get ahead in life that don't have the inherent gifts or work ethic or judgement of people that were born into poverty. Some people born into bad situations find a way to succeed anyway, of course, but it is a matter of averages. 100 random kids born into poverty tracked with 100 random kids born to wealthy families - What % of each group do you expect to be in the top 20% of income earners at age 30? To say that it would be the same is fooling oneself.
That is why progressive taxation is justified. Just like sports leagues try and adjust the revenue, methods of drafting young players, and so on, a society with some combination of progressive taxation and social spending tries to correct for the inherently uneven chance aspects of a person's economic results. Now, people on the left will argue that we are morally obligated to do that, but I view it as a necessary correction to be able to develop enough of the young to their potential. It is wasteful to have people with talent and desire to contribute more highly to be left to work low-skill jobs to survive.
For instance, a society that left childhood education entirely to the resources of their parents would mean that few children of the poor would ever achieve success at the level they could have with access to a decent education. Neighborhoods left entirely to their own resources to deal with crime, health care, infrastructure, and more would spiral down as most businesses would go to places where people want to live to attract the best workers.
Governments use redistribution in just about everything they do. That is part of the goal of having government. People can do collectively what they couldn't individually in far too many ways for anarcho-capitalism to ever function. Even a truly libertarian government would still be based on taxation and spending that would have some redistributive effect.
KAR
2M now and 68M later? That's the nastiest splitter he's thrown so far.
I am a conservatarian. Therefore incapable of treason. Not like you democrats, who commit treason with every breath you take.
So perhaps you should breathe no more.
KAR, his statement isn’t advocating CW 2.0. He’s just predicting it due to the current path of urbanism, collectivism, and deficit spending. I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near a prog city like Portland should a system collapse occur.