If you want on the ART PING list or off it please notify Sam Cree, Republicanprofessor, or me
Posted on 03/09/2006 10:09:09 PM PST by woofie
I recieved this in my email ...and as some of us are aware the rules on art and taxes were changed a while back (not for the better I think ) and may change again....This pertains to that:
(I have edited it a bit)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear friends, I would like to address you more personal, but it is in regard of an issue crucial to non profits, charitable giving, arts institutions and first of all for artists. In case this did not reach you yet, I urge you to sign a petition among others in support of the bill that would allow artists to claim a fair-market value for donated works for their tax deduction.
By going to the web site http://capwiz.com/artsusa/issues/alert/?alertid=8258876&type=CO and entering your zip code, you will be able to send an email in support of the artist deduction bill and against proposed "floors" on itemized deductions. In addition, you can ask for their support of the IRA Charitable Rollover and Tuition deduction renewal, two other provisions that will benefit colleges and universities.
Summary of Senate Tax Bill
· IRA Charitable Rollover, which will allow donors to further their charitable giving without current tax penalties; · Tuition Deduction renewal for an additional four years—an important tax break for students and families; and · Section 208, a tax incentive which would allow artists to claim fair-market value for donated work (currently artists can only claim the cost of materials). The fourth provision would create a barrier to charitable giving and could discourage many of MICA's own donors in the long run: · Section 201 would impose a new "floor" on charitable deductions, meaning taxpayers would be allowed to write off gifts only above $210 ($420 for couples who file jointly)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would like to hear from any tax experts out there who know about this .
Well, to prevent abuse by the artists with excessive self-esteem and overinflated opinion of their oeuvres' worth - why wouldn't they sell the works in question and then, having thus experimentally found their fair-market value, donate the proceeds?
If you want on the ART PING list or off it please notify Sam Cree, Republicanprofessor, or me
Art values are determined not by the artists but by official art appraisers (who cahrge $ for their services)....
Someone can buy a young artists work, watch it go up in value, have it appraised at current high value , donate it and get a nice write off , the artist gets zilch.
Meanwhile should said artist die , the estate taxes on that work is valued at appraised value.
Even better, if I go out in the back yard and gather the inevitable result of $100 of dog food, put it in a bag, and send it to the local PBS affiliate, I can pick a number and deduct that as well. This gets better all the time.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Dont send it via U S Mail...
Well, then the artist should wait before selling. Way too many of self-proclaimed Michelangelos for my liking. IMHO, their crap [>99% of their output] is justly - nay, generously - valued at the cost of materials. As for those appraisers - I wouldn't be buying an used car from any of them.
Its a whole lot better to sell after your dead but try making a living at it
It's a whole lot better to create art first. "David" was commissioned for an equivalent of about $25-30K. Some years ago in Rochester (NY) on Lake Avenue there was a contemporary "sculpture" which was resembling an oversized hex nut, maybe 15 feet in diameter. If memory serves, the city paid for it about $50K. May it serve as an illustration of the dubious validity and worth of what passes for contemporary art. The proper valuation for it is precisely the cost of materials minus the cost of removal.
Then again there have been men who have spent really big money on women I would not consider of value...Beauty and value are highly debatable
What do you care what something is worth unless you own it?
I would say you hate modern art more than you hate paying taxes
As you wish. For "modern art" my regard is negative, and so by extension is my regard for modern "artists". Thus I am against subsidizing them from public treasury, as tax deductions or otherwise. As for private patrons deranged enough to consume this "art" - no objections there.
I did a bit of googling and ran across this:
Giving Art, Collections and other Personal Property
Gifts of artwork, collections and other personal property (Gifts-in-kind) are welcomed by B-W, as long as they enhance the quality of student education. Typically before a gift of this kind is accepted, the department where it will be located is advised of the proposed gift and asked to evaluate it's appropriateness for the program it will serve. Once accepted, the donor of the property hould obtain an independent evaluation of the dollar value and report that to B-W. IRS Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, needs to accompany your Federal income tax return for the year the gift is made. Please be advised that your charitable deduction is limited to your original basis or cost.
.........................................................
So if a charitble deduction by a collector is limited to the original basis or cost then my contention that collectors can get a deduction based on the appreciation is wrong.... If I remember correctly it used to be that you could get an inflated value ....but no longer....the artists still gets a worse deal however ...
If a builder gave a house would he/she only deduct the cost of materials?
More:
Other Facts You Should Know about a Gift of Art
Art may pose special problems for the artist in his or her estate. Gifts of art by the artist to the Marriott School are deductible for income tax purposes only to the extent of the cost of materials used to produce the art. If art is gifted by the artist to heirs during life or from the artist's estate at death, it is valued for gift and estate tax purposes at fair market value. This can result in the art being sold to pay taxes, often at less than fair market value, leaving heirs with little or no proceeds. LDS Foundation professionals would be happy to discuss your particular circumstance with you and your professional advisors.
To All
Innoculate the world against the IRS....FAIRTAX.ORG....
It's a good thing.
I don't know anything about art appraisers, but considering the various auction houses that handle the stuff, I am fairly sure that there are some out there who do a good job and who understand what the stuff is really worth.
However, the actul value of art has to be determined not by any intrinsic" value it may be deemed to have (by either the artist or his critics, official or otherwise), but by what the market will bear, just like anything else, from Google stocks on down. That's the way it should be taxed, to the extent that anything should be taxed, which is not much, IMO.
Meant to ping you to #19.
Art should be valued according to the market, IMHO, like everything else, whether it be an internet stocks or an athlete's salary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.