The value of a hard asset is what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller. If selling will result in criminal charges there is no willing seller. :faint:
Art’s Sale Value? Zero. The Tax Bill? $29 Million. What is the fair market value of an object that cannot be sold? ¶ The question may sound like a Zen koan, but it is one that lawyers for the heirs of the New York art dealer Ileana Sonnabend and the Internal Revenue Service are set to debate when they meet in Washington next month. The object under discussion is “Canyon,” a masterwork of 20th-century art created by Robert Rauschenberg that Mrs. Sonnabend’s children inherited when she died in 2007. Because the work, a sculptural combine, includes a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection, the heirs would be committing a felony if they ever tried to sell it. So their appraisers have valued the work at zero. But the Internal Revenue Service takes a different view. It has appraised “Canyon” at $65 million and is demanding that the owners pay $29.2 million in taxes. “It’s hard for me to see how this could be valued this way because it’s illegal to sell it,” said Patti S. Spencer, a lawyer who specializes in trusts and estates but has no role in the case.
The family is now challenging the judgment in tax court and its lawyers are negotiating with the I.R.S. in the hope of finding a resolution. Heirs to important art collections are often subject to large tax bills. In this case, the beneficiaries, Nina Sundell and Antonio Homem, have paid $471 million in federal and state estate taxes related to Mrs. Sonnabend’s roughly $1 billion art collection, which included works by Modern masters from Jasper Johns to Andy Warhol. The children have already sold off a large part of it, approximately $600 million worth, to pay the taxes they owed, according to their lawyer, Ralph E. Lerner. But they drew the line at “Canyon,” a landmark of postwar Modernism made in 1959 that three appraisers they hired, including the auction house Christie’s, had valued at zero. Should they lose their fight, the heirs, who were unavailable for comment, will owe the taxes plus $11.7 million in penalties."............
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Could they donate it to a museum and take off the taxes? Sounds like it sucks to be an art collector.
Maybe the family could open up a non-profit art museum and display it and other donated family works. Has to be cheaper than millions of dollars of taxes.
One more reason to buy easily hidden gold for assets.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Could they donate it to a museum and take off the taxes? Sounds like it sucks to be an art collector.
Maybe the family could open up a non-profit art museum and display it and other donated family works. Has to be cheaper than millions of dollars of taxes.
One more reason to buy easily hidden gold for assets.
Invest in companies who produce shovels... there could be a big run on them as more people dig holes in their back yards to bury guns, ammo, gold, cash, or onlything the government thinks it can "aquire" for the good of the collective.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Someone is not doing their homework. According to 16 USC 668(a) That nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit possession or transportation of any bald eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof, lawfully taken prior to June 8, 1940, and that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit possession or transportation of any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof, lawfully taken prior to the addition to this subchapter of the provisions relating to preservation of the golden eagle.
Since they are able to document that the eagle was stuffed in 1917, the Bald Eagle Protection Act does not apply. The IRS is correct in assessing the value of the art exhibit.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Now they can go after the $32 TRILLION that's being hidden offshore... (Hmmmm... I wonder how much of that is U.S. money?) (Hmmmm.... I wonder how much of that is Mitt Romney money?)
Something the Dog Said wrote: Someone is not doing their homework. According to 16 USC 668(a) That nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit possession or transportation of any bald eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof, lawfully taken prior to June 8, 1940, and that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit possession or transportation of any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof, lawfully taken prior to the addition to this subchapter of the provisions relating to preservation of the golden eagle.
Since they are able to document that the eagle was stuffed in 1917, the Bald Eagle Protection Act does not apply. The IRS is correct in assessing the value of the art exhibit.
Your point? Nothing in you post contradicts the OP.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Someone is not doing their homework. According to 16 USC 668(a) That nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit possession or transportation of any bald eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof, lawfully taken prior to June 8, 1940, and that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit possession or transportation of any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof, lawfully taken prior to the addition to this subchapter of the provisions relating to preMyservation of the golden eagle.
Since they are able to document that the eagle was stuffed in 1917, the Bald Eagle Protection Act does not apply. The IRS is correct in assessing the value of the art exhibit.
Your point? Nothing in you post contradicts the OP.
They legally own it but they cannot sell it.
You are correct. After further research, the Supreme Court in Andrus v. Allard that the pre-1940 exception did not apply to sell or barter of the p re-1940 artifacts. My bad. The court did say they could charge to display it. My bet is that the IRS will back off.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Democracy4Sale wrote: Now they can go after the $32 TRILLION that's being hidden offshore... (Hmmmm... I wonder how much of that is U.S. money?) (Hmmmm.... I wonder how much of that is Mitt Romney money?)
I think you meant to say "go after income taxes owed, if any, on the earnings and realized capital gains on the $32 TRILLION" that is legally invested or stored offshore?
No, I guess maybe you just want to confiscate it all.
Insert standard snarky reply here...____________________________
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Democracy4Sale wrote: Now they can go after the $32 TRILLION that's being hidden offshore... (Hmmmm... I wonder how much of that is U.S. money?) (Hmmmm.... I wonder how much of that is Mitt Romney money?)
I think you meant to say "go after income taxes owed, if any, on the earnings and realized capital gains on the $32 TRILLION" that is legally invested or stored offshore?
No, I guess maybe you just want to confiscate it all.
Insert standard snarky reply here...____________________________
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
