tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9798750.post4087331042809888458..comments2023-10-07T11:02:09.916-05:00Comments on ArtTrak Tribal Art: IRS and US Museums Spring 2015Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01851394398280891354noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9798750.post-79559448057533457092015-08-14T03:32:26.489-05:002015-08-14T03:32:26.489-05:00John:
Sorry, but I wish to argue certain points. R...John:<br />Sorry, but I wish to argue certain points. Regarding keeping an object, there was a court case in the late 1980s involving a work which was negligently transferred to the donee (i.e., only when the IRS became involved, several years after the supposed donation). The Tax Court ruled no donation for that year (i.e., the year claimed, not the year actually given). As for "private" museums, they have been around for a long time. Think Frick, Freer, Carnegie, etc. The government does not abjure such museums, only that the rules and regs be followed. Too often I have seen private museums used as tax shelters for the 1%. That said, the US policy of allowing donors to create museums, or give things to specific collections, all while reaping a tax reward, brings more art to all of us 99%-ers. My feeling is that, if you do it right, and have a good collection,a donation is good for the country. But if it is crap stuff of little interest to anyone other than some self-entitled CEO, no deduction should be there. I haven't got a better way of evaluating that, which is why IRS has appraisers on its staff. But the standard for FMV is what is provable, not what is speculative. Sadly, the market is often rather behind the curve. A good appraiser can overcome that, but many poor appraisers do not. So how one writes the appraisal is paramount. But in my career I have seen so many that are far from that standard.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224376051154048468noreply@blogger.com