buzzcut73: EngineerAU: Do you legally have to accept ownership of anything that is left to you? Can I take a crap in a bag and when I die leave it to one of my many enemies?

Yes, and the IRS will assign it a value, whether they can sell it for that or not, and they'll have to pay the taxes on it.
Apparently this will make people cheer.

Only if whatever he leaves them is in excess of 5 million dollars and taxed at 35%. If and only if the Bush Tax cuts are allowed to expire or the Estate tax provision does not get renewed then it will fall to 1 million and 55%.

The_Gallant_Gallstone: It belongs in a museum!

/ so do you!

It IS in a museum!

EngineerAU: Do you legally have to accept ownership of anything that is left to you? Can I take a crap in a bag and when I die leave it to one of my many enemies?

You don't have to accept an inheritance, no. You can disclaim.

lilplatinum: BarkingUnicorn: You don't amass a billion by letting 29 million slide.

In this case you amass a billion by falling out of a rich vagina.

I was thinking of the NEXT billion.

Why Would I Read the Article: The dollar amount isn't important, he just loves to feel the schadenfraude of a wealthy person being forced to pay bullshiat taxes. Whether it was 1 dollar or a brazillion dollars, he would still feel the same way.

Now, if HE had inherited the piece of artwork in question, then you can bet that he would see the injustice and iniquity in the whole situation, making him a massive hypocrite, which makes him perfect to post on Fark threads concerning taxes.

This would be a different situation if some Joe Blow inherited this piece and only this piece. The inability to sell it, despite its enormous worth would put the heir/ess in a significant financial bind and would most likely have to forfeit the property to the IRS.

But that isn't the situation here. What we have is a Billion dollar plus art collection that was left to another private citizen who did nothing to deserve it besides fall out of the right crotch.

Don't want to pay Estate taxes, you have two options, die in 2010 or donate everything in excess of 5 million dollars.

We don't pass on debt in this country and we shouldn't pass on wealth either.

bmr68: Have you seen the national debt lately?

And? What does the national debt have to do with personal debt? We don't pass debt onto our heirs through our Estates, we shouldn't pass on significant amounts of wealth either. I am ok with a 5 million dollar exception(adjusted for inflation). Everything above that, tax it to hell.

bmr68: dlp211: bmr68: Have you seen the national debt lately?

And? What does the national debt have to do with personal debt? We don't pass debt onto our heirs through our Estates, we shouldn't pass on significant amounts of wealth either. I am ok with a 5 million dollar exception(adjusted for inflation). Everything above that, tax it to hell.

Why should the government be able to take any money that was already subjected to a income tax? Why even set a cap just take it all f'em.

Because the government acts as an extension of the people. The people who helped generate, protect, and provide value to that wealth. Being born to the right family makes you no more entitled to a vast fortune then to those who actually helped create it.

And, really, a double tax argument.

Elephantman: [rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

Oh, hey, a taxes are theft idiot.

I have no love for the rich, but the logical of the IRS's argument is ... substandard.

Rent Party: wildcardjack: The IRS should realize they have a problem when the 99% agrees with the 1% on an issue.


Yeah no shiat. I'm not going to cry any tears for these assholes and their billion dollar gift from daddy, but WRT a piece of art that they can not sell, and therefore exists no market, the assesed value can not be anything other than $0.

It's worth what the market will bear.

/ Socialist America corn farmers not included

Surprisingly, the market would probably bear a lot for this piece, just not a legal market. Also, I am sure there is a way to move this piece out of the US to some country that a sale could happen in. While this piece may not be able to be sold at Sotherby's Auction House(boohoo) I am sure that this could easily be sold. There is a market for stolen art, there is a market for unsellable art.

fang06554: I see the possibility of using it as a loophole to try to pass money tax-free, but you can simply require that the tax is only due if the object is sold.

What if you trade it? Like you give someone the painting in exchange for a house?

fang06554: I think the entire idea of having to be taxed on something material is stupid. If it is money, sure. You can easily split up money to pay part of it as a tax.

My father likes to paint. (And does a pretty fantastic job at that). What if he leaves me twenty of his paintings when he dies, and these value over $5 million. Now I am forced to sell something that has a lot of sentimental value. Or what if he leaves me only 1, and it is valued at $5 million. I am required to get rid of it to pay the taxes. If I can't sell it, then I'm even more screwed.

I see the possibility of using it as a loophole to try to pass money tax-free, but you can simply require that the tax is only due if the object is sold.

Uh, no. If they were valued at 5 million you would owe 0 dollars in taxes. Also, being that your fathers Estate probably won't even be a blip on the radar assuming that he is from the middle class, I don't think the IRS will send an auditor to determine the worth of the paintings.

I love the scenarios you guys pull out of your asses that have no basis in reality.

Nezu Chiza: You miss the point. The core of the matter is whether the IRS can tax something that has NO MONETARY VALUE.

Would someone on Earth be willing to pay 1 dollar for that piece of art? If you agree the answer to this is yes, then it has monetary value.

DamnYankees: Nezu Chiza: You miss the point. The core of the matter is whether the IRS can tax something that has NO MONETARY VALUE.

Would someone on Earth be willing to pay 1 dollar for that piece of art? If you agree the answer to this is yes, then it has monetary value.

To back up your point, do you think that someone would be willing to pay a lot of money for a piece of art that is not only wanted, but can't be had? The Mona Lisa can not be sold, but I am sure we could calculate a market price for it.

dlp211: DamnYankees: Nezu Chiza: You miss the point. The core of the matter is whether the IRS can tax something that has NO MONETARY VALUE.

Would someone on Earth be willing to pay 1 dollar for that piece of art? If you agree the answer to this is yes, then it has monetary value.

To back up your point, do you think that someone would be willing to pay a lot of money for a piece of art that is not only wanted, but can't be had? The Mona Lisa can not be sold, but I am sure we could calculate a market price for it.

Why can't the Mona Lisa be sold? I mean, its unlikely to be sold, but the French government could sell it if they wanted to, I imagine.

fang06554: dlp211: Uh, no. If they were valued at 5 million you would owe 0 dollars in taxes. Also, being that your fathers Estate probably won't even be a blip on the radar assuming that he is from the middle class, I don't think the IRS will send an auditor to determine the worth of the paintings.

I love the scenarios you guys pull out of your asses that have no basis in reality.

Fine, $10 million then. I guess I'm not just thinking about estate tax, but any kind of object you receive. Thinks like this. Or when someone wins a $40,000 sports car on a game show.

Just because something isn't fiat currency doesn't mean it isn't money. Fiat currency is merely a debt owed to you at some later time for goods a services, if you receive goods and services in leu of fiat currency, you still made an income.

Estate taxes are for the purpose of ensuring we don't have a birthright aristocracy in this country. The belief that wealth should not be intergenerational. Or so we were taught in our AP US History class when we discussed the difference between inheritance and income tax. It is purely confiscatory and intentionally so.

That being said, the IRS needs to be taken behind the shed and given a good talkin' to by Congress, considering that the fine folks who appraised this for the IRS admitted they didn't follow the rules because as art afficianodos they couldn't bear to give it the $0 value that IRS guidelines required (since they are required to set an open market value based on covenants, restrictions, etc).

Of course, if there hadn't been an informal agreement, the artwork would have been confiscated decades ago, which means that in effect it has been on loan from the government to the family since then. I'm sure that unspoken terms included "you don't try to offload it."

The best thing would be for the government to do what it should have done back then and take it, then zero out the associated tax debt.

I'm not going to debate the merits of the estate tax, you aren't going to avoid intergenerational wealth transferral, I just wanted to point out that "fairness" had nothing to do with it, just like fairness has very little to do with any part of the tax code.

At the end of the day, if the IRS is permitted to ignore its own rules about this stuff when it comes to billionaires, it can ignore those rules when it comes to the rest of us. I'm pretty much a sociaiist, but I also feel that income taxes are unjust enough as it is, to allow capriciousness in tax law application would turn a bad situation for society into a nightmare. The typical family has enough problems filling out individual tax returns every year. If we then toss in arbitrary rulings that go squarely against published guidelines, we'd be lucky to have anyone avoid tax penalties.

DamnYankees: dlp211: DamnYankees: Nezu Chiza: You miss the point. The core of the matter is whether the IRS can tax something that has NO MONETARY VALUE.

Would someone on Earth be willing to pay 1 dollar for that piece of art? If you agree the answer to this is yes, then it has monetary value.

To back up your point, do you think that someone would be willing to pay a lot of money for a piece of art that is not only wanted, but can't be had? The Mona Lisa can not be sold, but I am sure we could calculate a market price for it.

Why can't the Mona Lisa be sold? I mean, its unlikely to be sold, but the French government could sell it if they wanted to, I imagine.

I think you missed my point. I guess it could be sold, but I would be surprised if there wasn't some legal covenant preventing its sale. It also had an assessed insurance value of 100 million dollars when it went on tour in 62-63.

My point is that for all intents and purposes, the mona lisa will not be sold, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have value.

JNowe: Couldn't they remove the eagle, sell what's left for $65M, and offer to throw in a free eagle?

Hahaha, no.

fang06554: dlp211: Just because something isn't fiat currency doesn't mean it isn't money. Fiat currency is merely a debt owed to you at some later time for goods a services, if you receive goods and services in leu of fiat currency, you still made an income.

It works out that if you can't afford to pay the taxes, then you can't inherit/receive/be gifted nice things. The sane thing would be that the object gets taxed when it gets transformed into currency, or used as such.

Example: Your dad has an old baseball card collection, worth $50k (mine sure as hell doesn't, but it isn't an unreasonable example). He gives it to you, putting you on the hook for taxes for that 50k. If you don't have the available funds to pay those taxes, you have to start selling cards to raise the money. You are being forced to convert the objects into cash. As the system sits right now, instead he has to sell it to you for $1, which only puts you on the hook for the taxes for that $1.

I have no disagreement on charging taxes on currency, be it dollars or barter. I don't think that something that isn't being used as currency though should be forced to be converted into currency in order to satisfy a tax bill.

Again, 5 million dollar exemption, but we can pretend the exemption doesn't exist right now.

Well if that is all my dad left me, and I knew that is what I was getting, I would probably plan for it by setting the cash aside in order to pay the tax.

In the perfect world, where everyone was honest, and things were simple, I could probably get behind your proposal. I live in reality, where the name of the game is to pay the least I can in taxes and if I can hide it from the government and pay no taxes even better.

Again, there is a reason for the exemption, I think 5 million is a good amount of capital to be given tax free onto your heirs. After that, tax the f' out of 'em. They left it to the heirs, not to society which helped build their wealth.

rugman11: But the question isn't whether the work has a value for insurance purposes. The question is what the value of the piece is on the open market. Not the black market, the open market. The IRS itself states:

"Fair market value (FMV) is the price that property would sell for on the open market. It is the price that would be agreed on between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with neither being required to act, and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts. If you put a restriction on the use of property you donate, the FMV must reflect that restriction."

In this case, it's the government putting a restriction on the property, but it works the same way. The Fair Market Value must consider any restrictions on the property which the Art Advisory Panel, by its own admission, failed to do. This should be a slam dunk for the family since the appraising body admitted that their appraisal did not follow IRS guidelines but, since it's the IRS, who knows what will happen.

Where's your evidence that such a restriction is not currently factored into the valuation?

rugman11: DamnYankees: Where's your evidence that such a restriction is not currently factored into

FTFA:

That figure came from the agency's Art Advisory Panel, which is made up of experts and dealers and meets a few times a year to advise the I.R.S.'s Art Appraisal Services unit. One of its members is Stephanie Barron, the senior curator of 20th-century art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where "Canyon" was exhibited for two years. She said that the group evaluated "Canyon" solely on its artistic value, without reference to any accompanying restrictions or laws.

"The ruling about the eagle is not something the Art Advisory Panel considered," Ms. Barron said, adding that the work's value is defined by its artistic worth. "It's a stunning work of art and we all just cringed at the idea of saying that this had zero value. It just didn't make any sense."

Hm. Ok, that doesn't seem fair to me, I agree. But it also should not be appraised at zero.