Repeat

It should be a felony to re-post a link so soon

kingoomieiii: ThatGuyGreg: Sure, if you declare it. These are rich folks. Those silly rules don't apply.

If you're already dealing with the IRS, you probably don't want to mysteriously acquire $65 million from overseas.

I think rich people have places they keep money where it isn't taxed or anything, like little boats that float off the coast of their Skull Island lairs in large canvas sacks with big green $$$ on them. Or something.

Moosecakes: It should be a felony to re-post a link so soon

We don't care that this is a repeat; you still owe us a greenlight for it.

so, I looked at the "art" - looks like the underside of a bridge in a major city, with the graffiti partially removed/covered up. Some bits of newspaper stuck to the wall, for...who knows what reason. And then, a dead bird.

Now normally, I'm all about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but....how the fark is that worth $65m?

Oh, even things that can't be sold have value....who knew?

Was this a glitch in the Matrix?

IF PLANTIFF = BLACK
THEN GOTO PRISON
ELSEIF WAIVE CHARGES

IamAwake: so, I looked at the "art" - looks like the underside of a bridge in a major city, with the graffiti partially removed/covered up. Some bits of newspaper stuck to the wall, for...who knows what reason. And then, a dead bird.

Now normally, I'm all about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but....how the fark is that worth $65m?

My guess is that it's because it's a Rauschenberg, and since it contains an illegal-ish dead bird, it's controversial. The dollar value of art isn't about what it's "worth," like you're translating aesthetic into money--it's about making an estimation of what someone is likely to pay for it. People pay more for controversial stuff made by famous people.

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...

So they cleared over half a billion but are biatching about having to pay another $29 million?
I would suggest begging for the money next to a freeway on-ramp; they tell me those people make a lot of money - and it would make an interesting cardboard sign.

austerity101: IamAwake: so, I looked at the "art" - looks like the underside of a bridge in a major city, with the graffiti partially removed/covered up. Some bits of newspaper stuck to the wall, for...who knows what reason. And then, a dead bird.

Now normally, I'm all about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but....how the fark is that worth $65m?

My guess is that it's because it's a Rauschenberg, and since it contains an illegal-ish dead bird, it's controversial. The dollar value of art isn't about what it's "worth," like you're translating aesthetic into money--it's about making an estimation of what someone is likely to pay for it. People pay more for controversial stuff made by famous people.

People paying for illegal controversial stuff can have them consficated by the government.

Fark mods to Farkers: "We don't care if this was already posted. We didn't see it so we're posting it again."

Could they just say "FIne, we can't pay the bill, so seize the asset" and then... can the IRS even do that if it's illegal to transfer the item?

trippdogg:
So they cleared over half a billion but are biatching about having to pay another $29 million?


Let's just take some more money out of your funds and see if you care.

I am going to be watching this unfold very carefully since I'm in the trust & estate industry. The IRS would be shiat-brained if they didn't settle this now, instead of having the US Tax Court embarrass them.

trippdogg: So they cleared over half a billion but are biatching about having to pay another $29 million?
I would suggest begging for the money next to a freeway on-ramp; they tell me those people make a lot of money - and it would make an interesting cardboard sign.


Put another way, the government can't be happy with a $471 million windfall and is now going to extralegal lengths to take another $29 million.

pedrop357: Put another way, the government can't be happy with a $471 million windfall and is now going to extralegal lengths to take another $29 million.

And just to be cleared, everything in that estate had already been taxed by the government before. So after taxing them AGAIN for another $471,000,000, they are still not satisfied. Which is SOP for the government and leftists.

So the IRS is computing tax based on the black market value of the artwork.

I wonder how the IRS would react to a tax return featuring a deduction based on the black market value of a donated kidney?

trippdogg: 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...

So they cleared over half a billion but are biatching about having to pay another $29 million?
I would suggest begging for the money next to a freeway on-ramp; they tell me those people make a lot of money - and it would make an interesting cardboard sign.

With the other art, they had the option to sell it to pay the taxes. With this piece, they don't have the option. They don't even have to option to donate it to the Museum where it is on permanent loan unless they pay the taxes too.

IRS rules say that the market price is supposed to reflect any legal encumbrances that make it difficult or impossible to legally sell. Those encumbrances decrease the value of the piece. This family has been fair and above board about pricing all of this art. They hired experts to value all of it. Now we have a piece that makes it a felony to dispose of it any way shape or form. Their expert says, if it is against the law to sell it, then it has a value of 0. IRS experts say "we don't care what the rules are, it breaks our hearts as art experts to say it is Zero Value, so we are going to ignore the rules and pretend it can be sold, $65 million"

Yeah, if I were them, I would be pretty pissed. We have to remember something about art collections like this, while the family was rich, they didn't acquire this collection by paying a billion dollars for it. They acquired it, piece by piece, when many of these artists were just getting their start. It is the very support of families, like this one, that makes the art world even function. They may have kept a few pieces for private display in their homes, but for the most part, they loaned all of this art to museums so that we could all enjoy it.

I happened to spend the day at the Art Institute in Chicago just last week. A significant portion of their collection is like this. Wealthy patrons acquire the art, and then loan it to the Museum, at no cost, so that the whole world can enjoy it. It was an awesome day, and I was grateful to all the owners who shared their private collections with me.

Of course, I am not a fan of a lot of modern abstract pieces like this one. It looks like something a high school student would throw together the night before an assignment was due.

trippdogg: 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...

So they cleared over half a billion but are biatching about having to pay another $29 million?
I would suggest begging for the money next to a freeway on-ramp; they tell me those people make a lot of money - and it would make an interesting cardboard sign.

They paid that by selling some works from the collection. But that brings up a question for me: if it was someone else who inherited a pivotal dead eagle work of art, someone who didn't have any other sizable assets, how would they pay the tax bill? They couldn't sell the dead eagle to pay the bill on the dead eagle.

If you can't sell it to pay the inheritance tax on it, then it really should be valued at nothing for tax purposes.

DarkVader: I'm not seeing what the problem is here.

Sure, it's illegal to sell it. But that doesn't change the fact that if it were legal to sell, it would probably sell at that price. And as the eagle population recovers, it's entirely plausible that the law will change and this will be legal to sell. As far as that goes, it can be sold now with a permit from the Secretary of the Interior.

And that makes it taxable wealth. We're not talking about poor people issues, we're talking about a LARGE estate. Large estates are why we have estate taxes, and these very wealthy people need to pay their damn taxes.

I have a an issue of a Superman comic that came out in the 80s, when I was a little kid. I tore the cover off, colored eyeglasses and mustaches on everyone, and generally treated it like crap. It's worthless.

But that doesn't change the fact that if it were a mint condition Action Comics #1, it would be worth a shiatTON more. So, I suppose the IRS should tax me on the value the comic COULD have, right?