Ace of Spades HQ

July 24, 2012

This Just Doesn't Seem Right
— LauraW

The estate of modern art collector Ileana Sonnabend has a rather unique IRS problem.

In its possession is a Rauschenburg that is literally priceless.

The artist called it a "combine", and it brings together a variety of media, art supplies, scraps, miscellaneous material, and things.
One of these things is a stuffed bald eagle.
Sonnabend's heirs tasked three appraisers, including one from Christie's, to put a value on the work. Since the bald eagle, dead or alive, is under federal protection, it would be a felony to sell the work and a felony to buy it. For this reason, the appraisers reasoned that its fair market value is $0. Price, after all, is not inherent; it is a function of market behavior. In this case, that behavior is prohibited by law.

Naturally, the IRS appraised the piece itself at $65 million and penalized the estate for trying to pull a fast one.

Seems to me that a bit of planning could have prevented this situation. If the heirs can't sell it, perhaps they could lease it? It's a good thing the estate was so wealthy and able to pay (albeit by selling off much of the collection).

Imagine if this were the only thing your Aunt Mildred left to you; you'd be automatically on the hook for $30M and federally prohibited from raising the funds through sale.

Comments at the link are good, too.

Thanks to Gabriel Malor.

Posted by: LauraW at 09:25 AM | Comments (149)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This post is complicated and confusing.

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 24, 2012 09:28 AM (9Q7Nu)

2 can it be surmised with an lolcat pic?

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 24, 2012 09:28 AM (9Q7Nu)

3 Not $30k, $30m!!!

Posted by: tommylotto at July 24, 2012 09:29 AM (LBxr1)

4 get stuffed

Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 24, 2012 09:29 AM (HOI3B)

5 I have to agree with the appraisers. If the law says it can't be bought or sold then it has no value.

Posted by: John P. Squibob at July 24, 2012 09:30 AM (kqqGm)

6 get stuffed Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 24, 2012 01:29 PM (HOI3B)

'Ette volunteers please!

Posted by: Sean Bannion at July 24, 2012 09:31 AM (sbV1u)

7 That should read "on the hook for $30 million".

Posted by: EC at July 24, 2012 09:31 AM (GQ8sn)

8 How about if the family said fuck you to the IRS and burned it?

Posted by: EC at July 24, 2012 09:32 AM (GQ8sn)

9 what if our wacky Aunt Mildred left us her mansion but required us to spend the night...\ and it was haunted?

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 24, 2012 09:32 AM (9Q7Nu)

10 forget the details but I remember reading that some famous American painter's widow destroyed a number of his paintings because of the IRS. Maybe I can find the details.

Off topic: how about an idea for a Romney/RNC ad on the web sites: you've seen those "Wish Barack a Happy Birthday" ads? How about an ad that shows Barky with that big dumb grin on his puss and the text "Wish Barack a Happy Retirement!" Would work for me.

Posted by: mallfly at July 24, 2012 09:32 AM (bJm7W)

11 Fixed! Thanks guys.

Posted by: lauraw at July 24, 2012 09:32 AM (SkOar)

12 sounds just like the Downton Abbey predicament... but different

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 24, 2012 09:33 AM (9Q7Nu)

13 If the law says it can't be bought or sold then it has no value.
Posted by: John P. Squibob at July 24, 2012 01:30 PM

ANYTHING has value when the gubmint sees a chance to Make Some Greedy Rich Pig Pay Their Fair Share.

Posted by: MrScribbler at July 24, 2012 09:33 AM (wZI4b)

14 They owe $30 million in taxes on the work but can't sell it to raise the money? That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Posted by: Brian Ross at July 24, 2012 09:33 AM (+XVQe)

15 Sure thing, IRS, buy the eagle from me and I'll give you the $30 million.

Posted by: t-bird at July 24, 2012 09:33 AM (FcR7P)

16 I could buy it.

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at July 24, 2012 09:33 AM (SK1c2)

17 All ur stuffed eagles R belong to us

Posted by: IRS at July 24, 2012 09:33 AM (UOM48)

18 Was the eagle stuffed before it was protected? That kind of thing is usually grandfathered in.

Posted by: Dang at July 24, 2012 09:34 AM (Ky1+e)

19 Awesomely OT: Minka Kelly "semi-pro" sex tape is being shopped around.
http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/23/minka-kelly-sex-tape/

Posted by: wooga at July 24, 2012 09:34 AM (vjyZP)

20 Rauschenburg didn't build that.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 24, 2012 09:34 AM (T0NGe)

21 'Gift' the fucking thing to the fucking IRS.

Someone should give them the bird over it.

Posted by: nickless at July 24, 2012 09:34 AM (MMC8r)

22 Actually, I think most modern art has a value of $0, but then I'm just cranky.

Posted by: Arms Merchant at July 24, 2012 09:35 AM (+XVQe)

23 Is it any different from making people use a product that does not exit yet or be fined? I forget what product the Federal Gov is demanding be made with a yet non-existent product? Can you other morons help me. It's some fuel product

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 24, 2012 09:35 AM (05RcU)

24 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 24, 2012 09:35 AM (8y9MW)

The IRS would have cut its appraisal in half if it was a nekkid Hoff with puppehs painting. On velvet.

Posted by: kallisto at July 24, 2012 09:36 AM (jm/9g)

26 If every U.S. family member inherits their share of $14 trillion in debt, dose everyone have to pay taxes on the estimated $64,000?

Posted by: Deli LLama at July 24, 2012 09:36 AM (uv9eO)

27 you'd be automatically on the hook for $30M and federally prohibited from raising the funds through sale. If there's one thing the gov't likes more than laws, it's money. They'll let him sell it, get the taxes, and then fine the family $35 million.

Posted by: t-bird at July 24, 2012 09:36 AM (FcR7P)

28 23 Blended switchgrass ethanol.

Posted by: nickless at July 24, 2012 09:36 AM (MMC8r)

29 So does this mean my grandpa won't be leaving me his baby panda slippers?

Posted by: wooga at July 24, 2012 09:36 AM (vjyZP)

30 Hey! I've got a post about this at my place, too!

And, yes, this is freaking stupid. "Here, you can't sell it, and no one can legally buy it, but we're going to say it's 'worth' $64 Million dollars. Because we're the US Government and we can."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 24, 2012 09:36 AM (8y9MW)

31 They should just donate it to the U.S. Treasury, and then see how much money the government can get for it for the write-off.

Solved!

Posted by: Arms Merchant at July 24, 2012 09:37 AM (+XVQe)

32 I usually try to hold off on the "That piece of shit can't be worth $65 million" type comments, but that piece of shit can't be worth $65 million.

The Gods must be crazy. It's got a pair of balls hanging off of it on a string.

Posted by: eleven at July 24, 2012 09:37 AM (KXm42)

33 How about if the family said fuck you to the IRS and burned it?

Posted by: EC at July 24, 2012 01:32 PM (GQ8sn)

That would likely lead to charges now that they're aware of it and it would be the destruction of a protected eagle.

The government will get it's money.

What I'm waiting for is for the government to come down on that new show on Discovery, or whatever, Barter Kings.

I thought bartering was illegal cuz the government can't TAX it. I'm guessing an audit is in these guys futures.

Posted by: © Sponge at July 24, 2012 09:37 AM (UK9cE)

34 This post is complicated and confusing.

1. Family inherits art collection.

2. Family pays millions in estate taxes on appraised value of collection.

3. One piece includes a stuffed bald eagle, making it illegal to sell and thus appraised by auction companies at $0.

4. IRS initially valued it at $15 million and wants their cut. When family objects, the IRS suddenly decides it's worth $65 million and wants a $29 million cut because shut up, that's why.

5. To add insult to injury, no IRS agents were publicly flogged as a result.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 24, 2012 09:37 AM (SY2Kh)

35 There's a reason the national bird should be the turkey.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at July 24, 2012 09:37 AM (ZKzrr)

36 23 - Some ethanol fuel replacement. I don't remember exactly the name, but it seemed like a fairly common chemical.

Posted by: Boomer Redneque at July 24, 2012 09:37 AM (T11Hz)

37 Actually, I think most modern art has a value of $0, but then I'm just cranky.Posted by: Arms Merchant

No, it just means you exercise taste and discernment.

That which is called Modern art is politics and marketing.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at July 24, 2012 09:37 AM (mIoJ0)

38 >>>Imagine if this were the only thing your Aunt Mildred left to you; you'd be automatically on the hook for $30K and federally prohibited from raising the funds through sale.

A lot of people just throw up their hands after the hearing and aren't willing to take the IRS to the mat on some of the BS they pull and no kidding explain it to a jury. I would argue that if it legally cannot enter into commerce, than legally it cannot be considered income. And that *if* money can be made by leasing it, then the IRS can tax that money as it comes in and the leasing value is realized.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 24, 2012 09:38 AM (0q2P7)

39 Still waiting on an IRS ruling concerning tactical shar-pei puppies.

Posted by: The Hoff at July 24, 2012 09:38 AM (FcR7P)

40 I thought bartering was illegal cuz the government can't TAX it.

It's legal, but you're supposed to report the dollar value of your transaction as income so it can be taxed.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at July 24, 2012 09:38 AM (ZKzrr)

41 Nil Butron is a pud.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 24, 2012 09:38 AM (HOI3B)

42 5 I have to agree with the appraisers. If the law says it can't be bought or sold then it has no value.

Posted by: John P. Squibob at July 24, 2012 01:30 PM (kqqGm)

In which case the IRS shouldn't have made them pay $30 million based on some out-of-their-ass assigned value of $65 million. It's either worth something or it's not.

If the IRS can say that anything that technically has no value actually DOES have a value, then they could come along someday and say, "Those footprints you got from your little girl when she was a baby? That are priceless to you but worthless to everyone else? Yeah, we're going to say that those footprints have appreciated in value since your daughter was born and are now worth $300." It's just STUPID.

And I'd like to say I'm being purely hyperbolic with that example, but in the Age of Obammy it's sometimes hard to tell what's hyperbole and what's not!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 24, 2012 09:38 AM (4df7R)

43 Consider it a $30 million dollar penalty for being a rich douchebag that has made pieces of shit have that kind of value.

Posted by: eleven at July 24, 2012 09:38 AM (KXm42)

44 Wait until they're running HEALTHCARE.

Posted by: nickless at July 24, 2012 09:39 AM (MMC8r)

45 That would likely lead to charges now that they're aware of it and it would be the destruction of a protected eagle.

What? The eagle is already dead. They'd be burning a priceless piece of art, but it's still their property to do with as they please.

Posted by: EC at July 24, 2012 09:39 AM (GQ8sn)

46 This is comparable to a little business or farm that you inherit. The value may be whatever number but the business will likely fail if the family has to liquidate 30% to cover the tax so they could run it.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at July 24, 2012 09:39 AM (tf9Ne)

47 Couldn't they just give it to Little Lizzy White Dove Warren, and she could turn it into a peace bonnet or a centerpiece for her auntie's lazy Susan?

Posted by: Fritz at July 24, 2012 09:39 AM (/ZZCn)

48 Hey, I've got this big rock on a trench. Is that worth something, too?

Posted by: Arms Merchant at July 24, 2012 09:40 AM (+XVQe)

49 >>>That would likely lead to charges now that they're aware of it and it would be the destruction of a protected eagle.

>>>The government will get it's money.

You folks keep forgetting that a Jury in the end has to decide the IRS is right. There are a lot of days they don't like the IRS' bullying.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 24, 2012 09:40 AM (0q2P7)

50 What I'm waiting for is for the government to come down on that new show on Discovery, or whatever, Barter Kings.
I thought bartering was illegal cuz the government can't TAX it. I'm guessing an audit is in these guys futures.

Who rules Bartertown? MasterBlaster runs Bartertown!

Posted by: Newt Gingrich riding on Rick Perry's shoulders at July 24, 2012 09:40 AM (vjyZP)

51 I agree with the article's commenters--they should just give the IRS the bird. Oh, and the stuffed eagle, too.

Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at July 24, 2012 09:40 AM (GBXon)

52 They should rent out the stuffed eagle to preserve a structure from being pelted with pigeon poo. There is your value right there, what ever the monthly rental for the eagle to prevent pigeon poo.

Posted by: Deli LLama at July 24, 2012 09:40 AM (uv9eO)

53 >>>There's a reason the national bird should be the turkey. Just think if it was. Millions of Americans would have no idea how tasty turkey is.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 24, 2012 09:41 AM (HOI3B)

54 So does this mean my grandpa won't be leaving me his baby panda slippers?

Posted by: wooga at July 24, 2012 01:36 PM (vjyZP)

Just make sure he gives them to ya before he's gone.

Posted by: © Sponge at July 24, 2012 09:41 AM (UK9cE)

55 Couldn't they just donate the damn thing to the Audubon Society, or some native american tribe? Right it off as a charitable donation?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 24, 2012 09:41 AM (4df7R)

56 Actually, the owners could probably fight and win in tax court.

But then they'd have to blow a couple mil on us.

Posted by: The Stinking Lawyers at July 24, 2012 09:42 AM (+XVQe)

57 Wait until they're running HEALTHCARE.

----

Then you'll really see their bedside manner. And it won't be compassion.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 24, 2012 09:42 AM (Hx5uv)

58 If the IRS can say that anything that technically has no value actually DOES have a value, then they could come along someday and say, "Those footprints you got from your little girl when she was a baby? That are priceless to you but worthless to everyone else? Yeah, we're going to say that those footprints have appreciated in value since your daughter was born and are now worth $300."

Exactly.

Of course, I think the Death Tax is tyrannical on its own, but this also means that could "just decide" any number of other things- including the "worth" of your 401(k) or stocks.

"Well, we know you only sold those stocks for $100,000, but we've determined that was a short-sell, and they were really worth $250,000. So you owe us an extra $20,000 plus penalties of $30,000."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 24, 2012 09:42 AM (8y9MW)

59 And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR STUFFED EAGLE!!!

Posted by: W. Wallace at July 24, 2012 09:42 AM (AsY5D)

60 You didn't make that art! But we can tax it. Now that's good government.

Posted by: O'Bumble at July 24, 2012 09:42 AM (71LDo)

61 BTW, there is an argument to be made that it does have value inasmuch as it can be exhibited and one could charge admission.

But the philosophical issue should hold. If it cannot be bought or sold then it has no value.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 24, 2012 09:42 AM (T0NGe)

62 WRITE it off. *sigh* How is it only Tuesday when I'm making Thursday-style mistakes?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 24, 2012 09:42 AM (4df7R)

63 >>>Actually, I think most modern art has a value of $0, but then I'm just cranky.

Believe it or not, I kind of like that piece.

Somebody shoot me, but it's cool.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 24, 2012 09:43 AM (zlvkY)

64 I agree with the article's commenters--they should just give the IRS the bird. That's how cities get lots of parks. "Hey, give us the land and we'll be even. We'll even put your name on the park."

Posted by: t-bird at July 24, 2012 09:43 AM (FcR7P)

65 You folks keep forgetting that a Jury in the end has to decide the IRS is right. There are a lot of days they don't like the IRS' bullying.

But unlike the rest of us, the IRS is not deterred by legal setbacks.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 24, 2012 09:44 AM (T0NGe)

66 >>>Millions of Americans would have no idea how tasty turkey is.

But maybe Bald Eagle would make up for it?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 24, 2012 09:44 AM (0q2P7)

67 Is this outcome coming from one 40,000 rookie IRS agents or a seasoned pro? The family members need to hold a meeting with this IRS agent, have a nice lunch and some small talk and then take a sledge hammer and a blow torch to the damn eagle and convert it into a for sure $0.00.

Posted by: Drider at July 24, 2012 09:44 AM (HaJD9)

68 The IRS isn't taxing possessing it, they're taxing receiving it (as income). Burn it, and they'll say "that's a nice pile of ashes, pay me, you received it. Whatever you did with it is not our concern."

Posted by: nickless at July 24, 2012 09:44 AM (MMC8r)

69 Art, schmart.

Posted by: Maxwell Smart at July 24, 2012 09:44 AM (+XVQe)

70 create a private trust, donate to private trust, trust never dies.

not that hard.

Posted by: Oldcat at July 24, 2012 09:44 AM (z1N6a)

71 How can a dead bird be protected???

They're lucky the ATF doesn't surround their business and take them all to Gitmo.

Posted by: PJ at July 24, 2012 09:45 AM (DQHjw)

The Bald Eagle is no longer under protection....not under Barky.

Wind Farms were recently given a 30 Year Waiver for killing Bald Eagles.

There was a piece about it over at the Free Beacon.

It's okay to kill Eagles....if you do it in a 'Green' way.

Posted by: wheatie at July 24, 2012 09:45 AM (MbB0O)

I know this is probably a stupid question. If the IRS thinks it's worth 65mil or whatever why can't these people just give it to them? The IRS seizes property and sells for taxes owed all the time. Give them the effen thing and let them try to sell it.

After all they're the gov't and in the age of Obama gov't isn't bound by law.

Posted by: Finn McCool at July 24, 2012 09:45 AM (R/8dI)

74 BTW, there is an argument to be made that it does have value inasmuch as it can be exhibited and one could charge admission.

That's an interesting argument. Does the gallery make money, or do the exhibits? Inasmuch as the exhibits are somewhat interchangeable, I would argue the gallery does. Thus, simply charging admission (to your own home?) to view the piece would not convey any worth to the piece itself, but rather would increase the value of your home.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 24, 2012 09:46 AM (8y9MW)

75 Throw a great party where the "work of art" is blown up and then torched. Charge admission for the event and be sure to serve pseudo-endangered animals as the main courses ala "The Graduate". Chicken is a good substitute for almost everything. ("It tastes like chicken.) Win-win for everyone.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at July 24, 2012 09:46 AM (71LDo)

76 Ah-hah, they taxed the rest of the estate at $471 million, so they smell money. It's not as if the eagle was the only thing they can sell to settle the bill.

Posted by: t-bird at July 24, 2012 09:46 AM (FcR7P)

77 Are we playing The Price is Right? Or Let's Make a Deal? Oh, to have won the box between Carol Merrill's legs...

Posted by: USA at July 24, 2012 09:46 AM (6Cjut)

78 Couldn't they just donate the damn thing to the Audubon Society, or some native american tribe? Right it off as a charitable donation?

Not according to the IRS.

The NYT article says that the IRS won't let them claim a charitable deduction since the family is claiming $0 value.

No, I can't explain it either.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 24, 2012 09:46 AM (SY2Kh)

79 >>>IRS is not deterred by legal setbacks.

People do beat the IRS. This attitude of encouraging everyone to roll over the instant they are approached by an agent, and *just give 'em what they want and maybe they'll leave* is not not helpful to them, not helpful to us, and not helpful to the US as a whole. It reminds me of the Ants in Bug's life huddling in their mound hoping the grasshoppers just take the seeds and leave, just take the seeds and leave, just take the seeds and leave.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 24, 2012 09:46 AM (0q2P7)

80 Frankly, the old lady had some shit accountants. The whole thing should have been put into a charitable collection and out of her pocket before she croaked.

Posted by: nickless at July 24, 2012 09:47 AM (MMC8r)

81 nickless....OT. What's a good bank in St. Louis? Daughter needs to open a new account and I haven't lived there in decades.

Posted by: Tami at July 24, 2012 09:47 AM (X6akg)

82 I never understood "Art". It's like porn. I know it when I see it. That's not art. That is someone trying to be artistic. I would rather have a velvet Elvis painting. Skinny kick ass Elvis, not the fat one.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Team Dagny at July 24, 2012 09:47 AM (9TTOe)

Hey if the EPA can fine people for not using a non-existent product, then the IRS can deem value to something even though it is illegal to sell it.

Posted by: alexthechick SMOD. Our only hope. at July 24, 2012 09:47 AM (VtjlW)

84 ain't google wunderful? the artist was Ettore "Ted" DeGrazia

Posted by: mallfly at July 24, 2012 09:48 AM (bJm7W)

85 Did the IRS just divide by zero?! Why am I not surprised by an effectively infinite taxation rate under Obama?

Posted by: The Political Hat at July 24, 2012 09:48 AM (XvHmy)

86 If the IRS thinks it's worth 65mil or whatever why can't these people just give it to them?

As 'nickless' pointed out, the Death Tax is a receipt tax- if you received the thing, they will tax it. What you do with it after you've received it doesn't matter. So, unless it was specifically as some part of agreement in lieu of the taxes and penalties, giving it away (even to the IRS) would not do anything about the taxes owed.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 24, 2012 09:48 AM (8y9MW)

87 heeheehee I mean "The Freshman."

Posted by: dfbaskwill at July 24, 2012 09:48 AM (71LDo)

88 Another example of the Gov. being just a little too big and powerful.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Team Dagny at July 24, 2012 09:48 AM (9TTOe)

89 Not according to the IRS.

The NYT article says that the IRS won't let them claim a charitable deduction since the family is claiming $0 value.

No, I can't explain it either.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 24, 2012 01:46 PM (SY2Kh)

Well. Isn't that special?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 24, 2012 09:48 AM (4df7R)

90 Spin spin spin. Economy May Not Hurt Obama in Some Swing States: Poll Voters give Mitt Romney an edge over President Obama on ideas for lifting the struggling economy. But if you look at economic conditions in battleground states, that edge may not be as important as it seems. This is from NBC's Jim Harwood, an Obama rump swab. I think this is the half-a-queer who is poking Maria Cantwell.

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 24, 2012 09:49 AM (9Q7Nu)

91 Burn it.

Better ashes than the IRS.

Posted by: Sgt Hulka at July 24, 2012 09:49 AM (vVdMd)

92 No, I can't explain it either.

"Shut up," they explained.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 24, 2012 09:49 AM (8y9MW)

93 >>>then the IRS can deem value to something even though it is illegal to sell it.

They can, but again, you can challenge that, and unlike the EPA you must have your day in court. I have never seen a more cowardly bunch of folks. Everyone's solution is stamp your feet, be upset, and pay whatever they ask. But let other folks know you're MAD about it.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 24, 2012 09:50 AM (0q2P7)

94 owl dont give a flock

Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 24, 2012 09:50 AM (HOI3B)

95 Imagine if this were the only thing your Aunt Mildred left to you; you'd be automatically on the hook for $30M and federally prohibited from raising the funds through sale.
============
I don't think so. It's technically the estate that owes the taxes, not you. If you want the asset(s), you have to pay the tax due.

In this situation, the question would be: Could the IRS seize an asset that can't be sold in order to "sell" it to satisfy the estate tax due?

What was really stupid is they kept it. Instead of donating it to a museum and taking a $65 million charitable deduction.

Sounds like an ugly piece anyway.

Posted by: RoyalOil at July 24, 2012 09:51 AM (kSaUf)

96 half-a-queer? What the heck is that? Is that like he lets gays suck him off then claims he is not gay?

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Team Dagny at July 24, 2012 09:51 AM (9TTOe)

97 >>>Burn it. Better ashes than the IRS. You'll egret it.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at July 24, 2012 09:51 AM (HOI3B)

98 >>>Well. Isn't that special?

The IRS is quickly making it cost effective to hire professionals.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 24, 2012 09:52 AM (0q2P7)

@86 Ahh that's what I get for not reading all the comments! Should've figured some Moron had already addressed this.

WTF was this woman's lawyer thinking?

It's common sense to me (middle-middle class) to protect this kind of shit. You would think for the 1% it would be a no brainer.

Posted by: Finn McCool at July 24, 2012 09:52 AM (R/8dI)

100 81

Tami, Fifth Third Bank isn't too bad. The banks in this area constantly get bought out (we changed banks three times since we got married without ever moving our accounts), but Fifth Third is small enough in the market that they haven't turned into the 'screw the customer' model that the other ones' have. Yet.
IMHO.

Posted by: nickless at July 24, 2012 09:52 AM (MMC8r)

101 OT Drudge: "'JOKER' ON $26K FEDERAL GRANT"

Posted by: USA at July 24, 2012 09:53 AM (6Cjut)

102 Solution: hire a skilled art conservator. Produce an exact copy of the bald eagle. Remove real eagle, replace with fake. At this point, the piece is worth less than $65m (because it has been damaged/altered from the artist's original conception), but more than $0 (because it is now sellable). Sell the altered work to ascertain a fair market value. Take the eagle corpse and send it to the IRS in an unmarked box.

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at July 24, 2012 09:53 AM (g9neE)

103 I'm with MtM. Fight it. As he says, the IRS doesn't have quite the dictatorial powers of the EPA. And having 3 separate entities that came up with the same dollar value (0) along with the law saying it could neither be bought nor sold, then adding to that the fact the IRS are being dicks about it (that $29.2 Million figure includes penalties: they're claiming the family were lying about the value, rather than just being wrong), and I bet there are any number of juries that would find for the family.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 24, 2012 09:54 AM (8y9MW)

104 I guess we know who paid for the ammunition...

Posted by: USA at July 24, 2012 09:54 AM (6Cjut)

105 Better, though, would be to end the Death Tax.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 24, 2012 09:54 AM (8y9MW)

106 That bird is worthless to me, and worthless to everyone else because it cannot be legally bought or sold.

The IRS comes and says "Our ass pullers have determined it's worth 65 Million, pays us the 30 million you owe."

I give them the worthless bird as payment. They now owe me a 35 million refund.

Posted by: JSchuler at July 24, 2012 09:54 AM (SmZQt)

107 >>>It's technically the estate that owes the taxes, not you. If you want the asset(s), you have to pay the tax due.

As an interested party you can challenge the tax on the estate, or you can have the executor do it. Either way unless specific instructions have been left in the will to "Just pony up whatever the IRS asks for no questions asked" their is a fiduciary duty of the executor to challenge bullshit.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 24, 2012 09:54 AM (0q2P7)

108 Posted by: nickless at July 24, 2012 01:52 PM (MMC8r)

Ok, thank you. Is PNC or Commerce any good?

Posted by: Tami at July 24, 2012 09:55 AM (X6akg)

109 101 OT Drudge: "'JOKER' ON $26K FEDERAL GRANT" Posted by: USA at July 24, 2012 01:53 PM (6Cjut) Heard that earlier. Bought his "Instruments of Death" with tax dollars. WTF

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Team Dagny at July 24, 2012 09:55 AM (9TTOe)

110 "You folks keep forgetting that a Jury in the end has to decide the IRS is right."

And you forget that tax cases are not tried in front of a jury.

Lack of Marketability has always been an element of discounting, particularly in limited partnerships. In this case, the inability to sell something has to mean 100% discount. This will be a fun topic at the estate planning convention this year.

Posted by: Adam B at July 24, 2012 09:55 AM (phUqH)

111

This is very OT, but I saw a piece over at WZ about some of the Hollywood folks who have donated to either Obama or Romney this election cycle, and I was struck by one thing:

I have no.

Frigging.

Clue.

Who a lot of the people are who have donated to Obama or his PACs. Seriously, no clue. I haven't heard the names before or anything. Connie Britton? Who? Johnny Galecki? Whizzawuzza?

I used to be fairly "in the know" about current popular actors and songsters, but apparently not so much anymore. Does this mean I'm officially getting old?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 24, 2012 09:56 AM (4df7R)

112

Priceless?? Really!! That ugly POS! Sorry, I don't see it, call me what you will but it looks like something a 6th grader did while goofing off in art class.

Posted by: dananjcon at July 24, 2012 09:57 AM (eavT+)

113 On the other hand, when Jackie Kennedy Onasis died the IRS accepted a valuation of her personal property that made little or no allowance for the fact that since the objects had been owned by Jackie even the most utilitarian of them automatically became a collectors item. Plain wicker baskets you could pick up for under $10 at a thrift shop were bid up into the hundreds at the auction by those who wanted to have something that had been owned by Jackie O.

Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at July 24, 2012 09:57 AM (LInIg)

114 nood 2nd tier rehash post up

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 24, 2012 09:57 AM (9Q7Nu)

115 Consider it a $30 million dollar penalty for being a rich douchebag that has made pieces of shit have that kind of value.

I can't figure out if people are ignorant or envious when everyone starts typing this stupid shit on art threads, but it's probably both.

Sonnabend's heirs didn't make the piece; the horrible thing they did that the IRS is punishing them for is being left the piece in their aunt's will. *GASP* I know, worse than anything that happened on Chicago's South Side in months. Totally tearing down Western Civilization here. But you don't like the art, so you're cool with the federal government stealing millions of dollars from people because their aunt (who would have paid taxes all her life on her earnings before using whatever was left to buy art) died? Very conservative of you. Were you trapped in a porta-potty during the whole "tea party" thing?

Rauschenberg never slapped a $65M price tag on the piece, either. Sonnabend acquired it for a few thousand shortly after it was created, and its value appreciated over 50 years as demand grew for Rauschenberg's work. Probably wouldn't fetch $65M at auction, but those things are hard to predict. But the key word here is "demand". That's all that makes this piece painting worth millions and anything I paint not even worth the cost of the canvas--people want to own things created by Rauschenberg. And the supply of his work is finite, since he's dead.

Supply and demand...where have I heard these words before? Certainly this "free market" thing not is the sort of thing conservatives can countenance? We must DEMAND the government confiscate money from people who profit from art! Because that's the fair thing to do!

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at July 24, 2012 09:58 AM (ZKzrr)

116 I'll take the case!

Posted by: Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law at July 24, 2012 09:58 AM (XvHmy)

117 would burning the thing mean anything to the IRS? Can you avoid paying income tax by burning uncashed pay checks?

Posted by: mallfly at July 24, 2012 09:59 AM (bJm7W)

118 OT Drudge: "'JOKER' ON $26K FEDERAL GRANT" LOL. Only thing better would be if he'd used an EBT card for it all...

Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at July 24, 2012 10:00 AM (GBXon)

119

Send the eagle corpse to Tim Geitner. Let him wake up with it in his bed ala Godfather.

Posted by: dananjcon at July 24, 2012 10:00 AM (eavT+)

120 Tell the IRS to make like the bald eagle and GET STUFFED!

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 24, 2012 10:00 AM (Oznng)

121 Connie Britton? Who? Johnny Galecki? Whizzawuzza?

Connie is the extremely bone-able ginger from Friday Night Lights and Spin City.

Johnny Galecki played the son in Christmas Vacation. He is currently Leonard on Big Bang Theory.

Posted by: EC at July 24, 2012 10:01 AM (GQ8sn)

122 IRS: Fuck you, pay me.

Just like Goodfellas.

Posted by: mpfs at July 24, 2012 10:01 AM (iYbLN)

123 Tami--

PNC I wasn't too thrilled with when I had our Cub Scout account there. Just hard to work with access-wise. Commerce has been around a long time, but I've never dealt with them.

Posted by: nickless at July 24, 2012 10:02 AM (MMC8r)

124 You didn't stuff that eagle by yourself!

Posted by: Barack Obama at July 24, 2012 10:02 AM (Oznng)

125 Thanks again nickless....I've passed the info onto her.

Posted by: Tami at July 24, 2012 10:04 AM (X6akg)

126 Fifth Third Bank?

Posted by: eleven at July 24, 2012 10:04 AM (KXm42)

127 "The IRS isn't taxing possessing it, they're taxing receiving it (as income)."

No. The estate tax is not a liability of the beneficiaries. It is a liability of the estate.

If the work had been destroyed within 6 months after death, the estate could have elected the alternate valuation date and saved themselves some money.

In all likelihood the artwork was insured. The owner listed the value somewhere in her insurance paperwork...and I bet she didn't list it at zero.

Posted by: Adam B at July 24, 2012 10:04 AM (phUqH)

128 Things happen. Lit cigarettes carelessly tossed. Shit like that. Lightening on occasion. You know, Joooish Lightening.

Poor bad eagle went up in flames. That's a darn shame.

Posted by: mpfs at July 24, 2012 10:07 AM (iYbLN)

129 To hell with them all.

A stuffed bald eagle is suddenly worth $60 million?

I don't get so much as an extra helping of corn after getting stuffed.

Posted by: The Chicken at July 24, 2012 10:18 AM (SY2Kh)

130 The value isn't zero. That's a lame, lame excuse, and Ileana ought to fire an advisor or two.

What is the value of illegal drugs? Zero? Hahahahahaha.

Posted by: FUBAR at July 24, 2012 10:24 AM (mdhVr)

131 What is the value of illegal drugs? Zero? Hahahahahaha.

Posted by: FUBAR at July 24, 2012 02:24 PM (mdhVr)

So the police pop a drug dealer; his will left you all his assets, which included 2 kilos of heroin... the police confiscate it, and the IRS comes after you for 40% of the street value of your "inheritance"... hey, it's not their fault the police took it, you still owe taxes... right? It has value.

That's awesome, so a drug dealer can ruin you financially and get you sent to jail without you ever doing anything.

Are there other people who can get you convicted of a crime and sent to jail without your knowledge or action?

Posted by: gekkobear at July 24, 2012 10:43 AM (X0NX1)

132 Catch-22. It's the best catch there is.

Posted by: Ken at July 24, 2012 10:49 AM (fFh95)

133 "If the work had been destroyed within 6 months after death, the estate could have elected the alternate valuation date and saved themselves some money."

Yeah. They were stupid for not burning their aunt's treasured valuables the instant she died. The IRS let 'em off easy. Should've shot the bastards.

Posted by: GalosGann at July 24, 2012 10:53 AM (T3KlW)

134 God damn, that thing is so ugly, it could be a modern art masterpiece! Oh, it already is? Then carry on, ladies.

Posted by: SSGT Hartman at July 24, 2012 11:18 AM (3sZO1)

135 "Yeah. They were stupid for not burning their aunt's treasured valuables the instant she died."

I guess. Not what I would have done, but okay.

Posted by: Adam B at July 24, 2012 11:21 AM (phUqH)

136

when when greivance mongers and the hopelessly infantile are in charge of enacting law you ALWAYS get law designed to make reasonable economic activity impossible.

it's why none of the anicent greek direct democracies lasted long.

Posted by: Shoey at July 24, 2012 11:39 AM (jdOk/)

137 Did you actually look at it? Put it on the back porch, and tell the IRS you were cleaning out the garage and missed the trash pickup for that week. They'll never know.

Posted by: Dr. Mabuse at July 24, 2012 11:40 AM (KOHFD)

138

"what if our wacky Aunt Mildred left us her mansion but required us to spend the night...\

and it was haunted?"

Did anybody say "Jinkies!" to this?

How about "Zoinks?"

A "Rut-roh?"

These things should have been said.

Posted by: reason at July 24, 2012 11:41 AM (XiVKO)

139 Naturally, the IRS appraised the piece itself at $65 million

Offer it to the IRS for $5M. If their appraisal is sound, then the US treasury wins big to the tune of $60M.

Posted by: @PurpAv at July 24, 2012 11:47 AM (0MTHQ)

140 #97 is that like robin Peter to pay Paul?

Posted by: the Butcher at July 24, 2012 12:36 PM (8g9qq)

141 "The value of a thing is what that thing will bring." - Economics 101

Note to IRS: if you are not ALLOWED to sell a thing, the thing has ZERO value.

Posted by: mojo at July 24, 2012 12:48 PM (cBvlV)

142 Rip out the eagle. Donate the eagle to a trust (not a sale, a $0 transfer), whose sole purpose is to keep the eagle in the same location as the sculpture. Sell the sculpture, less the eagle. The buyer will acquire the sculpture with no eagle, but the trust, which owns the eagle, will lend the eagle to whomever owns the sculpture, in order to keep the pieces together. Problem solved, muthafuckas. Don't bother running it by the lawyers. Daryl Herbert is sure it would work, and you trust him. Just do it and see what happens.* Note: this is not legal advice, or alternatively, it is legal advice but it's bad advice.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at July 24, 2012 01:00 PM (mv7aW)

143 Anyone with that sort of money who still lives in the US is an idiot. It's like the Jews who just couldn't get it through their heads that they were going to be scapegoated right into oblivion during the second world war.

Posted by: Voluble at July 24, 2012 01:32 PM (qYvEa)

144 The IRS is the most corrupt organization in Washington DC, and they have the most power. They can do pretty much anything they want, and if anyone complains, they can just destroy that person.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 24, 2012 02:01 PM (r4wIV)

145 Can I get an answer to a dumb question . Was this piece of "art" insured ?

Posted by: DrDrill at July 24, 2012 02:04 PM (L3nHO)

146 Actually a haunted mansion has enhanced value . Kind of like having a swimming pool that had a Magnum Force pseudo or mob hit in it's proximity. In the case of of the haunted mansion please consult the tax code section 1313 subsection 12 paragraph A : All residential and rental properties will be taxed for each paranormal non corporeal presence not limited to ghosts , poltergeists , reverants or George Soros . The undead residents are covered under worker's compensation unless a family connection can be made . Please note some local laws (ie Cat House Laws) prevent more than two live, dead or undead or even non corporeal females from cohabiting a single structure . Large estates in excess of 100 acres are generally exempt from the cat house laws . Please consult all local regulations ..Haunted Houses used for commercial purposes are list under subsection UC and What4 .

Posted by: DrDrill at July 24, 2012 02:21 PM (L3nHO)

147 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at July 24, 2012 04:24 PM (6o4Fb)

148

This "art" is called "priceless" and is valued at as much as $60 million. The valuation alone means it is not "priceless"

That being said, if it can't be sold...isn't it "worthless"?

I'll take $100k for that non-professional legal advise

Posted by: senorlechero at July 25, 2012 01:32 PM (NQ6H9)

149 http://www.franklinmarshallfrancevente.com Franklin Marshall en ligne Pas Cher Franklin Marshall Franklin Marshall Outlet Franklin Marshall femme Vente franklin marshall sweat pull franklin marshall pas cher

Posted by: atynbpqzm at July 26, 2012 10:13 PM (XtnEt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

139kb generated in CPU 0.1118, elapsed 0.3097 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2646 seconds, 277 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.