Stephen Pilachowski on wed 7 jun 00
Sometimes I also can't understand why everyone does not agree
with me. Go figure.
First a disclaimer: I am not a tax expert. I am just looking at this
issue and trying to understand.
I am all for allowing people tax deductions for the fair value of
their donation. To my understanding, this is possible already, even
for artists. As I said, just sell the piece and donate the
proceeds. This saves the charity the bother, and if the charity,
for whatever reason, believes that it is better to have the piece
of art instead of the money, well, it can buy the same piece or
a similar one at the same price, because its market value would then
be clearly established.
The situation is mischaracterized as not allowing producers to take
the full deduction for their work. It is not a matter of allowing
"one person to take the deduction only if they did not produce,
fabricate or create it." That makes the rule(s) seem anti-artist. I
don't
think that is the case
Rather, the problem is one of setting market value AND of verifying
that value. So, it is more a matter of how fair market value is
determined.
Yes, art is different. Art is not a standardized commodity, as
opposed to say, automobiles. The blue book value of an automobile
is not made up out of thin air - it is simply an accurate reflection
of actual (yes I mean actual) market value. (Please, do not bring up
exceptional situations of broken down cars. Blue book values
include descriptions of condition and if you deduct full blue book
value for a donation of a smashed up jallopy, then it is fraud,)
With many other commodities, there is an established mechanism
for establishing market value. Without such an accepted mechanism for
art, we have to leave it to the market itself. That is, convert the
commodity to money, which has a easy-to-determine market value.
Why should taxpayers take my word for the worth of my pots?
Especially when they do not have to. I still have not seen an
argument explaining why an artist can't just sell his/her work
and donate the proceeds, which is a way the artist can deduct
his/her labor as well, because, presumably, that is included in
price.
And, if such an argument exists, how do you propose that the
deducted market value be verified?
Anyway, I am now finished on this topic, not because it is
uninteresting. I have just done as much as I can to make
position clear. Sorry for carrying on so.
Stephen Pilachowski
Norman van der Sluys on fri 9 jun 00
There you go again - It is pretty easy for a potter who sells hundreds of mugs a
year to come up with a fair market value for his work. In that sense it is no
different from a car. A non-functional piece might well give you problems, but if
you are reporting your income from pottery to the IRS you are a business just like
General Motors.
I, for one, am sick and tired of people who think art is wonderful, but not worth
anything, be it the IRS or the plumber who wants some graphic design for an ad.
(Oh, you want to be PAID for it? As much as I get for MY services?) REALLY!!!
Stephen Pilachowski wrote:
> Sometimes I also can't understand why everyone does not agree
> with me. Go figure.
>
> First a disclaimer: I am not a tax expert. I am just looking at this
> issue and trying to understand.
>
> I am all for allowing people tax deductions for the fair value of
> their donation. To my understanding, this is possible already, even
> for artists. As I said, just sell the piece and donate the
> proceeds. This saves the charity the bother, and if the charity,
> for whatever reason, believes that it is better to have the piece
> of art instead of the money, well, it can buy the same piece or
> a similar one at the same price, because its market value would then
> be clearly established.
>
> The situation is mischaracterized as not allowing producers to take
> the full deduction for their work. It is not a matter of allowing
> "one person to take the deduction only if they did not produce,
> fabricate or create it." That makes the rule(s) seem anti-artist. I
> don't
> think that is the case
>
> Rather, the problem is one of setting market value AND of verifying
> that value. So, it is more a matter of how fair market value is
> determined.
>
> Yes, art is different. Art is not a standardized commodity, as
> opposed to say, automobiles. The blue book value of an automobile
> is not made up out of thin air - it is simply an accurate reflection
> of actual (yes I mean actual) market value. (Please, do not bring up
> exceptional situations of broken down cars. Blue book values
> include descriptions of condition and if you deduct full blue book
> value for a donation of a smashed up jallopy, then it is fraud,)
>
> With many other commodities, there is an established mechanism
> for establishing market value. Without such an accepted mechanism for
>
> art, we have to leave it to the market itself. That is, convert the
> commodity to money, which has a easy-to-determine market value.
>
> Why should taxpayers take my word for the worth of my pots?
> Especially when they do not have to. I still have not seen an
> argument explaining why an artist can't just sell his/her work
> and donate the proceeds, which is a way the artist can deduct
> his/her labor as well, because, presumably, that is included in
> price.
>
> And, if such an argument exists, how do you propose that the
> deducted market value be verified?
>
> Anyway, I am now finished on this topic, not because it is
> uninteresting. I have just done as much as I can to make
> position clear. Sorry for carrying on so.
>
> Stephen Pilachowski
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
