Chris Campbell on sun 17 apr 05
John H says ...
>I don't like to be negative on this subject, but I think the current
law is very fair and consistent. NO ONE is allowed to deduct the value
of the time they donate to charities. Lawyer who do free legal work
can't. Doctors (like our own Tom Sawyer) who help the poor through
charitable organizations can't. Teachers who volunteer to teach English
as a second language to immigrants can't. No one else can. Why do we
artists continually think we should be a privileged class .... >
The difference is that our work is resold for a dollar amount whereas
their advice is given for free, not re-sold for profit.
If an charity decided to auction off 'Three Hours of Legal Advice' and
kept the money then it would be the same.
Chris Campbell - in North Carolina - once again, less than two cents worth!!
John Hesselberth on sun 17 apr 05
On Sunday, April 17, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> If an charity decided to auction off 'Three Hours of Legal Advice'
> and
> kept the money then it would be the same.
Chris it is still the same from a financial standpoint. You are
perfectly able to sell another potter a piece of your work for $100,
she donates it to charity and claims a $100 deduction. In return you
could buy a piece of her work for $100, donate it to charity and claim
$100 deduction. Both of you could also deduct your out-of-pocket
expenses. BUT you would both have to report $100 of income also. So it
is a net wash. Exactly the same as if you had just donated the piece
and only claim your out-of-pocket expenses as a deduction.
The stranger who buys your $100 piece, donates it to charity, and
claims the deduction is in exactly the same financial position. How do
you think they got that $100? They earned it and had to declare it as
income first. You just didn't see that part of the transaction, but it
was there.
I repeat. There is no unfairness in the current system. It is perfectly
consistent. Perhaps one of the few tax rules/laws that is.
Regards,
John
John Jensen on mon 18 apr 05
John H;
I think your various explanations on this tax deduction subject are =
quite
clear and, as far as I can tell, correct. In any case, you makes sense =
to
me.
I wonder: In those cases in which an artist donates a piece of work =
which is
subsequently sold at auction, is the buyer able to deduct the amount =
paid
for the object as a charitable contribution, even though they obtained =
value
in exchange? Or does the tax code consider our contribution of art to =
be
just a little "thank you trinket" which has no value in and of itself?
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery
John Jensen@mudbugpottery.com
http://www.toadhouse.com www://www.mudbugpottery.com
>
The stranger who buys your $100 piece, donates it to charity, and
claims the deduction is in exactly the same financial position. How do
you think they got that $100? They earned it and had to declare it as
income first. You just didn't see that part of the transaction, but it
was there.
I repeat. There is no unfairness in the current system. It is perfectly
consistent. Perhaps one of the few tax rules/laws that is.
Regards,
John
John Hesselberth on mon 18 apr 05
On Monday, April 18, 2005, at 12:57 AM, John Jensen wrote:
> is the buyer able to deduct the amount paid
> for the object as a charitable contribution, even though they obtained
> value
> in exchange?
Hi John,
We are starting to get in deeper than my knowledge of the tax law
goes--where is Bonnie when you need her?? Since it is only a few days
after tax day she is probably goofing off on some Caribbean island.
But I am betting the buying can only deduct what is in excess of fair
market value. When you buy a membership to a tax exempt organization
that includes something (like admission tickets to the Philadelphia
Flower Show--that one comes to mind) the receipt will clearly say how
much value you received and that you can only deduct the difference.
John
| |
|
