I'm saying that the story is clearly more complicated than 'if you can't legally sell it, it has no value'.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Couple inherits art it can't sell, IRS says it owes $29M in death taxes
- Thread starter Kosmo
- Start date
- Status
I'm saying that the story is clearly more complicated than 'if you can't legally sell it, it has no value'.
Dark Knyght
Member
Income refers to something you "earn" usually from a job/company/service such as salaries, wages, profits etc. over a period of time to support your way of life. If someone dead or alive "gives" me whatever for no reason, why should it be subject to sales or income taxes? Its not being sold to me and I'm not earning it due to a service being provided. Its been given to me.
Now if choose to sell said items, I should be subject to pay taxes from the sale because I then sold the item for a profit.
BertramCooper
Banned
This is bullshit.
More than 90 percent of farms in the U.S. are family owned. Many contract with large companies like Cargill - and many choose to incorporate because they have multiple generations of family members involved - but they're still family farms.
And estate taxes are a huge issue in the agricultural community, for many of the reasons Kosmo stated.
I think it's equally as sad that you two have to point it out, like you are some superior being. Especially the "fuck them" part.
People think it's a non-issue. You get a bunch of valuable stuff, have to pay taxes on it, still left with a great profit. No issue.
lunarworks
Member
Can't they just donate the stupid thing and write it off?
BruiserBear
Banned
I think you misinterpreted the "fuck them" part of my post.
After I said "For some people it's a way of life", I was speaking from the point of view of the haters.
The "Fuck them" being directed at the rich people, from the perspective of the person who has less.
But on the bigger topic you bring up, I don't have a problem pointing out some people's skewed views on the world for what they are. I live as a middle class American, and was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth at all, and I carry no disdain for anyone who has more than me, but maybe I'm weird.
No, you pay taxes on the income you've earned, and he pays taxes on his income, including the 50k of income you gave him. That's how the economy works, money changes hands. If your brother ran a lawn care company and you paid him $100 out of your paycheck to trim some bushes, does that mean your brother owes no income taxes on the money he's made that day because you're paying him using money you've already paid taxes on? Taxes are typically (except in the case of property or wealth taxes) levied on transactions, not on the money itself, so yes, dollars are going to be taxed multiple times.
Or to take it to an extreme, if I give my $100 million to my friend, and next year he gives it back to me, am I now magically tax free through the power of gifts?
All that said, I'm 100% in favor of the estate tax. It's pretty much the only tax that doesn't discourage some beneficial behavior, either work in the case of income taxes or consumption in the case of sales taxes. If anything, it encourages productivity by ensuring that the children of the rich have to remain productive instead of relying on unearned wealth inherited from parents. I have no problem with people having lots of money. Wealth is good. I don't begrudge their parents their large estate, but I also think that tax and economic policy needs to encourage the formation of new wealth, and the generational transfer of old wealth is an impediment to that.
This particular case is pretty stupid though. The piece has no value if it can't be sold. They should just donate it to a museum, write it off, and be done with the ordeal.
Also, the fact that you can't sell a bald eagle that's been dead for decades is kind of ridiculous.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I would donate it to the IRS.
Dark Octave
Banned
The IRS is a joke.
If I give lunarworks $10,000 legally he/she is supossed to give the the IRS, who played no part in that transaction, a cut.
Yet the country is constantly in debt.
If I give lunarworks $10,000 legally he/she is supossed to give the the IRS, who played no part in that transaction, a cut.
Yet the country is constantly in debt.
Zoe
Member
It's illegal to possess. The previous owner had a waiver.
Except it's not. The IRS collects taxes on monetary transactions (or transactions that could take place monetarily). Valuing this piece of artwork at $65M and demanding $29M in taxes when no money can legally be taken in exchange for the artwork is akin to a drug dealer leaving $65M worth of cocaine to his family and the IRS demanding taxes on it. Other than the family not being arrested if they keep the art, there really is no difference.
Dark Knyght
Member
I understand the law, that doesn't make it any less foolish. At the same time, I understand that the government just taxes it anyway, cuz I could see where people would always try have the argument that "I didn't earn it, it was given to me" to avoid taxes. But whatever.
runningjoke
Member
Can I have this problem too, please?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yep, if they really want to keep the no value piece of shit, take it to a judge. Otherwise just get rid of it. They seemingly want to make make a story out of no story.
the estate tax problem for the agricultural community is a giant myth.
The case is being settled in court, and is more a question of a unique tax situation (that only the very rich will find themselves in) than it is of moral outrage. If the IRS is being unreasonable they'll get smacked down in front of the judge. I honestly have no rooting interest in this story other than people paying what they should under the law--thus, I'm reserving my outrage until the court issues a judgment on the matter.
The Fox News article is designed to inspire outrage from their core readership about the supposed unfairness of the "death tax" and government intrusion into peoples' lives, just like most of their "journalism." That has always been their angle, and to argue that anything coming from Fox News isn't suspicious by simple virtue of the fact that it says "Fox News" is ridiculous.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Hey, fighting two wars for a straight decade isn't cheap! Somebody's gotta pay all those contractors.
BertramCooper
Banned
I can introduce you to about a dozen families that can tell you otherwise.
Keru_Shiri
Member
I'm confused on a certain point, is it illegal to sell the statue outside of the US?
ReBurn
Gold Member
The constitution also gives the government the ability to spend.
Thanks. Seems to be a unique case where the IRS should have backed off. I'm sure they will prevail in court
TheRagnCajun
Member
Use the wealth from the estate to pay the taxes? Then keep the sculpture for now and figure out what to do with it later?
Don't know why people are defending the IRS on this; the piece is not worth anything, they can't sell it, it is valueless to them unless they own a museum or something and can charge people to view it. So why the hell should they pay taxes (any amount) on something that is actually worth zero and brings them no income.
They paid taxes on the other works of art because they were actually worth something and could be sold to pay for those taxes. This cannot.
Maybe they should donate it to a museum; then claim a $65mill tax break for donating to charity.
They paid taxes on the other works of art because they were actually worth something and could be sold to pay for those taxes. This cannot.
Maybe they should donate it to a museum; then claim a $65mill tax break for donating to charity.
except you have to add the part about them having no choice but to pay because they can't or wouldn't be worth it to afford taking this to court.
It's called an estate tax. It's in place so folks can't dodge taxes by gifting money to their heirs
Well since only a couple dozen people have problems with it every year you must know all the farmers in the us.
Dark Octave
Banned
About that. I could tell you stories of waste and abuse that would make your blood boil.
BertramCooper
Banned
I'm certain I know a hell of a lot more than you do.
So now the valuation makes sense...they have a whole eagle...if each feather is worth $25K it makes sense.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Sanky Panky
Banned
The highlight should end there...
BruiserBear
Banned
I guess I've just grown tired of the intellectual dishonesty of "Oh, it's from Fox News, so that means I can ignore that story if it doesn't fit with my political ideology".
Didn't you get the memo? Rich people == drug dealing criminal scum.
The same money is taxed repeatedly all the fucking time.
I pay sales tax on random shit I buy, after paying for taxes I get from my income, and the profits of the candy bar is taxed from the company that stocks it as well as the company that manufactures it.
Point to the inheritance tax is - you're not been taxed twice for the money you earnt. Your descendants are been taxed for money that they're coming in to. The transference of wealth, regardless of whether or not its between two strangers or direct family members... is what is considered taxable.
GoutPatrol
Forgotten in his cell
Please enlighten us, the plebes of the estate tax world.
But because the eagle was killed before the ban Rauschenberg got a waiver. So the eagle in this case is legally owned.
Dying doesn't seem like a very exploitatable way to dodge taxes, seeing as how someone needs to die every time you want the money to change hands.
Fox News *should* be ignored entirely. They lose all benefit of the doubt because of how transparently and consistently they support one ideological angle.
neoism
Member
lol Fuck those rich people but fuck the IRS more....lol I'm sure the IRS is 100% fair and would never do anything illegal to make more money 400 mill isn't enough huh.....lol If I was the people who got all this I wouldn't pay one more cent. 400mill...lol
It is possible to love the estate tax, assume that billionaire heirs are probably trying to cheat the system, and still think there's something weird about this situation. Regardless of whether it's reasonable to value an object at zero that would be worth millions if not for the fact that it's illegal to sell it (it's not, really), it is technically what the IRS guidelines say to do, according to the piece. That said, the original Forbes piece on this story discusses prior IRS cases where they took the black market value of an item into account when dealing with tax evaders, and case law apparently supports their position, so if the IRS is doing nothing but pursuing the full amount they can expect to recover by existing law, it's tough to criticize them. (I note the New York Times article doesn't mention the existing case law and precedent on the IRS's side, even though it does mention the existence of the Forbes article, and the Fox article mentions neither. Purple monkey dishwasher.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...ch-heirs-deserve-a-fair-shake-from-the-irs/2/
This case needs individual judgement -- which means that the court system is probably the right place for it. Fortunately, it's not likely to come up very often, since there's probably only one priceless sculpture containing a bald eagle.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...ch-heirs-deserve-a-fair-shake-from-the-irs/2/
This case needs individual judgement -- which means that the court system is probably the right place for it. Fortunately, it's not likely to come up very often, since there's probably only one priceless sculpture containing a bald eagle.
Sure as hell seems like you don't. I will be getting my inheritance through farm land. I understand how it works. The link posted earlier in the thread showed that basically a handful of farmers are affected.
Ok, at this point this is total bullshit. If there's no way for them to realize a value for the piece, then I see absolutely no way for the IRS to claim a $65 million valuation. That's practically entrapment, because it's encouraging illegal actions.
BertramCooper
Banned
It's pretty simple. A lot of farmers are land rich but cash poor, especially following years of drought like the one we're currently in.
When a parent dies and the children inherit the land, they also receive a massive tax bill that often far exceeds the amount of cash on hand . So they start selling.
- Status