How a tax loophole lets this billionaire buy, sell art at public’s expense 1 1

[PhilipB2k17]

Anyone try this? 

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/how-tax-loophole-lets-billionaire-buy-sell-art-at-publics-expense/amp/

[vodou]

43 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Anyone try this? 

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/how-tax-loophole-lets-billionaire-buy-sell-art-at-publics-expense/amp/

As already defined by Mods re: my own posts not too long ago on a similar matter...all tax policy posts are political by definition.

All should consider this a free warning, at vodou's previous expense. Lucky ya'll

[pemart1966]

It's nothing more than a posh storage facility.  This quote from the article sums it up:  “It is outrageous that a private art collection not open to the public gets a tax break!”

 

PS - both of their pants looks like works of art...

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

It's nothing more than a posh storage facility.  This quote from the article sums it up:  “It is outrageous that a private art collection not open to the public gets a tax break!”

 

PS - both of their pants looks like works of art...

The wife’s pants are so ugly they must have cost a fortune.

[Bronty]

Ehh, what's the problem.   Nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same thing.   

The obvious question which the articles leaves unanswered and which I don't know the answer to is what happens to the foundation's assets when the principals die? 

OK so they aren't paying tax on sales from the collection.   But they don't own the art anymore, a foundation does.   So its not like they can sell all the art, pay no tax on those sales, and buy their kids a castle in Germany with that money.     

I don't know how these things work in the US, so I'll defer to those that do, but what the article should be focussing on is that this is on some level an exchange.   You don't pay tax on the collection anymore, OK, but you also have requirements to fulfill (as the article does partly point out) and you don't own those assets anymore.    Control them yes, own them no - so whether people like it or not, there's something been given up there.    And if people don't feel the exchange is a fair one then its up to the government to write better laws.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Bronty

[Bronty]

21 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

The wife’s pants are so ugly they must have cost a fortune.

I like the way they are dressed  Its the "we are so rich we don't give AF what you think" look and they are rocking it

Edited November 3, 2020 by Bronty

[grapeape]

I would dress like that if I didn’t give AF. 

[ShallowDan]

Not gonna lie, those corduroys are pretty swag. 

As far as the article itself goes, I can't pretend to be too surprised by tax loopholes benefiting the wealthy.  I'm guessing the building that hosts the collection is also held by the foundation. 

 

Not to pull things OT, but I've often wondered if Los Bros run things as they do simply so they can be collectors while reaping some of the benefits that come with being a business (no sales tax with HA and other auction houses, writing off convention expenses, etc.).  

[grapeape]

The only way to find out ShallowDan is to have Rich “ask his brother.”

[Will_K]

48 minutes ago, ShallowDan said:

I've often wondered if Los Bros run things as they do simply so they can be collectors while reaping some of the benefits that come with being a business (no sales tax with HA and other auction houses, writing off convention expenses, etc.).  

You can assume every dealer is doing that. 

[Rick2you2]

10 hours ago, Will_K said:

You can assume every dealer is doing that. 

Every comic art dealer comes to Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey for the semi-annual art shows to enjoy the sights and the fine cuisine.

[bluechip]

On 11/3/2020 at 7:12 AM, Bronty said:

Control them yes, own them no - so whether people like it or not, there's something been given up there.   

The only thing given up is the right to say "I own these personally" without incurring tax obligations.  They can see them anytime they want and prevent others from owning or seeing them. They can sell them and buy other things which they will also "control."

Ultimately, nobody "owns" anything.  Unless you're immortal, every form of possession is naught but temporary "control". 

[Bronty]

1 hour ago, bluechip said:

The only thing given up is the right to say "I own these personally" without incurring tax obligations.  They can see them anytime they want and prevent others from owning or seeing them. They can sell them and buy other things which they will also "control."

Ultimately, nobody "owns" anything.  Unless you're immortal, every form of possession is naught but temporary "control". 

Tell that to a bank that you try to securitize a loan from with assets that you control instead of own.   

Control and ownership aren't necessarily the same thing.     

They have given something up in exchange for a free pass from tax.     You can argue the exchange sucks... but again, nothing preventing anyone else from doing it, and up to the government to write better laws if the exchange isn't reasonable.

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by Bronty

[ThothAmon]

Rich people have been setting up such foundations forever. They get a personal deduction for the appraised value of the original art donation to the foundation, can continue to control the art, as can their heirs after they are gone, pay salaries to foundation staff  (family often) and have all expense paid annual meetings for the board (family often) in Maui. All on the tax exempt foundation. Plus no capital gains upon death!  Isn’t he the collector that paid millions for the shark in formaldehyde?

[vodou]

It would appear this subject is another one that only gets *poofed* along with points added and suspension handed down IF...I post it.

Nice. Mods. Nice.

 

[bluechip]

4 hours ago, Bronty said:

Tell that to a bank that you try to securitize a loan from with assets that you control instead of own.   

Control and ownership aren't necessarily the same thing.     

They have given something up in exchange for a free pass from tax.     You can argue the exchange sucks... but again, nothing preventing anyone else from doing it, and up to the government to write better laws if the exchange isn't reasonable.

 

You should go to a more metaphysical/spiritual banker, who could explain my point.

Everything is temporary, including us.  Whether you "own" something or control it, either way it's temporary.  That goes not only for the art itself but also for any money (or tax break) you get from it. 

 

[ShallowDan]

4 hours ago, vodou said:

It would appear this subject is another one that only gets *poofed* along with points added and suspension handed down IF...I post it.

Nice. Mods. Nice.

 

Any thought on the election you'd like to share????  

[grapeape]

19 minutes ago, ShallowDan said:

Any thought on the election you'd like to share????  

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Rick2you2]

6 hours ago, ShallowDan said:

Any thought on the election you'd like to share????  

Well, yes. It’s been an annoying distraction from more important things, like how to practice good dental hygiene.

[Rick2you2]

On a related note, this is a good way to get rid of comic art you don’t really want. I once had to buy a three page set of Gene Colon pages to get the one page I wanted. I also knew the other two pages wouldn’t command much interest (like a lot of what Anthony’s sells). So, two went to charity, and I took a nice deduction for their FMV— not the same thing as being able to sell something at an estimated FMV.