Support the Artist Deduction Bill

[paulr]

Right now in the U.S., tax law dictates that if you donate your own artwork to a public collection, you are elligible to deduct only the cost of your materials. In other words, a photograph that you'd normally sell for $1000 will be worth a tax deducion of the $3 that you spent on the sheet of photo paper and the chemicals (don't bother asking ... MoMA doesn't want your frame).

This has been bad news both for artists and the collections. Museums, which often depend entirely on donated work and donated acquisition funds, have seen donations by artists drop by as much as 90% since these policies were installed.

A new law is under consideration, which would allow artists to deduct "fair market value."

You can support the bill QUICKLY AND EASILY by contacting your representatives here:
http://www.capwiz.com/artsusa/issues...521951&type=CO

[Charles Carstensen]

Done. Very easy to do, thanks for the heads up.

[Greg Lockrey]

I see some real abuses coming.

[Daniel_Buck]

I see some real abuses coming.

yes, "fair market value" might be pushed around a bit! But still, I think it's better than having deduction on materials value only! Artists already have a hard enough time getting by.

[claudiocambon]

I see some real abuses coming.

If you can prove that you sell work for x-amount, either directly or through external sources such as galleries, there should be no issue in demonstrating what your work's worth is, and it doesn't seem to me that it is hard to establish that value in any case. Auditors look for exceptions anyway, so if you have thousands in charitable deductions relative to a moderate gross income, you are more likely to be flagged and audited.

The benefits will outweigh the abuses by a long shot.

[paulr]

I don't see how the potential abuses would be greater than with any other kind of donation. The burden of proving the value still falls on the person claiming the deduction.

There might even be some additional restrictions written into the bill, which strike me as unecessary ... like the deduction can be taken only from income you get from selling art. This seems strange to me--you're donating something of value. Why should the rules be different just because you happened to have made the thing?

The biggest deterrent to abuse will be the collections themselves. They don't operate like the salvation army. They accept a tiny portion of the works offered to them; only the ones that a curator and/or acquisition committee decide is right for them.

[Bruce Watson]

Right now in the U.S., tax law dictates that if you donate your own artwork to a public collection, you are elligible to deduct only the cost of your materials. In other words, a photograph that you'd normally sell for $1000 will be worth a tax deducion of the $3 that you spent on the sheet of photo paper and the chemicals (don't bother asking ... MoMA doesn't want your frame).

This has been bad news both for artists and the collections. Museums, which often depend entirely on donated work and donated acquisition funds, have seen donations by artists drop by as much as 90% since these policies were installed.

The problem here is the concept of a deduction. Most artists I know, photographic, paint, sculpture, whatever, are... broke. (and yes Mom, I know I should associate with a "better class" of people, thank you very much) You can't make a deduction without taxable income.

The way around this is simple. The rich lawyer and doctor patrons of the local art museum can buy the art from the artists, and they can then donate the art to the museum of their choice, and deduct their donation from their income taxes. I'm fine with that, and will be happy to have enough income to pay taxes on.

My local museum spent almost 3/4 million USD on one of the ugliest triptychs I've ever seen a few years back. If they actually want one of my photographs (I'm not holding my breath) they can bring me a check like any other customer.

[Greg Lockrey]

Speaking of doctors and lawyers, I am constantly asked by various groups who are headed by doctors and lawyers that want me to donate one of my works for their cause to raise money to help a needy student get through medical and/or law school. When I was a rookie, I did fall for their line that it would help get my name out there. Well it doesn't. I can count on one hand in 35 years the number of sales due to their referrals. Today my response is when XYZ purchases from me, I will consider donating to their respective cause. Or when a doctor asks for a cut rate when he buys only 20-30 copies of a sign for an event.

[darr]

Thanks for the post Paul ... easy enough!

[paulr]

If they actually want one of my photographs (I'm not holding my breath) they can bring me a check like any other customer.

Many museums have acquisition budgets of zero. And even the best endowed museums have budgets that can cover a tiny fraction of the work they acquire. Almost all the work is either given directly or indirectly by benefactors. There are dozens of ways museums wheel and deal with supporters to make these gifts beneficial to everyone involved ... only some of which are public.

The only times my work has been accepted by a public condition, it was contigent on me offering a certain number of prints as a gift, while a collector/benefactor purchased others from me to give to the museum. it was done through a complex (but routine) arrangement that resulted in me getting paid about half price, the museum paying nothing, and the donor getting some of my work in his own collection for a period of time and then getting a tax deduction for his contribution to the museum. there are enough variations on this to make your head spin, but all are way more common than peter galassi or anne tucker coming over and writing you a fat check.