Support NeoGAF

[Lambtron]

sure, lets say he did , generally 2000$ would be tax exempt, but in this particular case, they take 100$

And you're still $1,900 richer.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to assume that cases where an item is taxable and has significant value but cannot be sold are the rarest of the rare. But this case will be trotted out over and over to show how stupid the DEATH TAX is.

 

[ElFly]

Give it whole to the IRS with the stated value of $65M, then get a tax return for the difference?

 

[pigeon]

these people have been screwed, and I dont see how the fact that they can afford it changes anything

Because they can afford legal representation to avoid actually paying.

 

[mre]

Give it whole to the IRS with the stated value of $65M, then get a tax return for the difference?

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that the IRS should be paid $65m, and then the couple can apply for a refund of the difference when they file their taxes the next year? Oo

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Why can't the couple give the art to the IRS and let them auction it off for the value they believe it's worth?

 

[ElFly]

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that the IRS should be paid $65m, and then the couple can apply for a refund of the difference when they file their taxes the next year? Oo

People overpay taxes all the time, that's why tax returns are so common.

 

[mre]

Why can't the couple give the art to the IRS and let them auction it off for the value they believe it's worth?

The IRS can't sell it either. If the couple could sell it, then this whole discussion would be irrelevant.

People overpay taxes all the time, that's why tax returns are so common.

Good point. How about all of your salary gets paid to the IRS, and then April 15th of every year you can file for a refund for what you overpaid?

 

[Beerman462]

sure, but if that were the case, maybe a lot of people still would not care, and I have no problem with that, but I would not get any hate for it,

these people which have a similar situation (although on a much larger scale) are getting grief simply because they are rich, that is what I do not understand

I don't know that anyone hates these people. We simply don't give a fuck. I don't understand the anger towards the IRS in this situation. There has already been a really good post stating that the reason the IRS gave a huge value to it after the couple refused the much lower 15mil value was to force it to court. Here is another way to look at it. They inherited 600million dollars and they can afford to go to court and fight for 5% of that. The original value given was 15mil the tax on that is about 6mil which is 1% of the inheritance. You know what I hate them now for wasting everyones time with 1% of their 600mil fuck them.

 

[yarden24]

I don't know that anyone hates these people. We simply don't give a fuck. I don't understand the anger towards the IRS in this situation. There has already been a really good post stating that the reason the IRS gave a huge value to it after the couple refused the much lower 15mil value was to force it to court. Here is another way to look at it. They inherited 600million dollars and they can afford to go to court and fight for 5% of that. The original value given was 15mil the tax on that is about 6mil which is 1% of the inheritance. You know what I hate them now for wasting everyones time with 1% of their 600mil fuck them.

seems ill never understand it, anyone would have done the exact same thing, but because they are in that position and not you, it seems logical to hate them? just seems like jealousy is getting the better of people here, and that somehow its justified to like a person less because of his financial means

 

[Kosmo]

I don't know that anyone hates these people. We simply don't give a fuck. I don't understand the anger towards the IRS in this situation. There has already been a really good post stating that the reason the IRS gave a huge value to it after the couple refused the much lower 15mil value was to force it to court. Here is another way to look at it. They inherited 600million dollars and they can afford to go to court and fight for 5% of that. The original value given was 15mil the tax on that is about 6mil which is 1% of the inheritance. You know what I hate them now for wasting everyones time with 1% of their 600mil fuck them.

Whether they can afford it or not is irrelevant. It is a simple question of what the tax laws are/should be for a piece of property that cannot be monetized.

 

[ElFly]

The IRS can't sell it either. If the couple could sell it, then this whole discussion would be irrelevant.

Good point. How about all of your salary gets paid to the IRS, and then April 15th of every year you can file for a refund for what you overpaid?

That's not what I am proposing. I am not selling the IRS has to sell it either.

They are claiming it's worth $65M, so hey we just pay it in the form of the statue itself. Whether the IRS can get $65M for it afterwards is irrelevant.

 

[mre]

That's not what I am proposing. I am not selling the IRS has to sell it either.

They are claiming it's worth $65M, so hey we just pay it in the form of the statue itself. Whether the IRS can get $65M for it afterwards is irrelevant.

Not sure if English is your first language or not, but are you now saying that the couple should give the IRS the artwork in lieu of payment? I thought you wanted to the couple to--for some unknown reason--pay $65m to the IRS and then get a refund of the difference.

Not that I think your suggestions is logical in the least, but I at least understand what you're saying now.

 

[oneils]

Please. You guys think it's reasonable to charge $29 million in taxes for something, based on an appraisal by the same people (IRS) who are getting the money, that's actually worth $0? Get your heads out of your asses.

Is heroin worth zero dollars? How about crack cocaine? This will blow your mind. But if you make income of selling those drugs, you owe taxes to the I.R.S. I.R.S. does not care how the income is made, that is the mandate of other government agencies. It is how it works.

Pretty effective at stopping organised crime, too.

 

[oneils]

They are protected from ridiculous claims. It's called court.

IRS says they owe $X, they say they owe $0. They will go to court and present evidence of why they owe $0. The IRS will present evidence that they owe $X. My guess is that they will win. It's really not that big of a deal. It happens every day in this country.

My opinion is that they shouldn't have to pay the tax, and that this case doesn't prove anything one way or the other about the concept of estate taxes or anything else. It's a tax dispute, nothing more.

Yeah, happens all the time. The only reason this makes the news is the amount of money involved. Let the judicial system work.

 

[mre]

Is heroin worth zero dollars? How about crack cocaine? This will blow your mind. But if you make income of selling those drugs, you owe taxes to the I.R.S. I.R.S. does not care how the income is made, that is the mandate of other government agencies. It is how it works.

Pretty effective at stopping organised crime, too.

Again, there is an important factual distinction in the present case. Heroin, crack, stolen art, etc., are all contraband items, the possession of which is illegal in and of itself. These are the items upon which the existing case law is based. The only market in which these goods are traded is the black market, so it makes sense to assess them with their black market value.

Here, we have an item that is legal to possess, and was obtained legally in the normal manner in which artwork is procured. While its possession and sell has been subsequently banned by federal law, the federal government has given them a waiver to possess the item legally, while still, ostensibly barring its sale.

So the question facing the court is "for estate tax purposes, should an item that is legal to possess but illegal to sell be assessed its FMV based upon its black market value or its value on the legitimate art market?"

 

[shanshan310]

That is not even what I'm talking about. You cannot give another individual in the United States more than $13,000 a year tax free.

If I wanted to say, give my brother $50,000 this year, to help him buy a house, I would have to pay taxes on that money, again.

What the fuck. Seriously.

 

[Beerman462]

If we are going to argue, then at least argue with the right numbers.

Original value given = $15 million
Approximately $6 million in tax to be paid or 1.2% of total inheritance after taxes.

New value after original rejected = $65 million
Approximately $29 million in tax to be paid or 5.8% of total inheritance after taxes.

Edit: Total inheritance was 1 billion but its taxed at 50% so get 500 million after taxes.

 

[Kosmo]

If we are going to argue, then at least argue with the right numbers.

Total inheritance = $600 million

Original value given = $15 million
Approximately $6 million in tax to be paid or 1% of total inheritance.

New value after original rejected = $65 million
Approximately $29 million in tax to be paid or 5% of total inheritance.

Facts that actually matter to this case:

-The artwork cannot be sold in any legal manner
-A well known auction house has valued it at $0 because of this
-There is no way to monetize this piece of art without engaging in illegal activity

 

[Allard]

Facts that actually matter to this case:

-The artwork cannot be sold in any legal manner
-A well known auction house has valued it at $0 because of this
-There is no way to monetize this piece of art without engaging in illegal activity

Then the person should not receive the artwork period since its moving from one owner to another. Have it go to a museum or send the artwork to the IRS whatever. If they can't/won't pay the fee because they can't legally sell it, then technically they also probably shouldn't even be allowed to receive it in the first place since its a change of ownership unless they can somehow get the same waiver the original owner received.

 

[mre]

Then the person should not receive the artwork period since its moving from one owner to another. Have it go to a museum or send the artwork to the IRS whatever. If they can't/won't pay the fee because they can't legally sell it, then technically they also probably shouldn't even be allowed to receive it in the first place since its a change of ownership unless they can somehow get the same waiver the original owner received.

Presumably the original waiver allowed for it to at least be conveyed via will. Otherwise, they would have other, more criminal issues to deal with. Donating the piece does not affect their estate tax liability, and I doubt the IRS would accept it in lieu of payment.

 

[Allard]

Presumably the original waiver allowed for it to at least be conveyed via will. Otherwise, they would have other, more criminal issues to deal with. Donating the piece does not affect their estate tax liability, and I doubt the IRS would accept it in lieu of payment.

If that ends up being the case then yes, the couple should fight it in court and they likely will win. Nothing more to it then that.

 

[oneils]

Again, there is an important factual distinction in the present case. Heroin, crack, stolen art, etc., are all contraband items, the possession of which is illegal in and of itself. These are the items upon which the existing case law is based. The only market in which these goods are traded is the black market, so it makes sense to assess them with their black market value.

Here, we have an item that is legal to possess, and was obtained legally in the normal manner in which artwork is procured. While its possession and sell has been subsequently banned by federal law, the federal government has given them a waiver to possess the item legally, while still, ostensibly barring its sale.

So the question facing the court is "for estate tax purposes, should an item that is legal to possess but illegal to sell be assessed its FMV based upon its black market value or its value on the legitimate art market?"

Great. We'll see soon enough.