Dear IRS,
Let me start by saying I'm a pretty solid liberal. I believe in government, and I accept the importance of tax collection to support the functioning of public institutions. I sympathize with your mission, and I bear no ill will towards you or the thousands of men and women who work for you. I say all this so that you will understand I mean no insult when I say that sometimes you guys can be a little bit. . . thick.
Today, the front page of The New York Times (itself hardly a tribune of right-wing anti-government propaganda) featured the story of the estate of Ileana Sonnabend, a New York art dealer. When Ms. Sonnabend died, she left her children an art collection valued at close to one billion dollars! (Who knew Beanie Babies would accrue so much value so fast?!?) Anyway, after Ms. Sonnabend died in 2007, her heirs had to pay taxes based on the fair market value of the collection. Complicating the situation, though, was one particular piece, "Canyon" by Robert Rauschenberg.
"Canyon" is a "sculptural combine"--an art form that makes use of various "found objects." In this case, one of the "objects" is a stuffed bald eagle. "Ewww," you might say--and you'd be right. But more to the point, the inclusion of the eagle makes this 20th-century masterpiece technically worthless. Federal law prohibits the sale--indeed, the very possession--of a bald eagle. The only reason Rauschenberg was allowed to use the eagle in the piece was that he could prove that the specimen was actually killed and stuffed long before the eagle-protection law went into effect. In other words, Sonnabend's heirs couldn't sell the piece even if they wanted to, and so several appraisers, including one for Christie's auction house, assigned "Canyon" a fair-market value of $0.00.
You, IRS, though, see things differently. Your appraisers originally valued the piece at $15 million--based, presumably, on sale prices for similar pieces (there being apparently a thriving market in raptor-based art: Christo's "Wrapped Kestrel" going for some $10 million last October). Sonnabend's heirs, however, citing their own appraisers' zero-dollar estimates, refused to pay taxes on that piece. Interestingly, you guys then revised your initial appraisal slightly upwards--to $65 million. (Hey, what's $50 million in the world of high art?) You then decided that the heirs owed some $29 million in taxes, which includes an almost $12 million penalty because they refused to pay the taxes in the first place.
The really crazy part of all this is that you yourself acknowledge that, legally, there is no way the heirs could realize any financial gain from this artwork. According to one of your own former appraisers, a "plausible" scenario for financial gain might involve, say, selling the artwork to a reclusive Chinese billionnaire who would then stash the art in his own private vault. Are you really interested in taxing people on potential income they might receive for engaging in illegal activities? I mean, I could theoretically sell my kidney on the black market for several thousand dollars, but I don't have to claim that on my 1040!
I don't, right?
Now, look, I don't exactly feel sorry for these guys: I suspect that, financially, they'll ultimately be OK. At the same time, though, I can see their point--especially when you consider that they've already sold off some $600 million worth of art in order to pay about $479 million in taxes: Anyone who willingly pays nearly half a billion dollars in taxes doesn't seem guilty of tax evasion--either that or they're really, really bad at it.
All of this would just be an amusing little sidebar, except there's this lunatic movement out there called the Tea Party: These are the guys who scream that IRS agents are slightly more detestable than Hitler. And when you guys go after individuals who have, let's face it, already paid a fairly substantial amount of taxes--while at the same time somehow failing to collect a dime from multi-billion dollar corporations like General Electric--you kind of give these folks some serious ammunition.
Again, I say this as someone who supports your work: Consider the public-relations side of your actions. Oh, and please don't audit me.
Yours truly,
The Solipsist
No comments:
Post a Comment