Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Julie Deane
. . . Let's all take action . . .
|
With all due respect, why ??
Consider that adding yet another layer of stipulations to the already impossibly complicated tax code is not exactly a good thing, and a sword that can impose a standard for "market value" will undoubtedly cut both ways.
This instance has precedent in that, should a surgeon or attorney (e.g.) who earns $250 per hour) "donate" time to a benevolent cause, they may deduct attendant expenses such as mileage, or per diem compensation in doing so, but NOT their time. This is a good thing. When it comes to filling bowls in a soup kitchen, or swabbing the deck in a halfway-house, a professional's expertise is no more valuable than someone who earns minimum wage. In some cases, maybe it's less.
The issue is hardly a question of import to most art professionals anyway . . . if you want to donate a painting, do so freely, with good will, rather than thinking of it as a tax dodge. The difference in what you pay on April 15 will be pennies, anyway.
The other side of this coin is that in truth, this kind of "donation" is possibly the worst thing artists can do in terms of maintaining "real" valuation if there exists an active market for their work. Invariably, a piece is "valued" at less than the dollar-six-eighty spent on materials . . . (been dere, done dat . . .) Let the hobbyists and amateurs donate their paintings.