You don’t owe the government anything merely because you woke up one day and were in America. Taxation is something that funds the operations of government, period. It isn’t about fairness or contribution to society. It ought to be kept as minimal as possible.

I used to give lip service to the importance of making sure people were paying the right amount of taxes according to law. I don’t any more. I’ll continue to be as honest as possible, because God is my judge and He knows everything I do. But I seriously do not care whether other people, including “the rich,” are being soaked to the maximum extent possible.

I just don’t care. Government spending has zero relation today to either the amount of tax receipts or the legitimate obligations of government to provide services for the people. If we’re going to focus on something, as an electorate, it needs to be that. I seriously and honestly do not care about rich people who have paid less in taxes than the sanctimonious want them to. Operating the IRS on that premise is a recipe for disaster for the middle class, which can’t protect itself. Fix the problem of our smelly, disgusting fiscal incontinence; fix crony-tending as a government spending activity; fix the creation of a permanently dependent underclass with our tax dollars; get rid of all the government agencies that function as wholly-owned vehicles for special interests — fix all of that, and a dozen other major things I haven’t mentioned yet, and then it will be time to “go after” people’s inheritances and loopholes. In the meantime, it’s not “lawful” to sic the IRS on people, it’s vicious, jackbooted thuggery.

If examples such as these do not convince the populace of the dangers of a large, irresponsive government, then we’ll get what we deserve. [sigh]

The government didn’t create that estate. And the family collected the art work to pass on to their heirs.

But what happens is the the estate is often tied up in infrastructure like a large farm, restaurant, etc. And so the survivors have to sell the family farm or business in order to pay the death tax demanded by the government.

It’s immoral. The taxes on everybit of the money used to buy the art has already been paid in full. The taxes on the money used to buy the farm and business has been paid.

But when you die, the government says that it as the right to the money on which all taxes have already been paid.

We must vote the progressive liberals out of office and restore the federal government to its constitutional roots. Our founding fathers never invisioned the government seizing private property on which taxes and other liens have been paid.

It’s wrong on every imagineable level. Why is our government at war with its citizens??????

AZCoyote on July 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Two reasons, Coyote. First, it is designed to reduce the temptation to kill a protected bird, then claim it was stuffed a long time ago, and, therefore, ok to sell. Second, it has to do with Native American artifacts and traditions. (They are the only ones who can even possess a bald eagle feather, for crying out loud, even if you find it laying on the ground.)

From what I’ve read it WAS in an art museum, in Washington DC, and now is in a “private collection” in New York, the “Sonnabend Collection”.

To take it, and then say it has a value of zero? I hate the IRS like everybody, but these are billionaire tax-cheats.

Marcus on July 23, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Not necessarily.

Many things on display in museums are on loan from private collections and are not owned by the museum. This is usually credited on the display card at the museum and in museum archives if the piece is in storage or traveling for exhibition (Part of the loan may be the Museum picks up the tab for insurance and proper care of the piece while it is in their possession)

Some of these loans are perpetuated for years until either the museum buys it or replaces it when the owners retrieve it. It’s an old practice that can benefit both the institution and the owner.

If I understand it correctly, in actuality things aren’t any better in Canada when it comes to inheritance taxes. If “the estate” has to pay the taxes upfront and, say, the “estate” consists of property like a house and land, it will be necessary to sell the “estate” to pay the taxes before the heirs can receive (what’s left of) their inheritance.

Buy Danish on July 24, 2012 at 10:10 AM

It’s called the death tax. You can’t really inherit your parents’ house–just wish them long life and sell it to the Gubmint when they die, and hope there’s enough left to buy a smaller house.

includes a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection,

Why are stuffed birds under federal protection in the first place? I understand protecting the live ones, but the ones that have been dead for years? What purpose does that serve?

AZCoyote on July 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM

They could add a burning US flag to the art, and then it would be allowed.

canopfor on July 23, 2012 at 10:21 PM

If I understand it correctly, in actuality things aren’t any better in Canada when it comes to inheritance taxes. If “the estate” has to pay the taxes upfront and, say, the “estate” consists of property like a house and land, it will be necessary to sell the “estate” to pay the taxes before the heirs can receive (what’s left of) their inheritance.

includes a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection,

Why are stuffed birds under federal protection in the first place? I understand protecting the live ones, but the ones that have been dead for years? What purpose does that serve?

So everything you have, that you can’t sell, the IRS can put a price tag on it and fine you?
That could put garage sells out of business…

right2bright on July 24, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Indeed.

Today the only value Art has is in it’s re-sell value at the auction houses and this is decided by the dealers and the appraisers.

An Artist has no say in it whatsoever and usually doesn’t profit either but will always bear the responsibility of the de-valuation if their work and for whatever reason falls out of favor. This de-valuation happened to Alama-Tadema, who was an historical painter that made beautiful paintings in the mid 19th century when his work was reduced to mere artifactural status by the culture mavens.
It has since made a comeback as to influence and increased in value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Alma-Tadema

This has happened to 80′s Art Star Julian Schnabel because his plate paintings are badly made and fall apart…and these are as vacuous now as they were when they were made. He makes films now. He’s also a schmuck imho.

Heirs to important art collections are often subject to large tax bills. In this case, the beneficiaries, Nina Sundell and Antonio Homem, have paid $471 million in federal and state estate taxes related to Sonnabend’s roughly $1 billion art collection, which included works by Modern masters from Jasper Johns to Andy Warhol. The children have sold off a large part of it, $600 million worth, to pay the taxes they owed, said their lawyer, Ralph E. Lerner.

Unreal!!

I remember the family of Joe Robbie had to sell the Dolphins when he passed away, because they couldn’t survive the tax.

The family of George Steinbrenner didn’t have this problem because George was smart enough to die in 2010, before the tax was re-implemented.

I remember Art Linkletter being on Larry King, saying in a joking way he planned to die in 2010 so the government couldn’t get his money. Then he dies May 26, 2010. Wow.

IMO, bring it to trial. Let the IRS defend its position. I don’t know which way public opinion will go, I just want them to be under the hot lights just once.

It could accidentally burn in a fire…

so-notbuyingit on July 24, 2012 at 8:30 AM

That would be interesting…since with a $0 valuation by the estate appraisers they can’t even insure it much less sell it can they?

If it was to burn in a fire could the heirs be prosecuted for burning what amounts to rubbish in Granny’s attic?