4 ms·

This article got a whole lot less interesting with the sentence: "In this instance, the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Tr

This article got a whole lot less interesting with the sentence: "In this instance, the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act make it a crime to possess, sell, purchase, barter, transport, import or export any bald eagle — alive or dead. Indeed, the only reason Mrs. Sonnabend was able to hold onto “Canyon,” Mr. Lerner said, was due to an informal nod from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1981." This is a piece of artwork it's apparently "just as illegal" merely to own. (i.e. illegal under the same clause of federal law.) Suddenly it sounds like they found some obscure law to value it at $0, and that they would not get in trouble for actually selling it. Rather than appraisers in on the heist, perhaps they should have written to the Fish and Wildlife Service to ask if they can sell the thing to pay the taxes on it. The reason they didn't do that is they didn't want to hear the answer, yes. They want their cake and to eat it, too. (Keep the work but not pay taxes). I'm not sure I agree with the existence of this kind of tax, but the case isn't as clear as the title and first half of the article make it sound. Even then, the government revisited the issue in 1998. Rauschenberg himself had to send a notarized statement attesting that the eagle had been killed and stuffed by one of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders long before the 1940 law went into effect. Mrs. Sonnabend was then able to retain ownership as long as the work continued to be exhibited at a public museum. The piece is on a long-term loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which Mr. Lerner said insures it, but the policy details are confidential. this is respected art with a high market value. They should not have put $0 as its value. take-home lesson: don't do that.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago
>Suddenly it sounds like they found some obscure law to value it at $0, and that they would not get in trouble for actually selling it. It's valued at $0 because they cannot sell it. It does not have "a high market value" because it is not, and has no expectation of ever being, able to be sold. The Fish & Wildlife Service didn't say they could sell it - it said they could continue to possess it.
- its_so_on 14y ago
  It's simply not true that it has no expectation of ever being able to be sold. The piece is already on loan to a museum and displayed there - the sale to a museum (perhaps the one displaying it) for its permanent collection is something they should fully expect to be approved. They are trying to skirt the law on a technicality. A letter from the Fish & Wildlife Service stating they can't sell it to a museum - even though it's already on display in one - is what would show this; but if they asked, they would not get that letter - they would be told they could, for the same reason that they could keep it. (Because this is a famous, exceptional, well-known piece that is attested as being produced before the law that made it illegal.) The conditions would be the same - it would have to go in a museum. You have to realize that under the law you're quoting it's illegal to POSSESS as well. This is what changed my opinion of the case. So the family is saying "it's illegal to own or sell", so we'll just do the former since we already got approval but we'll say we can't do the latter, and won't even try to get approval. Personally, I think they should put the price that a museum would pay (and not a recluse billionaire) and which they would expect the Fish & Wildlife Service to approve. Or they can ask for that approval, which the article doesn't show them doing. If they asked and the Fish & Wildlife Service said, weirdly, "you can keep it - as long as it is on display in a museum - but you can't sell it to that museum" then the article, and you, would have a case.
  - fiesycal 14y ago
    The piece is on loan to the museum but they aren't making any money from the loan. They also can't sell it as the previous poster said because it's illegal. Why should they pay tax on something that wont provide monetary benefit unless it is done through illegal means?
    - its_so_on 14y ago
      You miss that the article says it is a crime to possess or even transport the piece. This is like arguing that if you can't sell it without double parking, it's worth $0 and you don't owe taxes.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

>Suddenly it sounds like they found some obscure law to value it at $0, and that they would not get in trouble for actually selling it. It's valued at $0 because they cannot sell it. It does not have "a high market value" because it is not, and has no expectation of ever being, able to be sold. The Fish & Wildlife Service didn't say they could sell it - it said they could continue to possess it.

its_so_on 14y ago
It's simply not true that it has no expectation of ever being able to be sold. The piece is already on loan to a museum and displayed there - the sale to a museum (perhaps the one displaying it) for its permanent collection is something they should fully expect to be approved. They are trying to skirt the law on a technicality. A letter from the Fish & Wildlife Service stating they can't sell it to a museum - even though it's already on display in one - is what would show this; but if they asked, they would not get that letter - they would be told they could, for the same reason that they could keep it. (Because this is a famous, exceptional, well-known piece that is attested as being produced before the law that made it illegal.) The conditions would be the same - it would have to go in a museum. You have to realize that under the law you're quoting it's illegal to POSSESS as well. This is what changed my opinion of the case. So the family is saying "it's illegal to own or sell", so we'll just do the former since we already got approval but we'll say we can't do the latter, and won't even try to get approval. Personally, I think they should put the price that a museum would pay (and not a recluse billionaire) and which they would expect the Fish & Wildlife Service to approve. Or they can ask for that approval, which the article doesn't show them doing. If they asked and the Fish & Wildlife Service said, weirdly, "you can keep it - as long as it is on display in a museum - but you can't sell it to that museum" then the article, and you, would have a case.
- fiesycal 14y ago
  The piece is on loan to the museum but they aren't making any money from the loan. They also can't sell it as the previous poster said because it's illegal. Why should they pay tax on something that wont provide monetary benefit unless it is done through illegal means?
  - its_so_on 14y ago
    You miss that the article says it is a crime to possess or even transport the piece. This is like arguing that if you can't sell it without double parking, it's worth $0 and you don't owe taxes.