4 ms·

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 mus

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.
  - fiesycal 14y ago
    Your analogy wasn't very clear. What I'm saying is if they have no way of making money off it what taxes do they owe? If you buy shares in a company that goes bust but you still have the paper should you pay taxes on that if the IRS decides its worth something?
    - its_so_on 14y ago
      I thought like you until the middle of the article, in the place I quoted. It's not that they have no way of making money off of it - they are only saying that. I would believe it if they got a letter from the wildlife agency saying, oh, no, we are only exempting your possession: we can't extend it to your selling to a museum. But that's clearly not the situation. They obviously have every ability to sell to, e.g. the museum currently displaying it, and it will be approved. they're trying to use a technicality - that it's "technically" illegal. don't do that. if they were serious they wouldn't even possess it, since that's "illegal" too. read the article carefully to see what I mean.
      - techsupporter 14y ago
        You're missing two key understandings of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: First, the Act allows museums and similar institutions to own and transport bald eagles. Second, the article states that the bird was acquired prior to the Act taking effect in 1940. That means that current possession is legal, provided that it doesn't change ownership. For a similar situation, look at zoning laws. A property can be "legal nonconforming" because it was, at one time, in compliance with zoning laws but is not any longer. Why? Because both types of laws carry criminal penalties and it is unconstitutional to retroactively make something a crime. The artist can keep the bird, will it to his heirs (generally, passage to one's heirs doesn't trigger "change in ownership" laws), and do the other trappings of ownership but No One Else Can who isn't able to comply with the law, like a museum. Ergo, his heirs can't sell it except to the museum. The museum isn't willing or able to buy it--the piece is already on loan to them for free--so there is no market and, therefore, no value.
rprasad 14y ago
The law makes it illegal for them to sell or possess the eagle art piece. You clearly missed the part of the article where it said that a special dispensation from FWS was required for them to continue possessing the eagle art piece so long as it was kept in a museum and was not sold.
- its_so_on 14y ago
  I did miss it, because you made that last part up. You would be completely right if the article said "Mrs. Sonnabend was then able to retain ownership as long as the work continued to be exhibited at a public museum and not sold." But I just added the last three words. They're not in the article. So, a special dispensation from FWS was required for them to continue possessing it. Which is illegal. So, ask for a special dispensation from the FWS to sell it to the museum. Which is illegal. They have every reason to believe they will get it. Read between the lines.

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.
- fiesycal 14y ago
  Your analogy wasn't very clear. What I'm saying is if they have no way of making money off it what taxes do they owe? If you buy shares in a company that goes bust but you still have the paper should you pay taxes on that if the IRS decides its worth something?
  - its_so_on 14y ago
    I thought like you until the middle of the article, in the place I quoted. It's not that they have no way of making money off of it - they are only saying that. I would believe it if they got a letter from the wildlife agency saying, oh, no, we are only exempting your possession: we can't extend it to your selling to a museum. But that's clearly not the situation. They obviously have every ability to sell to, e.g. the museum currently displaying it, and it will be approved. they're trying to use a technicality - that it's "technically" illegal. don't do that. if they were serious they wouldn't even possess it, since that's "illegal" too. read the article carefully to see what I mean.
    - techsupporter 14y ago
      You're missing two key understandings of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: First, the Act allows museums and similar institutions to own and transport bald eagles. Second, the article states that the bird was acquired prior to the Act taking effect in 1940. That means that current possession is legal, provided that it doesn't change ownership. For a similar situation, look at zoning laws. A property can be "legal nonconforming" because it was, at one time, in compliance with zoning laws but is not any longer. Why? Because both types of laws carry criminal penalties and it is unconstitutional to retroactively make something a crime. The artist can keep the bird, will it to his heirs (generally, passage to one's heirs doesn't trigger "change in ownership" laws), and do the other trappings of ownership but No One Else Can who isn't able to comply with the law, like a museum. Ergo, his heirs can't sell it except to the museum. The museum isn't willing or able to buy it--the piece is already on loan to them for free--so there is no market and, therefore, no value.

rprasad 14y ago

The law makes it illegal for them to sell or possess the eagle art piece. You clearly missed the part of the article where it said that a special dispensation from FWS was required for them to continue possessing the eagle art piece so long as it was kept in a museum and was not sold.

its_so_on 14y ago
I did miss it, because you made that last part up. You would be completely right if the article said "Mrs. Sonnabend was then able to retain ownership as long as the work continued to be exhibited at a public museum and not sold." But I just added the last three words. They're not in the article. So, a special dispensation from FWS was required for them to continue possessing it. Which is illegal. So, ask for a special dispensation from the FWS to sell it to the museum. Which is illegal. They have every reason to believe they will get it. Read between the lines.