Da Vinci, Decoy Trucks, and Dodging Taxes

November 24, 2017 8:39 PM

"So You Just Bought a $450 Million Leonardo da Vinci Painting. Now What? From decoy trucks (yes, really) to tax wizardry, here's what happens after you win the most expensive painting in auction history."

More on museum security, insuring your collection, and valuing your art during your ugly divorce.

posted by Eyebrows McGee (15 comments total)

Buyer Of $450 Million Da Vinci Painting Sort Of Assumed It Would Come With Frame
posted by Rhaomi at 9:17 PM on November 24, 2017 [12 favorites]

I mean, this doesn’t go into the specifics of what goes into buying and dealing with a 400$= million dollar painting, which is fascinating, but :

That’s not a Da Vinci. Like at all. At all. At all

But then again the world of high end art sales and commodity dealings (*coughlaunderingcough*) is only reslly tangentially about the art.
posted by The Whelk at 10:52 PM on November 24, 2017 [13 favorites]

This is a massive derail, but: there are tax breaks that only take effect when you make $190 million or more?!? This makes me really, really sick. Maybe--just maybe--if we got rid of this sort of thing, we wouldn't have to squeeze the working and middle classes so tightly?
posted by stillmoving at 11:30 PM on November 24, 2017 [3 favorites]

The way I'm reading it a donation entitles you to a specific amount of tax credit, but if you don't owe that much tax the extra credit is lost. So if you're not already making $190 million a year, you won't get the full benefit of making a $450 million donation.

The amounts involved are still ridiculous, but the way it works is less aneurysm-inducing.
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:58 PM on November 24, 2017 [6 favorites]

But then again the world of high end art sales and commodity dealings (*coughlaunderingcough*) is only reslly tangentially about the art.

I have read (possibly here?) some good articles in the last year on the use of art for money laundering; given the portability of the art and regulatory grey areas (like storage in freeports), it is hard to imagine a better vehicle for moving and hiding sketchy money.

But that aside, it is interesting to consider the day to day logistics of packing and shipping an item that is so colossally expensive and easy to steal.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:22 AM on November 25, 2017 [1 favorite]

I wonder about the percentages though. I understand that laundering money will cop a decent percentage penalty, but surely a unique item like this will attract a massive discount once it goes from “da Vinci” to “known to be stolen da Vinci”.

(Incidentally, I wish we could burn it and turn it into half a billion of housing)
posted by pompomtom at 6:55 AM on November 25, 2017 [1 favorite]

The way I'm reading it a donation entitles you to a specific amount of tax credit, but if you don't owe that much tax the extra credit is lost

No, not really. Tax codes are ever-changing, but currently, if you make a sizable donation you have four years to deduct it. Say you donate something worth 45 milion, you can do 30 million the first year and 15 million the second, or 15 million for three years or however you want to slice the pie. But after four years, you can't claim it any more. I only know this as a very poor person with a large art collection that I occasionally donate away to make room for other things. Nota-bene, if you do this you better hang on to lots of documentation because the IRS is super serious about valuation and art. A receipt isn't enough, you better have a written appraisal by someone who is someone.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 7:03 AM on November 25, 2017 [5 favorites]

Hey, Whelk, check the tags. :D
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:09 AM on November 25, 2017 [2 favorites]

Also please note that I am not an accountant or a tax code expert and invoking something found on the web during your audit will only result in the investgating agents suddenly relaxing as they realize how easy their prosecution has gotten.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 7:10 AM on November 25, 2017 [2 favorites]

Salvator Mundi previously.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:12 AM on November 25, 2017

Maybe--just maybe--if we got rid of this sort of thing we won't need to be sharpening our pitchforks
posted by supermedusa at 9:43 AM on November 25, 2017

I don't think its necessary to burn it, but I would personally prefer that art of this (supposed) status not be available for private ownership. it should be in a museum where it is most accessible to us plebs. that would also deal with the issue of these items being used for money laundering and other financial shenanigans.
posted by supermedusa at 9:49 AM on November 25, 2017

No, not really. Tax codes are ever-changing, but currently, if you make a sizable donation you have four years to deduct it. Say you donate something worth 45 milion, you can do 30 million the first year and 15 million the second, or 15 million for three years or however you want to slice the pie. But after four years, you can't claim it any more.

What if your total income over the four years is 10 million? If I understand correctly, the remaining 35 millions of tax credit just evaporates.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:22 AM on November 25, 2017

Yeah, that is true. But this is America, sonny, you got three chances to go out and earn that 35 mil. Possibly by selling the other fakes you got hiding in your guest room...
posted by 1f2frfbf at 10:35 AM on November 25, 2017

$450 million for a murky painting. It makes the gorgeous Rockefeller Matisse odalisque going up for auction (in the next article at the first link) and valued at $50 mill seem like a bargain. I know which one I'd rather have hanging in my breakfast nook.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 5:01 PM on November 25, 2017 [1 favorite]