|
Thanks, Bonfim. I agree with Julie, with no disrespect to you, Richard.
If X buys my painting for 10,000, X can donate it to an organization and report it to the IRS as a $10,000 deduction. But I, the artist, can't deduct more than the cost of time and materials, even though I'm not just donating time and materials, I'm donating an actual object that I can prove to be worth $10,000.
I have donated pieces in spite of this, and I do so to benefit the cause. Even if I did get a tax break I wouldn't feel differently about it. A few years ago I donated a portrait to the JDRF and got nothing except the pleasure of knowing I truly gave something to help diabetes research. The people who bought the portrait paid the money but they got the portrait in return, as they would have if they had simply commissioned me to do it, except we both knew the money was going to a charitable cause. The artist is the one who actually gives something without getting anything in return.
Many artists cannot itemize deductions because not enough percentage of their income goes to donations. Why should an artist not be able to take advantage of itemization even though they have donated works totaing a sizable portion of their income?
I personally haven't noticed that my donations have had a negative impact on the value of my work.
Why should I feel bad about adding one more tax law to the already complicated system? Actually I think this would be a tax reform.
|
Threaded Mode
