"Nonprofits Step Up Pressure to Keep Charitable Deduction Intact"

From the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

How the Gundlach Case Was Cracked

It involves a Google search.  Background here.

"Charitable giving reacts to tax incentives ..."

"... and in response to any limits on deductions it could even fall by about the same amount as the increase in the tax bill, according to John List of the University of Chicago, who recently reviewed the literature on this subject. Other studies have suggested an effect about half as large. Even that smaller estimate, though, suggests that limiting deductions to $50,000 a year could easily reduce giving by tens of billions of dollars."

That's former Obama administration official Peter Orszag on proposals to limit the charitable deduction.

"The eagle has now landed" (UPDATED)

Patricia Cohen reports that there's been a (very sensible) settlement in the Rauschenberg bald eagle case:  "the I.R.S. dropped the [$41 million] tax assessment; in exchange, the family was required to donate [the work] to a museum where it would be publicly exhibited and claim no tax deduction."

UPDATE:  The Art Market Monitor:  "a reminder that real value in art history doesn’t come in market denominations."

"Alas, plenty of other experts are now too scared of lawsuits to authenticate pictures."

The Economist:  Fear of litigation is hobbling the art market. 

"In the 25 years I have investigated these robberies, I have never heard of anyone actually monetising these very valuable paintings."

BBC News:  Thieves fail to profit from stolen works of art.

"The book, unlike the film, posits no vast conspiracy involving Philadelphia sharks bent on consuming cultural fish from the defenseless ponds of Merion."

"In fact, Rudenstine argues that by moving to Philadelphia, the Barnes Foundation simply rescued itself from inevitable financial ruin."

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Stephan Salisbury previews a new book by Neil Rudenstine, president emeritus of Harvard:  The House of Barnes: The Man, the Collection, the Controversy.  I've already ordered my copy.

"There would be no deduction for charitable giving, or close to none, angering wealthy donors and nonprofit directors."

How to raise $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue.

"If Wiley gets its way in the Kirtsaeng case, every museum that hangs a foreign-made work of art on its walls would be a potential infringer."

Rozalia Jovanovic on the big first sale case in front of the Supreme Court.

"Part salvage operation, part art dealership and part private detective agency"

Chris Marinello and The Art Loss Register.

Felix Salmon on the State of the Art Market (UPDATED)

Occupy Art.

UPDATE:  A response at The Art Market Monitor from dealer Kenny Schachter.

Met Admission Suit

The NYT's Randy Kennedy reports that a new lawsuit contends that the Met "misleads the public into thinking that its admission fees ... are mandatory and not simply suggested."

Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento:  "We have to say it’s not just the sign, or lack thereof, that makes one pay a 'suggested fee.' Sometimes it’s just guilt."

Are millages the future of arts funding?

Judith Dobrzynski says no.

"Mr. Ramnarine ... was indicted on charges he used Mr. Johns’s mold to surreptitiously make a bronze sculpture that he attributed to Mr. Johns and tried to sell for $11 million"

Patricia Cohen has the story.

"[T]he consignment agreement gave Sotheby's the right to withdraw the print from auction 'if in its sole judgment' there were doubt as to attribution" (UPDATED)

"Given Noland's assertion of her right under VARA to prevent use of her name in connection with plaintiff's [work], ... Sotheby's was within its rights to withdraw the [work] from [auction]."

Sotheby's has prevailed on summary judgment in the lawsuit brought against it by Marc Jancou.  No link available at the moment.  Jancou's claims against artist Cady Noland were not at issue on the motion, and so remain intact.

UPDATE:  More from ARTINFO's Rachel Corbett here.

Proceeds from the auction will go towards "the nurturing of young photographers, artists and explorers"

The National Geographic Society is auctioning off 240 pieces from its collection of photos and original illustrations at Christie's in December.  The sale is expected to bring about $3 million and the proceeds will not be used for acquisitions.  Does that make them repulsive?

As I've wondered before, how is it that some nonprofits hold their assets in the public trust and others don't?  How are we supposed to tell the difference?

Peters-Waitt Settlement

Story here.  Background here.

"How Larry Gagosian is like Goldman Sachs"

Felix Salmon makes the case.

"Four of five paintings stolen from the Pretoria Art Museum have been found on a bench in a cemetery" (UPDATED)

"Mills said there was no obvious evidence of damage to the artworks."

UPDATE:  More from the ARCAblog.

Some Clarifications Re Murakami v. Boesky

There was some press coverage last week about the lawsuit brought by Takashi Murakami against his former dealer Marianne Boesky.  I'm co-counsel to Murakami on the case.

A couple of points are worth clarifying/emphasizing:

The Daily News story says "Murakami is seeking compensation to be proven at trial."  That's not what the case is primarily about.  It's really about the right of an artist to control the production of his own work.  Murakami left Boesky more than six years ago.  There's no earthly reason why she should continue to print and distribute his work on her own.

And the Post says Murakami's claim is that Boesky "lent a wallpaper design he created to the Metropolitan Museum of Art without permission."  That's not right either.  She has every right to lend work she owns to whomever she'd like.  The issue in the case, again, is whether she has the right to print additional sheets of the wallpaper on her own.