“Giving is not keeping!”: Sen. Grassley declares war on art donation tax dodge
Dan Brawner
March 28, 2007
As his old tractor bounces across the cornfield in New Hartford, Iowa (pop. 700), Sen. Grassley might look like any other Midwestern farmer. But the senior member of the the Senate Finance Committee and the man once ranked the third most powerful US senator isn’t just combing the weeds out of the rich Iowa soil. He’s thinking. And what Grassley generally thinks about is money–mostly about not spending it.
A public servant since 1959, Grassley has devoted himself to fighting waste and fraud in government. He’s in favor of allowing Americans to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. He campaigned against waste at the Pentagon, decrying their now-infamous $7,600 coffee makers. He has taken on the thankless jobs of reforming the IRS, Medicaid and Social Security. Practicing what he preaches, Grassley refuses to partake in the weekly Republican caucus lunches. “I’m not going to pay $20 for a salad,” he says.
Grassley is tight as bark on a tree and Iowans respect that. But now the man known as the patron saint of whistle blowers and the most underestimated man in Washington was recently given a new title by the New York Times– “the man museums love to hate”.
It seems Grassley’s spied something through his green eyeshade that didn’t add up. Art collectors, using something known as “fractional giving” were donating major works of art over the course of several years, allowing them to spread out tax write-offs and benefit from any appreciation in the pieces–all while retaining them until they’ve exhausted the tax advantage. As it was intended, fractional giving let donors give, for example, 25 percent of a work, keep it in their possession nine months of the year and let the museum display it for three months. But transporting priceless works of art was hazardous and costly so many institutions waved their right to display the pieces until they eventually owned them outright. But this didn’t sit well with the Iowa senator.
Giving is not keeping,” declared Grassley, the cornfield Confucius. “Could you give 25 percent of your car to charity and still keep driving your car?”
It’s hard to argue with Grassley’s logic. Whatever else you want to call it, fractional giving is a tax dodge. But without it, many art patrons won’t have the financial incentive to make donations, museums will suffer and, ultimately it will be the public that is hurt the most.
Grassley authored legislation that halted the practice of fractional giving. He recently told the New York Times, “Call it what it is, a subsidy for millionaires to buy art.”
And yet, Grassley’s sharp pencil has failed to fret over the alarming figures of Bush’s infamous tax cuts (also known as “Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy”). Grassley has even praised former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld for his attention to waste in the military–in spite of the fact that several-odd billion dollars allocated for reconstruction in Iraq have simply come up missing.
But Grassley’s 1,700-acre farm can’t be plowed in a day, either. While he’s combing over the back 40, maybe Grassley will think of a way to help out art museums. And maybe he’ll figure out how to lower the price of salads in Washington.
A public servant since 1959, Grassley has devoted himself to fighting waste and fraud in government. He’s in favor of allowing Americans to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. He campaigned against waste at the Pentagon, decrying their now-infamous $7,600 coffee makers. He has taken on the thankless jobs of reforming the IRS, Medicaid and Social Security. Practicing what he preaches, Grassley refuses to partake in the weekly Republican caucus lunches. “I’m not going to pay $20 for a salad,” he says.
Grassley is tight as bark on a tree and Iowans respect that. But now the man known as the patron saint of whistle blowers and the most underestimated man in Washington was recently given a new title by the New York Times– “the man museums love to hate”.
It seems Grassley’s spied something through his green eyeshade that didn’t add up. Art collectors, using something known as “fractional giving” were donating major works of art over the course of several years, allowing them to spread out tax write-offs and benefit from any appreciation in the pieces–all while retaining them until they’ve exhausted the tax advantage. As it was intended, fractional giving let donors give, for example, 25 percent of a work, keep it in their possession nine months of the year and let the museum display it for three months. But transporting priceless works of art was hazardous and costly so many institutions waved their right to display the pieces until they eventually owned them outright. But this didn’t sit well with the Iowa senator.
Giving is not keeping,” declared Grassley, the cornfield Confucius. “Could you give 25 percent of your car to charity and still keep driving your car?”
It’s hard to argue with Grassley’s logic. Whatever else you want to call it, fractional giving is a tax dodge. But without it, many art patrons won’t have the financial incentive to make donations, museums will suffer and, ultimately it will be the public that is hurt the most.
Grassley authored legislation that halted the practice of fractional giving. He recently told the New York Times, “Call it what it is, a subsidy for millionaires to buy art.”
And yet, Grassley’s sharp pencil has failed to fret over the alarming figures of Bush’s infamous tax cuts (also known as “Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy”). Grassley has even praised former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld for his attention to waste in the military–in spite of the fact that several-odd billion dollars allocated for reconstruction in Iraq have simply come up missing.
But Grassley’s 1,700-acre farm can’t be plowed in a day, either. While he’s combing over the back 40, maybe Grassley will think of a way to help out art museums. And maybe he’ll figure out how to lower the price of salads in Washington.
Print
Email
