Holocaust Museums, Tax Scam of the Century

Holocaust Museums, Tax Scam of the Century
You certainly have not heard of it in the news. And it may be a legal scam, written into the US tax code and all that. But how would you like to be able to clean out your attic of things even Goodwill would not take and turn it into a hefty tax deduction? How would you like to be able to turn old underwear into historical artifacts? That is the situation with holocaust museums. The jewish holocaust is only of ethnic interest to a small number of people in the US. It has been deemed to be in the American interest to memorialize it for some unfathomable reason. Enough in the American interest that taxpayer underwrite not only the construction of museums all of the country but donations to them. This is the way it works. This type of museum has been designated eligable for tax exempt status in the public interest. (Have you ever heard of a Museum of Italian Unification in the US?) Once that is established, contributions for its construction become tax deductable. Along with that comes tax deductions for items that are donated to fill it, to become museum property, to prepare rotating exhibits. Anything deemed appropriate by the curator -- who acts either on his own or for the Board of Directors depending upon the charter -- becomes museum grade material. A necessary part of a museum is a curator but there are no necessary job qualifications for curators. In this case it means there is no requirement that the curator have a PhD in even something as broad as Jewish Studies much less something as specific as holocaust studies. Another necessary part of a museum is that the curator has broad latitude in creating exhibits. As only the broad area needs be established to the IRS there is broad discretion in establishing what is related to the theme. The IRS's expertise is not construed to be greater than that of museums as to their content. As a result, the curator can determine that jewish life in Poland between 1910 and 1915 is a legitimate exhibition. Most people can not see any but the most tortured connection between those years and something that at best occurred 20 to 25 years later. More specific to that, if there are any such artifacts of that time and place, they are presently in the US meaning the owner left Poland before the jewish holocaust event. So there is no connection whatsoever between the artifacts and a holocaust museum, perhaps a generic jewish museum at best. People can then clean out their attics of even old clothing for donations. The curator, who is not required to be expert enough to evaluate the material can then put any value upon it that the will pass the giggle test at the IRS. With that the contributor has a tax deduction. If the contributor were just cleaning out their attic and trying to give the clothing to Goodwill or the Salvation Army they might get the minimal deduction if it is accepted at all. Putting down "clothing to a charity" on an tax filing has a giggle test threshold at the IRS of about $5 per pair of men's underpants. But in putting down "historical artifacts to a museum" the giggle test has a much greater threshold. And in the event of an audit, there is the evaluation for tax purposes provided by the museum. As to the evaluation made for tax purposes, curators may consult on the evaluations they are offering. What could otherwise be construed as price fixing or racketeering is extempt as a legitimate curatorial function. The IRS, not being considered expert in such evaluation, can only establish its threshold based upon the evaluations by similar museums. (What made this particular pair of underpants unique? Were they worn by the Chief Rabbi?) Now all of the above may appear a bit absurd. In fact you might think I am making it up. But that is approximately what happened at the St. Petersburg Holocaust Memorial Museum in Florida. And the City of St. Petersburg officially lists visiting it as one of the fun things to do when visiting the city. (I don't know about you but it has never been one of my most fun things to look at used underwear from 1915 Poland regardless of who wore them.) But in St. Petersburg there was an interesting twist on the procedure. One of the first "major" exhibitions was exactly of such clothing. The clothing donations were made by the person who was an organizer of the founding of the museum, who solicited funds for its establishment and construction. For those who would twist reason sufficent to justify the above exhibition, I have some tests. Take the same clothing to the Smithsonian institution for an evaluation. Find a generic museum of clothing and see what it is worth. Try auctioning it at Christie's. Try auctioning it on the internet. Find any collectables market for used underpants. Succeed in any one of the above in the manner there can be success at a holocaust museum and I will rethink all of the above. In this case go even further and find some acknowledged expert in clothing who will even establish its authenticity and uniqueness. For the life of me, I can not see a way to determine a difference between polish underpants and jewish polish underpants. And even if it can be done, just what might that uniquness be? Ownership is not uniqueness unless the person is unique. The inaugural gown of a First Lady is because of the person. It goes further, find an interest in the inaugural suit of the President, so it is more than the person. An Elvis costume or Princess Diana gown is also at least collectable. They combine both the factors of an inaugural gown -- sorry King. But after that the threshold of interest in old clothes falls off like a cliff although there are used underwear sales on some of the less savory internet sites. To the best of my knowledge, this is all perfectly legal in the US. In no way is this intended to attack the specific actions of any person or group or organization in regards to common museum procedures nor the specific people involved in this case whos names have been omitted. However, that I feel compelled to include this paragraph is intended to be an attack on the litiginous nature of American society.

You certainly have not heard of it in the news. And it may be a legal scam, written into the US tax code and all that. But how would you like to be able to clean out your attic of things even Goodwill would not take and turn it into a hefty tax deduction? How would you like to be able to turn old underwear into historical artifacts?

That is the situation with holocaust museums. The jewish holocaust is only of ethnic interest to a small number of people in the US. It has been deemed to be in the American interest to memorialize it for some unfathomable reason. Enough in the American interest that taxpayer underwrite not only the construction of museums all of the country but donations to them.

This is the way it works. This type of museum has been designated eligable for tax exempt status in the public interest. (Have you ever heard of a Museum of Italian Unification in the US?) Once that is established, contributions for its construction become tax deductable.

Along with that comes tax deductions for items that are donated to fill it, to become museum property, to prepare rotating exhibits. Anything deemed appropriate by the curator -- who acts either on his own or for the Board of Directors depending upon the charter -- becomes museum grade material.

A necessary part of a museum is a curator but there are no necessary job qualifications for curators. In this case it means there is no requirement that the curator have a PhD in even something as broad as Jewish Studies much less something as specific as holocaust studies.

Another necessary part of a museum is that the curator has broad latitude in creating exhibits. As only the broad area needs be established to the IRS there is broad discretion in establishing what is related to the theme. The IRS's expertise is not construed to be greater than that of museums as to their content.

As a result, the curator can determine that jewish life in Poland between 1910 and 1915 is a legitimate exhibition. Most people can not see any but the most tortured connection between those years and something that at best occurred 20 to 25 years later.

More specific to that, if there are any such artifacts of that time and place, they are presently in the US meaning the owner left Poland before the jewish holocaust event. So there is no connection whatsoever between the artifacts and a holocaust museum, perhaps a generic jewish museum at best.

People can then clean out their attics of even old clothing for donations. The curator, who is not required to be expert enough to evaluate the material can then put any value upon it that the will pass the giggle test at the IRS. With that the contributor has a tax deduction.

If the contributor were just cleaning out their attic and trying to give the clothing to Goodwill or the Salvation Army they might get the minimal deduction if it is accepted at all. Putting down "clothing to a charity" on an tax filing has a giggle test threshold at the IRS of about $5 per pair of men's underpants. But in putting down "historical artifacts to a museum" the giggle test has a much greater threshold. And in the event of an audit, there is the evaluation for tax purposes provided by the museum.

As to the evaluation made for tax purposes, curators may consult on the evaluations they are offering. What could otherwise be construed as price fixing or racketeering is extempt as a legitimate curatorial function. The IRS, not being considered expert in such evaluation, can only establish its threshold based upon the evaluations by similar museums. (What made this particular pair of underpants unique? Were they worn by the Chief Rabbi?)

Now all of the above may appear a bit absurd. In fact you might think I am making it up. But that is approximately what happened at the St. Petersburg Holocaust Memorial Museum in Florida. And the City of St. Petersburg officially lists visiting it as one of the fun things to do when visiting the city. (I don't know about you but it has never been one of my most fun things to look at used underwear from 1915 Poland regardless of who wore them.)

But in St. Petersburg there was an interesting twist on the procedure. One of the first "major" exhibitions was exactly of such clothing. The clothing donations were made by the person who was an organizer of the founding of the museum, who solicited funds for its establishment and construction.

For those who would twist reason sufficent to justify the above exhibition, I have some tests. Take the same clothing to the Smithsonian institution for an evaluation. Find a generic museum of clothing and see what it is worth. Try auctioning it at Christie's. Try auctioning it on the internet. Find any collectables market for used underpants.

Succeed in any one of the above in the manner there can be success at a holocaust museum and I will rethink all of the above.

In this case go even further and find some acknowledged expert in clothing who will even establish its authenticity and uniqueness. For the life of me, I can not see a way to determine a difference between polish underpants and jewish polish underpants. And even if it can be done, just what might that uniquness be?

Ownership is not uniqueness unless the person is unique. The inaugural gown of a First Lady is because of the person. It goes further, find an interest in the inaugural suit of the President, so it is more than the person.

An Elvis costume or Princess Diana gown is also at least collectable. They combine both the factors of an inaugural gown -- sorry King. But after that the threshold of interest in old clothes falls off like a cliff although there are used underwear sales on some of the less savory internet sites.

To the best of my knowledge, this is all perfectly legal in the US. In no way is this intended to attack the specific actions of any person or group or organization in regards to common museum procedures nor the specific people involved in this case whos names have been omitted. However, that I feel compelled to include this paragraph is intended to be an attack on the litiginous nature of American society.

Page reads: 15329