Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,244,587
Whom could have known that paying millions of dollars for the right to say "according to this random website, I own a picture of a monkey" would not be a sustainable business model?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,244,655
@previous (D)
They're just non-fungible tokens on a blockchain. They don't have to be art. They can represent ownership of physical property, tickets to an event, streaming rights to a catalog of music, or any number of things that aren't strictly art.
When someone sells a blank canvas with one line on it, they can pretend the money they receive is for that object, rather than what it really is: drugs, bribes, prostitution, debts, or other illicit services.
Then the other person can "lose" it some day and use the receipts to "prove" it's value and write it off on their taxes.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,244,726
@previous (F)
i mean, i could sell you a drawing for a million bucks and you could lose it and i guarantee you that you would not survive the audit if you tried to write it off. the whole thing is riddled with red flags and there are consequences for fraud.
The first red flag is inflation of the artwork's value. an unknown artist, it would be highly unusual for a piece to legitimately fetch a price tag of a million dollars. This mismatch in value would be perceived as a deliberate misrepresentation. classic fraud.
and a transaction happening between friends instead of an impartial third party suggests collusion. The question of whether a transaction is being conducted at arm's length makes it look like a conspiracy to commit tax fraud.
claiming the artwork was "lost" or stolen, tax authorities would typically demand proof to justify such a significant loss. possibly in the form of a police report in case of theft. If the loss seems suspicious or inadequately documented, it could be viewed as an unlawful attempt to gain a tax deduction.
All these red flags would catch attention, leading to an audit. During an audit, all claims, transactions, and deductions come under scrutiny. fraud would be obvious.
All you're describing is fraud. and the IRS is really, really prepared to catch... brazen stupidity. which is why no one is going to buy my "million dollar" scribbles. which i wouldn't try to sell, because that's conspiracy and i'd end up getting charged for fraud too.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,244,729
@previous (squeegee)
Hollywood pretends they lose money on block busters, and they aren't audited.
Scientology still has non-profit status at the IRS.
If you have receipts showing that the "art" you lost was bought and sold for an inflated price, you have a better case than most tax fraudster. Value is subjective and the IRS has not, in recorded history, decided their gut feeling on an art piece's value was enough to determine that a previous sale was not the market price.