Franceschini, artworks to pay taxes: some clarity

There has been a lot of discussion in recent days about Minister Dario Franceschini ’s statements about the possibility of paying taxes with works of art: an outing taken by most as a proposal or an idea, but in fact an idea it is not, since there is already a law ( 512 of 1982) that regulates the payment of inheritance tax (Article 6) and direct taxes (such asIRPEF, Article 7) through the transfer of cultural goods. So where is the novelty? What is new is that the commission that is supposed to evaluate the requests has not met since 2010, and Franceschini’s proposal is simply to have this commission meet more consistently and effectively, perhaps with new members.

Many have already lashed out at the law (just look at the comments to the articles that have appeared in major national newspapers), which is seen as a kind of attempt by the state to grab private property (but perhaps we forget that at least this is not an imposition, but rather a possibility that expands the ways to get in line with the tax authorities). In fact, it is a law that exists in other countries as well: in France, for example, the so-called dation en paiement has allowed the state, since December 31, 1968 (the date the law was published), to take possession of works by Fragonard, Goya, Rubens, Matisse, Vermeer, Monet, Chagall, Courbet, Picasso and a host of other famous artists, as well as autograph manuscripts by Rousseau, Proust, Sartre and others. A booklet recently published by the French Ministry of Culture, also available in PDF, presents well the institution of dation en paiement and lists all the major works acquired through this process.

Obviously, the law does not solve the problems of those who do not have valuable works to sell to the state, i.e., most Italian citizens, nor of the economic problems of the state itself (because the acquisition of works presupposes, indeed, additional costs): it should be seen as a way to enrich the cultural heritage (which is indeed the purpose for which this institution was invented in France). However, instead of lashing out at the law, let us ask ourselves why it works well in France, and in Italy, on the other hand, even when the commission was active, requests piled up on its bench being mostly rejected or shelved.

Meanwhile, there is a practical matter: in France the law is much better known than in Italy, and above all the French state puts the citizen in a position to understand well what its terms are. In fact, there is a dedicated page on the website of the French Ministry of Culture, moreover well indexed on Google, and with the procedure explained clearly, precisely and without frills. In Italy, on the other hand, one has to necessarily go to see the law.

Second point, and more important: lately the trend in Italy has been exactly opposite to the one favored by the law, namely Italy has been trying to dispose of its cultural heritage by putting many of its assets up for sale. And this is for a very simple reason: in order to cope with the well-known economic problems, the state needs to cash in on cash. And, as mentioned before, a work of art, until it is sold on the market, constitutes only an extra cost for the state (because clearly the work must be maintained in a decent condition, and maintenance is not free).

Given, moreover, the state’s liquidity problems, given that the transaction between private and state would be non-competitive since it would be based solely on the agreement between seller and buyer, and given the disincentivizing regime of art exchanges in Italy (as explained well by Stefano Monti and Michele Trimarchi in an article in Tafter, in which other concerns are raised, such as that about the composition of the commission that will have to evaluate the works: I therefore invite you to read the contribution), no one forbids thinking that the valuation, by the state, could be far lower than a possible and more truthful market quotation, with the result that for a private party, in the current state of things, it might not be convenient this kind of exchange.

Franceschini’s proposal, therefore, does nothing more than exhume an old law, moreover one that is difficult to apply, mainly because of an unwillingness on the part of those who govern us to invest in culture. But then again, given the latest events in politics (read: stability law), how can we expect not say imaginative, but at least sensible proposals from those who govern us?

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.