Digital-only artwork fetches nearly $70M at Christie's

Re:Digital-only artwork fetches nearly $70M at Christie's by bronak1 on Thursday March 11, 2021 @11:29AM (#26425801)

Theres way better ways to launder money...I think you might be thinking of tax evasion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Digital-only artwork fetches nearly $70M at Christie's by weaksauce on Thursday March 11, 2021 @12:10PM (#26426354)

Art is a great way to launder money for the ultra rich. It's a pretty widely known scheme covered over and over again. here's one sample: https://www.forbes.com/2003/04/08/cx_0408hot.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Digital-only artwork fetches nearly $70M at Christie's by jl2718 on Thursday March 11, 2021 @11:32AM (#26425837)

I don’t see how this could work, at least with US tax law.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Digital-only artwork fetches nearly $70M at Christie's by kkielhofner on Thursday March 11, 2021 @11:46AM (#26426028)

When it comes to tax evasion ("avoision") there is no limit of creativity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Digital-only artwork fetches nearly $70M at Christie's by DamnYuppie on Thursday March 11, 2021 @11:52AM (#26426109)

But tax avoidance isn't illegal, this has been tested many times in the US courts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Digital-only artwork fetches nearly $70M at Christie's by kkielhofner on Thursday March 11, 2021 @12:06PM (#26426303)

I'm aware of that (hence the parens and quotes) but I was more referring to what could probably best be understood as "common understanding", that is to say that a large portion of the population would probably be shocked at the kind of sophisticated avoision strategies that have been deployed to minimize tax liability.

The average Joe doesn't declare $100 in income - evasion.

The ultra wealthy don't get taxed on $100,000,000 in income - avoision.

[ Parent | on HN ]