>>2262188The gain is avoiding the alternative. You could take your money and buy straight from a gallery or you could make a charitable donation that works against what you owe in taxes.
Since you have already made a contribution to the greater good, you owe less. You were going to buy art anyways, why not make it work for you, and go to a big party, and get a pat on the back for being so charitable.
Plus the art is still worth what it was and possibly more thanks to you.
>>2263032How do you explain the original 70,000 or the original purchase of the painting against declared income, like where it came from to begin with? Your laundering game is weak at best and I implore you to reconsider a life of crime.
It may be that art has been used to launder money but that is not it. It would make more sense that you take 70000 cash that has never been on the books and buy from a crooked art dealer who reports it as a gift with a third person who buys it back for 35000 clean cash for their trouble and you still get caught because the feds were watching the shell game for years.
