The president of Taiwan as well as another local official for Kinmen County, have been sued by an expatriate Chinese artist for breach of contract. The complaint also names an unknown number of John and Jane Does. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Artist Weiming Chen, now a resident of the United States, claims that the President of Taiwan succumbed to political pressures from mainland China that caused the Taiwanese government to breach its contract with Chen. The artist alleges that on January 17, 2012, he entered into a contract with the government of Taiwan to create a 32-meter tall sculpture on Kinmen island, a few miles off mainland China. The island was under military administration for many years and is historically significant as the site of intense battles between Taiwan and mainland forces. The statue was to face the mainland and was to echo the spirit of New York's Statue of Liberty as well as the Goddess of Democracy statue formerly situated in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The original Goddess was fabricated out of foam and papier-mâché by students during the protests which took place in the spring of 1989 and was demolished by the military during the infamous suppression on June 4, 1989. Replicas of the Goddess are now situated around the world.
The colorfully-worded complaint was filed on July 5, 2012 and requests millions of dollars in punitive damages for civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and interference with business relations. The artist also seeks the right to build the statue. The Taiwanese government has yet to respond to the artist's allegations.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Thursday, 12 July 2012
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Responses published: Gifts of pre-eminent objects and works of art to the nation
Last week, the government published the responses to its consultation on 'Gifts of pre-eminent objects and works of art to the nation' (written about in Art and Artifice here). The consultation, published in June 2011, outlined a new scheme aimed at encouraging lifetime gifts of cultural objects to the nation by rewarding the donors with tax breaks based on a percentage of the donated work's value.
Over 50 museums, archives, law firms and other bodies responded to the consultation. Their main concerns centred on a few key issues, including whether donors would be able to specify where their donated objects were displayed, the amount of the scheme's budget, and the amount of tax relief given to donors.
Under the scheme as originally proposed, donors could express a preference as to where their gift went, but their wishes would not be binding - the gift might end up elsewhere. Respondents pointed out that this could undermine links between potential donors and museums or galleries, since donors often want to give items to specific institutions with which they have built up a relationship. Despite these concerns the government has retained this aspect of the scheme and donors will only be able to suggest who should receive their cultural objects. However if in practice donors' wishes tend to be followed, this may not cause as many difficulties as is feared.
Many respondents also felt that the suggested tax relief of 25% of the donated item's value was too low and would inhibit take up of the scheme. Some pointed out that the rate compared unfavourably with similar schemes in other countries, and also that donors might find it more tax advantageous to sell art works and donate the proceeds using the Gift Aid scheme. In response, relief is now set to be increased to 30% for individual donors (and 20% for company donors).
Respondents were also concerned that the new scheme was to share the £20m budget of the existing Acceptance in Lieu (AIL) scheme. No new funds were to be allocated. Just a few high-value gifts might therefore wipe out the whole budget. It is now intended that, although the two schemes are still to share budgets, their joint allocation will increase to £30m.
And one other welcome change has sneaked in - the scheme's unwieldy title appears to have been mercifully shortened to the 'Cultural Gifts Scheme' or CGS.
Read the full consultation response summary from HM Treasury here, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's guidance to the new scheme here.
Over 50 museums, archives, law firms and other bodies responded to the consultation. Their main concerns centred on a few key issues, including whether donors would be able to specify where their donated objects were displayed, the amount of the scheme's budget, and the amount of tax relief given to donors.
Under the scheme as originally proposed, donors could express a preference as to where their gift went, but their wishes would not be binding - the gift might end up elsewhere. Respondents pointed out that this could undermine links between potential donors and museums or galleries, since donors often want to give items to specific institutions with which they have built up a relationship. Despite these concerns the government has retained this aspect of the scheme and donors will only be able to suggest who should receive their cultural objects. However if in practice donors' wishes tend to be followed, this may not cause as many difficulties as is feared.
Many respondents also felt that the suggested tax relief of 25% of the donated item's value was too low and would inhibit take up of the scheme. Some pointed out that the rate compared unfavourably with similar schemes in other countries, and also that donors might find it more tax advantageous to sell art works and donate the proceeds using the Gift Aid scheme. In response, relief is now set to be increased to 30% for individual donors (and 20% for company donors).
Respondents were also concerned that the new scheme was to share the £20m budget of the existing Acceptance in Lieu (AIL) scheme. No new funds were to be allocated. Just a few high-value gifts might therefore wipe out the whole budget. It is now intended that, although the two schemes are still to share budgets, their joint allocation will increase to £30m.
And one other welcome change has sneaked in - the scheme's unwieldy title appears to have been mercifully shortened to the 'Cultural Gifts Scheme' or CGS.
Read the full consultation response summary from HM Treasury here, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's guidance to the new scheme here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)