This is a brief excerpt from the document you requested from IFAR’s Art Law & Cultural Property Database.
Case Summary
Andrew Crispo Gallery v. Commissioner
Andrew Crispo Gallery, Inc. v. Comm'r, 63 T.C.M. 2152 (T.C. Feb. 24, 1992), aff’d in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 16 F.3d 1336 (2d Cir. Feb. 22, 1994), reheard, 68 T.C.M. 1187 (T.C. Nov. 8, 1994), vacated, 86 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. June 13, 1996).
Précis
This complicated case pertains to treatment of artwork seized by the government and sold for tax purposes, the
burden of proof
The requirement that the plaintiff (the party bringing a civil lawsuit) show by a preponderance of evidence or weight of evidence that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true. In a criminal trial the burden of proof required of the prosecutor is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, a much more difficult task. (http://dictionary.law.com).
burden of proof supporting the tax treatment, and the reporting made by the gallery, from which the works were seized. The Andrew Crispo Gallery, Inc. (the “Gallery”) disputed the Internal Revenue Services’ (“IRS”) decision on numerous corporate tax issues including . . . .
Associated Legal Decision(s)
-
Andrew Crispo Gallery, Inc. v. Comm'r, 63 T.C.M. 2152 (T.C. Feb. 24, 1992).
-
Andrew Crispo Gallery, Inc. v. Comm'r, 16 F.3d 1336 (2d Cir. Feb. 22, 1994).
-
Andrew Crispo Gallery, Inc. v. Comm'r, 68 T.C.M. 1187 (T.C. Nov. 8, 1994).
-
Andrew Crispo Gallery, Inc. v. Comm'r, 86 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. June 13, 1996).
Click here to subscribe to IFAR's Art Law & Cultural Property Database to access this and other documents about U.S. and international legislation and case law concerning the acquisition, authenticity, export, ownership, and copyright of art objects.
