The Charitable Deduction and Looting of Antiquities: A Comparative Approach

Sabrina Y. Hsieh

Cornell International Law Journal2018article
ABDC B
Weight
0.34

Abstract

The tax incentive structure for charitable giving in the United States, as in many other countries, is imperfect. The structure over-incentivizes donations from wealthy individuals, whether those donations are made up of cash or of property. This structure has negative impacts not only domestically, but abroad as well. By providing an incentive for donations of antiquities to museums— an incentive that was perhaps largely necessitated by the state of American museums in the 19th century— the charitable deduction has not only created a market for antiquities of questionable provenance, but has also created what is potentially a get-out-of-jail free card for those who knowingly purchase antiquities of questionable provenance or fail to conduct their due diligence in determining whether an antiquity’s provenance is genuine. The international community has largely condemned the looting of archaeological sites and the sale of unprovenanced antiquities. Regardless of whether one subscribes to cultural property nationalism or internationalism, incentivizing the looting of these sites through the tax system is a problem that must be remedied.

1 citation

Cite this paper

@article{sabrina2018,
  title        = {{The Charitable Deduction and Looting of Antiquities: A Comparative Approach}},
  author       = {Sabrina Y. Hsieh},
  journal      = {Cornell International Law Journal},
  year         = {2018},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

The Charitable Deduction and Looting of Antiquities: A Comparative Approach

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.34

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.00 × 0.4 = 0.00
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.