On archiving papers

[rolanni]

A couple people in different conversations over the last few days brought up the idea of archiving our papers.  There was mention that this course could even produce a "tax deduction."  In the interests of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I contacted Lynne Thomas, the archivist at Northern Illinois University, who has been actively attending science fiction conventions and pitching the benefits of archiving papers for a few years now.  She is also, <fe>in what I imagine is her abundant spare time</fe> helping SFWA gather up its various papers and sort them into a rational archive.

Lynne sent me a bunch of links explaining archives, and why you should, and what you should, as well as a list of libraries with large-ish SF collections.  Those links are reproduced below, for those who have an interest.

I want to address this notion of the "tax deduction," since it keeps rearing its hoary head.  The US Post Office long ago decreed that authors mailing manuscripts to, say, their publishers, could only insure the package for the cost of the paper.  The words, ruled the USPS, were worthless.  So, even if your publisher purchased the novel you were now putting in the mail for $20,000 up-front; if the package was lost, you stood to collect the price of a ream of paper, i.e. the "real property."

The IRS, not surprisingly, agrees with its sister government organization, and they have ruled, for the purpose of "tax deductions" that only the cost of the real materials may be deducted.  The priceless words are, in a word, exactly priceless.  If you donate a published book to the collection, then you may deduct the cover price, because a book is "real property."

Also, most libraries do not have the funds to help authors mail their archival materials.  So if you have a dump truck load of, say, typescripts, you're going to have to bear the expense of getting them to the archive of your choice.  The postage is probably tax deductible, as a business expense -- PLEASE NOTE that this is me, talking through my hat.  Check with your accountant.  Always check with your accountant about stuff like this.

All that being said, I've talked the situation over with Steve and we are throwing this mountain of typescripts away.

Here are those links I promised:

Information on the SFWA Collection at NIU

What sorts of materials to archive, how to archive, and all kinds of other good information regarding authors' papers

A list of libraries that host significant SF collections

SF Archival Collections Wiki

Comments

[margotinez.livejournal.com]

Am I correct that the typescripts are the final drafts as submitted to the publisher? I found the links very interesting, and hope you will be saving earlier drafts, as milestones on the way to the final drafts. That plus your blogs should help your future curators! Please keep sharing.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

They are indeed the final drafts submitted to the publisher.

Our Plan at this point, with regard to our papers is this:

I did save all the Cool Stuff -- the letter from Anne McCaffrey trying to talk me into writing a "more passionate" ending for Scout's Progress, or perhaps going on a little more to show the HEA. Letters from Andre Norton. Notes pertinent to each project, art work, and Other Documents.

What we intend to do, since books are "real property" is to (eventually) send a copy of each published book and the materials pertaining to it. Easier to ship; easier to sort; easier (perhaps) to store.

[bandicoot.livejournal.com]

I find it hard to believe that the IRS says manuscripts are only worth the price of the paper. Does it also claim a Picasso is worth only the price of paint and canvas? No. Donations of artwork to non-profits generate much larger tax write-offs than that.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

But paintings are not manuscripts. They are finished products; i.e. "real property."

[antti-juhani kaijanaho (from livejournal.com)]

I have no idea about US tax law. However, I imagine the problem is in the valuation. The archived typescripts have never been sold, and thus there is no market value to ascribe to them, apart from their value as raw material. The situation is different with an artwork by a famous painter, as there are well understood valuation models, as well as a history of market prices for most of them. If the typescripts had been obtained from an auction, they would probably be valuable under the auction price, but they have never been sold.

[djonn]

If I read the primary linked article correctly, it's not the "has never been sold" situation that's the problem; appraisers assign estimated market values to all manner of artifacts all the time.

Rather, it's that the IRS is looking at the tax-deduction issue differently for creators than it does for collectors. For the creator (if I read Ms. Thomas right), once you've taken a business tax deduction on the materials you used to create a given work, you evidently can't turn around and claim a different tax deduction by donating the result of that work to a charitable or academic institution.

I can sort of see the logic in this formulation from a tax-law standpoint, but (as I've said downstream), I think it's a formulation that's patently unfair to creators.

[djonn]

I can definitely see the daunting aspects of archival donations involving a large body of material, and clearly you've made the choice that's right for you.

As to the matter of tax deductions, I think it's worth amplifying the key point I gleaned from Ms. Thomas' article: the rules for the creators of the material involved are evidently different than those that would apply in the larger collectors' or academic marketplace. (Or at least, such was the case in 2011, when the piece was written. One would hope that the lobbying efforts Ms. Thomas mentions are continuing to move forward, because that is, to my mind, patently unfair.) I had not previously realized this, and it clearly does make a difference in the calculus.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

I'm remembering a time, 'waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay long ago. . .around the time when we were going to move to Maine, or maybe a little before that, so. . .1989ish? . . .that Steve and I donated the working papers for Agent of Change, and maybe the working papers for Conflict of Honors, to the University of Maryland's Science Fiction Research Collection. We did, in fact, receive a "valuation letter" from the curator, and that letter was the basis of a Very Nice tax deduction. So it used to exist. I don't remember when it got taken away. . .somewhere, I think, around the time where the tax folks were trying to force creative types to assign costs to every project, and to account every project within a year, which was. . .just crazy talk.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I use the backs of old manuscripts as scrap paper . . .

Never have had the ego to think anyone would be interested in my archives.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much the fate of the draft pages. They also make good packing material.

I have from the first hung onto the final printout, because Something Might Happen. And also because I'm a child of the Paper Age.

I go back and forth on the archiving thing. I do have some correspondence that might possibly be of interest to those who are interested in such things, and some notes that may ditto.

On the other hand, the University of Maryland's collection became unfunded, they fired the curator and now I believe it's only open by appointment; no one is actually taking care of what's there; there's no catalog, so any researcher will need to know that Paper X exists and is in the collection through independent means.

IRS Rules for self-created artwork

[susan beaty (from livejournal.com)]

I had to research the tax treatment of paintings donated by an artist to a non-profit organization a few years ago for a client. She was not entitled to a fair market value deduction for the donation of "self-created artworks". The clients were disappointed, to say the least.

In general, businesses get a charitable deduction for the cost of property they donate, and individuals get a deduction for the fair market value of donated items. But the "self created artworks" rule seems to trump the generality.

You could take a deduction for the out-of-pocket expenses for what ever you have to do to donate the typescripts; mailing, packaging, maybe insurance.

I heard someone say once that the answer to every tax question is "It depends". Not knowing what entity actually owns the typescripts leaves me with some questions...

Re: IRS Rules for self-created artwork

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

The typescripts in question, until they were bagged up and put out for trash, belonged to the creators.

[bandicoot.livejournal.com]

You could at least have saved them until winter and used them to help heat the house ;)