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

[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.