14 May
2014
14 May
'14
7:57 p.m.
On 14/05/14 10:10 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Toby Thain <toby
at telegraphics.com.au>wrote:
The (major city) Museum I was talking to in Australia had at times
"de-accessioned" in exactly this way, I heard, which is a big reason why
I withdrew my equipment from consideration.
--Toby
On 13/05/14 11:56 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
In the US, a museum could lose their 501(c)(3) non-profit status (which
allows contributors to write off their contributions as tax-deductible) if
they don't make every effort to place de-accessioned artifacts with another
similar organization. De-accessioning an artifact to an individual or a
for-profit entity, whether money changes hands or not, violates the basis If an artifact is redundant, in poor condition,
or is out of scope, the
institution can
de-acession something in its collection but the process is not simple,
and they have to
make an effort to try to offer it to another museum.
What compels them to do that?
for the 501(c)(3) status, which is that the entity
must operate EXCLUSIVELY
for religious, charitable, public safety testing, literary, or educational
purposes. The entity cannot do ANYTHING for private benefit.
I'd expect other countries that offer non-profit status to museums to have
similar requirements, but I don't really know.