Viewing page 31 of 164

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

- 12 -

name changes. Individual installations or restorations should restrict naming to the life of those projects.

(4) A corporate name should be considered only when over fifty percent of major projects, with appropriate amounts for supporting endowment, are provided. Smaller projects, renovations, and installations of less than $2 million should require two-thirds of costs.
    
(5) The corporate name should be compatible not only with the goals and values of the Smithsonian but also with the particular purpose of the project to be funded. Incongruity and tastelessness are factors to be assessed.

(6) The Regents should retain the option to revoke a name where the long term association with that name would be seen as injurious to the reputation of the Institution.

Accordingly, the following motion is suggested:
           
VOTED that the Board of Regents endorses the revised guidelines for its consideration of proposals to name Smithsonian facilities in recognition of significant corporate support. 

IMPACT OF 1991 TAX CODE AND POSITION ON ITS EXTENSION

VOTED that the Board of Regents expresses its appreciation to Senator Moynihan for his efforts to amend the Internal Revenue Code to benefit the Nation's museums and encourages the Congressional members of the Board to support legislation for the extension of such provisions.

*   *   *   *   *
     
The full impact on the Smithsonian of the 1990 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code removing charitable gifts of tangible personal property from the application of the alternative minimum tax will not be known until early 1992 after all 1991 gifts have been processed. However, records for the first six months of this year show that 226 donors gave more than 61,700 objects and collections to Smithsonian Institution museums, the Archives of American Art, and the Smithsonian Libraries. It is not possible to predict the full effect of the amendment for the entire year because there is no correlation between gifts given in the first half of the year and those given in the second half. 

A conservative value of these gifts is approximately $3.5 million. However, dollar value alone is not a reliable indicator of the value of a particular object or collection to the Institution. Important natural history specimens will have low values, while paintings or other works of art might be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

While the motivation for giving these gifts cannot be solely attributed to the tax code change, it is known that the number of gifts diminished when the 1986 amendments were implemented. An extension of the provision would allow donors to plan gift-giving to one or more beneficiaries over a period of
    

Transcription Notes:
Removed underline notations per new transcription guidelines