Killjoys at it again.

[randy]

I mean, SURE ! Let's assume that G-men are looking for tax scofflaws on geeky md'ing forums. Ok.

I think it is likely that they are, but you can only prove existence by example, and you can never prove non-existence.

When I started, in 2008, old timers (of the time) talked about this, and in fact asserted that IRS agents _did monitor_ the forums for finds of significant value. What "significant value" means, I don't know; my most valuable find is worth a few thousand dollars, and no one bothered me.

I will say, that if I found a 1794 silver dollar, I would not post it here or anywhere else. The prestige points are just not worth the risk. If the admins allowed VPN posting, I would find a way, but they don't, so my family would be the only ones aware of my killer find.

Anyway, the IRS does monitor hobbies. We know this, because if a fan at a baseball stadium catches a ball that is a milestone hit for a famous player, the IRS will be in their face as the ball can have significant value to collectors (as an aside, I've always been against this; IMHO, as an economist, the tax basis of the ball should be that of a used baseball; it is not the fan's fault that it could be worth millions, and they almost always have to sell to pay the bill rather than just put the ball in their knickknack shelf). The only difference is that baseball is more popular than metal detecting, but structurally its the same concept from the point of view of the IRS.

With 87,000 new agents, it seems credible that they would create an internet monitoring unit for this purpose, if one doesn't already exist. Remember, they are now, or will be, for reporting year 2023, monitoring E-Bay, Venmo, Paypal, and other on-line marketplaces. Sell your find and they will be after you with a 1099 if it meets the value threshold (which I think is $600/year). Given this, it does not seem a stretch that they could monitor hobby forums for taxable events.

So, in short, without further actual evidence, I agree with Craig, and disagree with Tom in a general sense.

 

[FreeBirdTim]

it also aims to streamline the whole process and speed up the decision making and the allocation of the reward to the Finders/Landowners when a museum wishes to acquire an item.

That's the problem right there. Your government is telling you that museums have a right to take anything you find. They'll pay you for it, but that's not the point. What gives "The Crown" or museums the power to tell you what you can do with something you found on your own land? Again, this would never be tolerated here in the US.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... With 87,000 new agents, it seems credible that .....

This would be a forward looking projection/prediction.

But I notice you mention this was even being mused back when you first started the hobby in 2008. So do this thought experiment : From 2008, to the present, take a look at all the md'ing forum (and FB, etc...) show & tell pages. We all love to show & tell our trophy finds. Right ? And, aside from the garden-variety small stuff, yet : There is also scores of high value stuff that perpetually show up on our md'ing social media pages. Right ?

Ok then the thought experiment is this : In that 15 yr. period, have you EVER HEARD OF AN IRS agent showing up at any md'rs house, looking for taxes ? I don't think anyone here can cite any-such-incident , that was birthed because they did show & tell.

Now, could that change GOING FORWARD ? That's a good question. I personally don't think so. I personally think that G-men have bigger fish to fry (yes, even when adding staff) . Than to hang out on md'ing forums looking to see who boasted their latest finds. I could be wrong. Sure. But I just don't for-see it.

I think they're after businesses who are cooking the books. I'm a business owner who is super honest, but ... I can see how if some other business owners wanted to, they could easily launder their personal expenses through their business, in order to evade taxes. Yet I have NEVER been audited. So I can see how someone who is not scrupulous, could have gotten away with it up-till-now. So I am guessing that the new agents are to police those type things. Not to run around and harass md'rs. Could I be wrong ? Sure.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... What gives "The Crown" or museums the power to tell you what you can do with something you found on your own land? ....

Well, that's because in the UK, it's only your own stuff for things above ground (the crops, your home, etc...) . But not the things that are UNDER the ground. Their system of law is different, from it's earliest beginnings of their history.

So: That's just their system from the git-go for ANY type of under-the-ground wealth (not just md'ing related).

And back in the late 1960s & early 1970s, this began to pose a problem for the hobby of md'ing, which was then beginning to take off in popularity over there. I mean, *technically* everything belonged the crown. But *realistically* this simply wasn't going to fly (with the random individual fumble fingers stuff that md'rs find). So after some md'rs whined and negotiated, these laws , to deal with md's finds, got codified. Such that only caches or significant stuff was cared about.

But laws (any such govt. recognition and compromises) would never be necessary here in the USA, since we have no such intrinsic wealth rules for what's under the ground on your own private property.

 

[metaladdict]

I wonder if the British Govt would ever say, "we have zillions of those gold coins you can keep some". Or maybe they would keep all duplicates due to the fact that it came from a different location?

 

[Pete e]

That's the problem right there. Your government is telling you that museums have a right to take anything you find. They'll pay you for it, but that's not the point. What gives "The Crown" or museums the power to tell you what you can do with something you found on your own land? Again, this would never be tolerated here in the US.

The accepted counter argument that is widely support here is that certain items are looked on as part of our collective heritage so should be available for all to see and study, and hence be in accredited museums.

I broadly support that notion, although I do question some of the decisions taken under the guise of the Treasure Act ..

 

[Pete e]

I wonder if the British Govt would ever say, "we have zillions of those gold coins you can keep some". Or maybe they would keep all duplicates due to the fact that it came from a different location?

Actually yes, items that fall under the Treasure Act are often returned to the Finder. There was a recent case where a jar of silver coins dating back to the 1600 and worth a considerable sum were returned to the Finder....I have a gold ring going through at present that I think dates to the late 1500's early 1600's which I am hoping will be disclaimed and returned, but it will probably be another 18 months under the present system before I find out....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The accepted counter argument that is widely support here is that certain items are looked on as part of our collective heritage so should be available for all to see and study, and hence be in accredited museums. ...

Pete, I have seen this ^ ^ "upside" to the UK system come up in this conversation/topic before. Ie.: " Isn't it wonderful that the public enjoys seeing these treasures, rather than them ending up in private collections...."

And at first blush, it's hard to argue with that. It gives the impression that USA museums are deprived of cool things to display, eh ?

But as a museum worker (docent) in 2 different museums here, I can tell you that our museums are FILLED TO THE BRIM with donations , even as it is. So many that they don't even get displayed. So many that they decline more donations (unless over-the-top special). The reason is that there is only-so-much display space. There is only enough staff time and resource. And the floor display plans are designed and purpose-planned . So they simply can NOT keep rotating out old stuff and putting in new stuff to the displays.

I have seen many md'rs here gleefully donate things (coins, tokens, etc...) to museums. And sure, the museum might say "thank you" and take it (so as not to be rude). But then: The item never sees the light of day. It just gets warehoused or disappears.

So again, while this works for the UK, if anyone ever tried to "export this idea" to the USA, is the moment it would go downhill. Because as it stands, the archies here (the purist type anyhow) hate md'rs. If it were up-to-them, there would be no md'ing (even on private land, if they had their way). Therefore : The less they think of us, the better.

 

[Pete e]

Pete, I have seen this ^ ^ "upside" to the UK system come up in this conversation/topic before. Ie.: " Isn't it wonderful that the public enjoys seeing these treasures, rather than them ending up in private collections...."

And at first blush, it's hard to argue with that. It gives the impression that USA museums are deprived of cool things to display, eh ?

But as a museum worker (docent) in 2 different museums here, I can tell you that our museums are FILLED TO THE BRIM with donations , even as it is. So many that they don't even get displayed. So many that they decline more donations (unless over-the-top special). The reason is that there is only-so-much display space. There is only enough staff time and resource. And the floor display plans are designed and purpose-planned . So they simply can NOT keep rotating out old stuff and putting in new stuff to the displays.

I have seen many md'rs here gleefully donate things (coins, tokens, etc...) to museums. And sure, the museum might say "thank you" and take it (so as not to be rude). But then: The item never sees the light of day. It just gets warehoused or disappears.

So again, while this works for the UK, if anyone ever tried to "export this idea" to the USA, is the moment it would go downhill. Because as it stands, the archies here (the purist type anyhow) hate md'rs. If it were up-to-them, there would be no md'ing (even on private land, if they had their way). Therefore : The less they think of us, the better.

That is an issue here too, simply because of the amount of archaeological stuff that is being unearthered all the time.

But, once an item goes into a museum, it is studied and catalogued. It will be conserved if necessary, and stored or displayed with long term conservation in mind. Should future historians or archeologists wish to study it further, it is available.

Additionally certain items have historical value because of where or how they were found, or who they were associated with, and this aspect is now being taken into consideration with the proposed amendment to the Treasure Law...

Edited to add, below is the incident which was one of the main drivers of this proposed amendment to the Treasure Law...

Crosby Garrett Helmet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SeabeeRon]

I really appreciate Pete and Doug's input on this issue as they are the ones there and know the facts over speculation!

 

[too_pointer]

I didn't know this site was so political, there are better sites , that would fix your needs ! Sorry I have to say something, Guess that is what getting older does to us ?
too_

 

[Rudy]

Here is an interesting article recently published by the BBC.

England's archaeological history gathers dust as museums fill up

Experts say time is running out to solve the storage crisis that has long plagued archaeology.

www.bbc.com

 

[Pete e]

Here is an interesting article recently published by the BBC.

England's archaeological history gathers dust as museums fill up

Experts say time is running out to solve the storage crisis that has long plagued archaeology.

www.bbc.com

I read that, and it doesn't surprise me at all..When talking to archaeologists, especially younger ones, one question I always ask and press for answer to, is "When does archaeology become grave robbing?"

I have seen quite a few become very uncomfortable trying to answer that question!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Additionally certain items have historical value because of where or how they were found, or who they were associated with, .....

There is no doubt that we md'rs love history, and love to see our stuff on display in Museums. And no doubt the public ENJOYS those museums For example: Our own USA's Mel Fisher museum, for example, is enjoyed, studied, conserved, etc.... NO DOUBT. And I have tinges of guilt some times over my own relics that tell stories that I would love to see on display somewhere for the public.

But the devil is in the details for us here in the USA : Because if we American MD'rs ever suggested the Brit system to our govt., in order to "have more awesome museums here", is the moment that our hobby would be MORE riddled with rules. Not LESS riddled.

Because anytime there has ever been express allowances here (permits, "express allowances" in park's wording, etc...) is the moment it's invariably riddled with rules. Eg.: Not within 10 ft. of any tree. Or "yes but you can't dig". Or "on sandy beaches only". Or "yes but turn all items of value in to the park office". And so forth.

Thus again this Brit system is what you have no choice but-to-deal with there . Since the crown owns the wealth underground in the first place. But if anyone ever tried to start a partnership with govt. and archies here, is the moment we would have more restrictions. Not less.

 

[Pete e]

There is no doubt that we md'rs love history, and love to see our stuff on display in Museums. And no doubt the public ENJOYS those museums For example: Our own USA's Mel Fisher museum, for example, is enjoyed, studied, conserved, etc.... NO DOUBT. And I have tinges of guilt some times over my own relics that tell stories that I would love to see on display somewhere for the public.

But the devil is in the details for us here in the USA : Because if we American MD'rs ever suggested the Brit system to our govt., in order to "have more awesome museums here", is the moment that our hobby would be MORE riddled with rules. Not LESS riddled.

Because anytime there has ever been express allowances here (permits, "express allowances" in park's wording, etc...) is the moment it's invariably riddled with rules. Eg.: Not within 10 ft. of any tree. Or "yes but you can't dig". Or "on sandy beaches only". Or "yes but turn all items of value in to the park office". And so forth.

Thus again this Brit system is what you have no choice but-to-deal with there . Since the crown owns the wealth underground in the first place. But if anyone ever tried to start a partnership with govt. and archies here, is the moment we would have more restrictions. Not less.

As Brit, I have never said what laws American should have or how they should be altered, it's simply not my place. All I have ever done here is tried to explain some of our laws, how they came about, and perhaps where they are leading and why..One thing that has not been mentioned is the hobby in the UK does have an organisation to represent them: the NCMD...they have been somewhat involved in the drawing up of the new Amendment, and trying to ensure it is fair and not too damaging to the hobby. Sadley the organisation does not have the clout it once had as over the last few years has been riddled with infighting, but hopefully that is changing now.

I mention them as one of their responses to this proposed Amendments is that they have set up a fighting fund to pay for legal challenges should the new Amendment be applied beyond the spirit of its stated intent.

 

[randy]

This would be a forward looking projection/prediction.

As are all posts about the future based on changes in the present, unless the poster has a time machine.

I see you ignored my baseball example. I don't follow the sports memorabilia market too closely, but I do know that the IRS sends agents to fans who catch million dollar baseballs. You can google this if you don't believe me.

We are simply arguing over threshold, then. While I'll admit the following statement is also forward looking speculation, I assert that if someone were stupid enough to post a million dollar find on this forum, the IRS would be in their face as well.

So, my answer to your 15 year thought experiment is that no one has been that stupid in the past 15 years, that is, to post a find above the threshold, and for the community to hear about it. To me, that is the Occam's Razor answer to the question. FWIW, I personally know a gentleman who has a find in the range of 50K. I've seen it. I'm not going to give a detail out of respect for his privacy, and I don't care if you believe me or not, as it is not that material to the argument, but I will say one thing, he ain't gonna post the details online. I'm honored that he trusts me, in all honesty.

Now, if we accept the above argument, and I think some will and some won't, it then is a matter of the 87,000 extra agents. YOU have forwardly speculated that they will be only looking at the books of businessmen. I don't know what evidence you have for that speculation.

So, IF we accept my above argument, THEN we add 87,000 agents, it is REASONABLE to accept that that will lower the threshold of monitoring hobby markets, especially when they went to great pains to announce that the 87,000 agents would be monitoring online activity. That, in and of itself, seems to scope beyond businessmen and their books. Others mentioned the agents going after tips. I assure you that some of the finds on this forum are worth way more than unreported tips.

And, BTW, as someone who has had a long career in IT, and given the current advances in AI technology, it really isn't that hard to conceive of an AI bot that is managed by a _single_ agent and can scrape hundreds of hobby forums daily. It isn't that hard to conceive of, or do. I'm just me, and I wrote a bot to scrape all 73 web sites of the municipalities in Chester County to see what the land planning commissioners are doing. Its all automated; I just get a report. And that was in my spare time. Don't underestimate what the IRS can and will do with today's technology.

Your argument seems to boil down to the assertion that no hobby detectorist will have a good day of finds, good year of finds, good career of finds, where "good" is defined as material to the IRS. Based on my observations, I simply find that argument untenable, but YMMV.

As others have said, arguing with you is a fool's errand, so I will bow out now. I'll let my facts, logic, experience, and observations speak for themselves, and agree with others that posting this stuff all over the internet is a bad idea.

Unless Nostradamus opens an account, I suppose we'll see what happens. Until then, the basis of economics is the making of present choices based on future expectations, and those that get this right generally do ok.

GLTA

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... I see you ignored my baseball example. ....

I saw it. I know nothing about it. I do not dispute it.

Now if the person keeps the ball, and isn't selling it, then : He has not realized any cash-gain. Right ? It's only when he SELLS it that it becomes income. Right ?

In any event, it appears you agree with me that, thus far, no IRS agents are going after md'rs, based on forum show & tell. Ok, so we've established that. PPpphheeewww. But your explanation is that : It's because it's items below a certain $$ threshold.

But what you're surmising is, that if someone HAD posted an item with a value over a set-amount, that : He'd have an IRS agent at his door ? Well, since apparently no one's posted big ticket items like that, then : We shall never know then, eh ? And yes : We don't know the future either, w/o a time machine. I'm only going by past track-record. That : It simply hasn't happened thus far. And : I was hearing this same discussion in the 1970s and '80s when I first started this hobby. But alas, still no change. Could that change with the new hire IRS guys ? We don't have a time-machine so we don't know.

But I predict that we shall not see any lack of on-going show & tell of valuable items. And I predict no IRS agents. Might I be wrong ? Sure.

I've posted a coin several years back that is about $9k to $10k (according to the coin-book). But I guess that must be below the threshold. 'Cuz no one ever came to my house. And even if they did, I haven't sold it, so that's not "income" then. I have seen others gleefully show their gold & silver smelt value tallies (and even boasting of ways to avoid 1099s for it !). And I saw a recent forum post of a guy here who has a $1,000 in just clad quarters alone. HHHhhhhhmmmm

 

[FreeBirdTim]

The accepted counter argument that is widely support here is that certain items are looked on as part of our collective heritage so should be available for all to see and study, and hence be in accredited museums.

So no one should be allowed to keep anything historical or collectible that may be of interest to the public? I think rare art collectors or collectors of anything that's one of kind would disagree with that view. The public doesn't have a right to view every historical artifact, rare painting or anything else in this world. If I had the cash to buy a Van Gogh, the world would never see it again because that's my right. What the UK is doing is stepping on the basic right to do what you want with what you own. And, yes, if it's found on your property, it should belong to you, not the monarchy or a museum.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So no one should be allowed to keep anything historical or collectible that may be of interest to the public?.....

Tim, to make matters worse: Not only do some purist archies here in the USA opine that way ^ ^ , but they will also go further and say that the items should be left un-disturbed. AND NOT DUG IN THE FIRST PLACE ! Because in their way of thinking, it's preserved for future societies "1000 yrs. from now", to be able to learn about their past. But heaven forbid you dug it now, because that would "rip it from its context" and "forbid future generations from learning about their past".

So there's sites in the USA , where Environmental Impact Reports call for cultural heritage studies. And I have seen construction sites have to "cap" sites deemed historical. Ie.: Add a few feet of soil, and build ABOVE that level. So you can imagine the expense that adds, in having to re-do blueprints to avoid some historical feature .

So not only should items from sites such as that NOT BE ON YOUR MANTLE PLACE, but they should REMAIN BURIED for the however-many-thousand years.

And if you try to point out the sillyness of this "future generation" nonsense, here's their reply : They give the example of fabulous archaeological digs that have gone on in recent decades, several miles away from the Great Pyramids of Egypt. Archies there discovered worker villages (the workers who built the pyramids). And by digging there, they find admittedly great information, of how the common man of that era lived. So the logic is, that you or I *might* have argued that : "Shucks, this isn't the ground zero pyramids, so what am I harming ?" Yet as their digs show: A wealth of information surfaces. So if someone 1000 yrs. ago had gone "nilly willy digging around there", then : The wealth of information (context) would have been altered, blah blah.


So with that ^ ^ type mindset, you can see why I keep harping that we want to keep ourselves off the radars of purist archies. And unfortunately, some of them staff govt. offices where any such decision would "cross their desk".

 

[Pete e]

So no one should be allowed to keep anything historical or collectible that may be of interest to the public?

Reading comprehension is your friend! I never remotely said that and that is not the aim of the Amendment to our existing law ...