�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

1. Does it make a difference if you know it is by famous artist, Robert Rauschenberg and titled “Canyon” ?Does it make a difference if you know on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art?
2. Does it make a difference if you know it is by famous artist, Robert Rauschenberg and titled “Canyon” ?Does it make a difference if you know on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art?
3. Does it make a difference if you know it is by famous artist, Robert Rauschenberg and titled “Canyon” ?Does it make a difference if you know on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art?
4. Does it make a difference if you know it is by famous artist, Robert Rauschenberg and titled “Canyon” ?Does it make a difference if you know on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art?
5. Heirs of the New York art dealer Ileana Sonnabend may pay up to $29.2 million in taxes for Robert Rauschenberg’s Canyon from 1959.The work is exemplary of Rauschenberg’s “Combines” where he combined both painting with non-traditional objects and in this particular case the non-traditional object is a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection. Since it is a felony to sell the work, appraisers valued the work at zero dollars but the I.R.S. has put a $65 million price tag on the masterpiece.From http://www.theartdossier.com/featured/bald-eagle-rauschenbergs-canyon-tax-troubles-owners/
6. Heirs of the New York art dealer Ileana Sonnabend may pay up to $29.2 million in taxes for Robert Rauschenberg’s Canyon from 1959.The work is exemplary of Rauschenberg’s “Combines” where he combined both painting with non-traditional objects and in this particular case the non-traditional object is a stuffed bald eagle, a bird under federal protection. Since it is a felony to sell the work, appraisers valued the work at zero dollars but the I.R.S. has put a $65 million price tag on the masterpiece.From http://www.theartdossier.com/featured/bald-eagle-rauschenbergs-canyon-tax-troubles-owners/
7. A lawyer for the World Trade Center's leading insurer argued on Monday that the destruction of the twin towers was one event under the terms of policies negotiated just weeks earlier, not two."We are going to prove the case out of the mouths of the witnesses of the other side," said Barry Ostrager, attorney for Swiss Reinsurance Co.Ostrager said in his opening statement in Manhattan federal court that leaseholder Larry Silverstein's risk manager, Robert Strachan, negotiated policies in July 2001 that used a broker's form called the Wilprop form, under which the destruction of the trade center was a single event.Swiss Re and 12 other insurers are at odds with Silverstein over the amount of money the trade center's developers are owed, a figure that could affect the rebuilding schedule at ground zero.Silverstein and the site's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, have argued that he should receive $7 billion, or twice the $3.5 billion insurance policy on the center, because the two planes that flew into the towers 16 minutes apart on Sept. 11, 2001, represent two separate events.http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-614808.html
8. A lawyer for the World Trade Center's leading insurer argued on Monday that the destruction of the twin towers was one event under the terms of policies negotiated just weeks earlier, not two."We are going to prove the case out of the mouths of the witnesses of the other side," said Barry Ostrager, attorney for Swiss Reinsurance Co.Ostrager said in his opening statement in Manhattan federal court that leaseholder Larry Silverstein's risk manager, Robert Strachan, negotiated policies in July 2001 that used a broker's form called the Wilprop form, under which the destruction of the trade center was a single event.Swiss Re and 12 other insurers are at odds with Silverstein over the amount of money the trade center's developers are owed, a figure that could affect the rebuilding schedule at ground zero.Silverstein and the site's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, have argued that he should receive $7 billion, or twice the $3.5 billion insurance policy on the center, because the two planes that flew into the towers 16 minutes apart on Sept. 11, 2001, represent two separate events.http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-614808.html
9. A lawyer for the World Trade Center's leading insurer argued on Monday that the destruction of the twin towers was one event under the terms of policies negotiated just weeks earlier, not two."We are going to prove the case out of the mouths of the witnesses of the other side," said Barry Ostrager, attorney for Swiss Reinsurance Co.Ostrager said in his opening statement in Manhattan federal court that leaseholder Larry Silverstein's risk manager, Robert Strachan, negotiated policies in July 2001 that used a broker's form called the Wilprop form, under which the destruction of the trade center was a single event.Swiss Re and 12 other insurers are at odds with Silverstein over the amount of money the trade center's developers are owed, a figure that could affect the rebuilding schedule at ground zero.Silverstein and the site's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, have argued that he should receive $7 billion, or twice the $3.5 billion insurance policy on the center, because the two planes that flew into the towers 16 minutes apart on Sept. 11, 2001, represent two separate events.http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-614808.html