Annie Leibovitz is the in-house photographer for Vanity Fair, whose work, depending on who you ask, is either masterful or schlocky. Leibovitz is also a big lez, which means she’s plenty affected by the current tax code, which discriminates against same-sex couples, especially when it comes to inheriting your dead partner’s estate. Which is what happened when Leibovitz’s lover Susan Sontag died in 2004 from illnesses including leukemia. An accomplished author and filmmaker, you can imagine what type of bank and goodies Sontag left behind. But given the way we tax estates when they pass on to someone other than your spouse, taking control of Sontag’s belongings left Leibovitz subject to some hefty taxes: up to 50 percent of the estate’s value. Which might explain why Leibovitz is in debt upwards of $700,000 to her vendors, why she had to borrow more than $15 million against her $5 million townhouse in New York City’s Greenwich Village, her second home in the country, and her entire collection of photographs.
The New York Times last month explored Leibovitz’s debt, citing anonymous informant who say she needed the cash to “to pay off mortgages and deal with other financial stresses.” Depending on the size of Sontag’s estate, it’s entirely feasible Leibovitz owes seven- to eight-figures to the government. But had she been legally married to Sontag? They tax penalty, says AfterEllen, would’ve been zero.
Meanwhile, it’s forced those who report on this sort of thing into an interesting position.
In Sontag’s 2004 obituary, the New York Times never once mentioned her partner of 20 years: Liebovitz. The New York Daily News gossip columnist Ben Widdicombe asked the Times to explain the decision, and they responded: “Our extensive reporting in recent weeks did not substantiate the widespread reports of any relationship of Miss Sontag and Miss Leibovitz beyond friendship. … We should probably have mentioned the friendship, but nothing further was warranted by the facts we could gather.” (Noted Widdicombe: “The paper did note that Sontag was once ‘photographed by Annie Leibovitz for an Absolut Vodka ad.'”)
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
In a 2006 article about a Sontag photo show Leibovitz was putting together, the Times could barely bring itself to mention the two were in a relationship. (Even NPR had trouble. In a 2006 report, it labeled Sontag as “Leibovitz’s longtime friend.”)
But my how things have changed. In reporting on Liebovitz’s money woes last month, the Times “extensive reporting” managed to find such a “relationship.” It wrote: “Robert Pledge, the founder of Contact Press Images, which represents Ms. Leibovitz’s editorial work, said she had faced many stresses in the last eight years, including runaway expenses at her Chelsea studio, which she has since closed; the renovations; the deaths of her lover Susan Sontag and her parents; and the birth of three children.”
stan
It’s completely preposterous that this would be happening to Annie Leibovitz. Suze Orman rallied against this second-class tax same-sex couples were subject to.
blake
Sucks. I’m surprised that Sontag didn’t have a better estate planner. Don’t rich people use trusts to shield their heirs from taxes?
The Gay Numbers
@blake: Often times they do, which is why I find the story odd. I definitely am suspicious when right wing talking points like “death tax” are used.
blake
@The Gay Numbers:
Yeah, “death tax” is B.S. The estate tax was created to prevent the Robber Barons from creating a defacto monarchy and doesn’t affect 98% of Americans. If Lebovitz had to take out a $15 million loan to cover 50% estate tax, why didn’t she sell some portion of the estate?
I think that an article on inheritance that affected non-wealthy gays and lesbians would be more meaningful. A while ago, I read about an elderly man whose partner died and left him the house in which they lived for over 20 years. The partner’s distant cousin sued and won possession of the home and kicked out the elderly widower.
There’s a preoccupation in our society with the suffering of the wealthy, as if their pain were more important or meaningful than that of the regular gal or guy. Why isn’t the worry of Jenny who spent 30 years with Susan but can’t collect on Susan’s pension not as important as Lebovitz’s financial woes? What if Jenny and Susan have two young kids and the loss of income means Jenny can’t afford the mortgage on their home?
I understand that cases like Lebovitz and Sontag’s make for a more brand-name recognizable impact but Lebovitz’s troubles are sad and unjust but they aren’t tragic.
sal
i guess its more important because im sure allot of straight people love her work and the dreams her photographs can bring to life(just my two cents) so this may cause them to think of the human and not the invisible,unknown “beast” the right wing paint this us on this issue and all our rights
sal
..put a familiar,positive face on this issue
jr
I’m suspicious too. Admittedly, I don’t know much about the personal lives of this couple, but i recall that before Sontag’s death, the 2 were linked, but never “out.” I always thought of them as on/off romantic friends. I’m rather surprised Sontag left Annie anything, doesn’t she have a son? Anyway, it begs the question, if they could have married, would they have? If the answer is no, then this is all just bad financial planning and has nothing to do with gay rights.
Moreover, what kind of idiot eff’s up thier finances so badly that a high paying job and big inheritance actually makes you poor…
Hey Annie, how do you make a small fortune? Start with a large one.
The Gay Numbers
@blake: I am pessistic about the U.S. precisely becauase we have had 30 years of right wing talking points that no one questions, including gays. It’s like discussing why our present system of capitalism is bad because it’s oligiarchial, and having someone call me a socialist. It’s like they don’t get that there are other forms of capitalism than the one in which we must accept the formation of an aristocratic class. This is both history (in that it was why, for example, Theodore Roosovelt broke up the trusts), but also current (in that the countries most like the U.S. in economic structre are third world countries). You are right about why we have the inheritance tax. I read this situation, and I don’t think “oh, the inheritance tax is bad.” I think “what kind of estate planning was involved here?”
blake
@jr:
I don’t think we should be suspicious of their relationship at all. That’s not my point. According to Japhy’s article, one can infer that after estate taxes, Lebovitz was left with $15 million. That’s $15,000,000.00. Look at all those zeroes and commas!
blake
@The Gay Numbers:
Sadly, you are right. It’s bizarre that some non-wealthy Americans allow their desire to be wealthy to cloud their judgment, being more sympathetic for the ultra-wealthy than their working and middle class peers. Think about all those Americans who go psycho over union members actually making decent wages. Those same people generally have no problem with Wall Street execs making millions.
The Gay Numbers
@blake: I have given up on this country for exactly the reasons you state. I am at an age where I want to build something for myself, and let those who don’t see what you describe (which is the great bulk of people) feign for themselves.
Gianpiero
Criticizing Leibovitz and Sontag for their wealth is not fair. These are two women who made their individual and collective fortunes through their talent and intelligence. Gee, everyone praises the idea of pursuing the American Dream–but heaven help those who actually achieve it.
Could they have planned their estate better? Perhaps, but that’s their business. The real issue here is the disparate treatment in the tax code. Even if will affect only a fraction of same-sex couples, it is unjust. And most straight people have no idea it exists.
BobP
I may be wrong, but I could have sworn that I read that AL was allowed to take one thing that belonged to SS and that the entire estate was left to her son. This makes much more sense than SS leaving everything to AL, who must be wealthy on her own.
What could SS have left AL that would cause this huge problem? I think there may be more to this story.
RichardR
I clicked on (I think) all the links Japhy provided and I can’t find that Sontag left Leibovitz anything at all.
And the Times? With the Times it has been a heel-dragging struggle with them from the get-go to be even vaguely modern about gay people and gay relationships. They are better now than they were even at the time of Sontag’s death.
All that said, the inheritance disparity indeed is a dramatic reason to demand marriage equality, whether or not Susan and Annie would have availed themselves of such rights.
Way off-topic, but can one imagine being in the same room with those two? Like at a dinner party or something? Scary.
The Gay Numbers
@Gianpiero: Huh? What are you talking about?
The Gay Numbers
@RichardR: Again- not sure what you are talking about.
alan brickman
i always think annie and bruce weber are the most overratted photographers…their subjects are interesting the photos…not so much…
Scott
I think some of these comments reflect a bitterness in our society that there are people with more money than you.
The point of the article is that if they were a married straight couple she wouldn’t have had to pay taxes on any of it.
But yeah, she’s rich, so screw her.
MZL
i agree its outragous that ms. leibovitz that is being unfairly taxed on her partner’s estate on the basis that they weren’t married (because they could not under federal and state law) however the injustice is the discriminatory nature in the application of the tax >>> not the tax itself_ using rightwing terms such as “death tax” misses the point completely and reinforces reactionary thinking
The Gay Numbers
@Scott: Yet another comment divorced from reality,a nd engaging in right wing fantasy. Yes, we all must hate the wealthy because we are asking systemic questions about power distribution. 30 years of being brain washed, and really many of you are no more interesting to read in your dogma than a communist. The world is a more complicated than the revenge fantasies you project onto others.
michael
something is weird annie also sold her own rights to all photos past & present ? whats up with that sell a house already or something else
todd
boo hoo poor annie.
blake
@Gianpiero & Scott:
Please don’t start any kind of false class warfare claims here. Nobody is criticizing Lebovotiz or Sontag for their wealth. I’m happy that they became successful and earned a fortune.
It is sad that Sontag didn’t explore better ways of protecting her wealth through estate planning. If, as Japhy implies, Sontag left a fortune worth nearly $30 million, she should have spent $100K on a good lawyer. (The Kennedys, for instance, have much of their money in a family trust.)
However, I’d prefer to hear about issues facing non-millionaires than those of the top 1%. Lebovitz is not homeless and destitute. I’m sympathetic to Lebovitz but $15 million is $15 million.
Many working and middle class gays and lesbians are left severely financially impacted by the death of their lovers. How do inheritance laws affect Bob and Ralph the army mechanics or Juan and George the hair dressers or Maria and Graicella the police officers?
What if Bob is the widower of Ralph a solider who died in combat in Iraq? Bob would not receive widower survival benefits. Right? All of the financial and other survivor benefits a heterosexual spouse would receive would unavailable to Bob. If Graciella dies because of injuries from a defective product, her widow Maria won’t be able to sue as a surviving spouse.
Get it? I’m more concerned about how these issues affect working and middle class gays and lesbian, not the ultra wealthy.
Sebbe
Yes the tax code should be equal.
But, I have no sympathy that AL and SS didn’t avail of proper legal and tax planning services when they certainly could have afforded to and had lawyers at their disposal. I know many upper middle class gays with wealth no where near approaching these two and they have taken adequate legal protections.
I also am much more concerned with those without extreme wealth, that cannot afford to seek the top tax attorneys. Their life savings are much more important to their loved ones and can make the difference in keeping them out of extreme poverty.
@Blake – AGREE AGREE AGREE AGREE.
AL needs to call up Suzie Orman every time she wants to buy something so Suzie can tell her “DENIED GIRLFRIEND”.
Peter
@The Gay Numbers:
These “trusts” you speak of are a thing of the past, the IRS has closed most of the loopholes on tax shelters. It is nearly impossible to legally avoid the estate tax these days.
The issue is not how much you hate rich people, but rather is it right for the government to seize 50% of someone’s wealth after they die? What right does society have to do this and by what rationale? I’m a flaming liberal, but I don’t think it’s right. Tax the rich to death while they’re alive, but taxing ’em once they’re dead just doesn’t seem right.
I’m not totally unbiased here: I rent a historic house from my parents that because of soaring property values, is now worth more than the estate tax deduction. When my folks God forbid pass away and leave me the house, I’ll have to sell it and move just to pay the “death tax.” That just kinda sucks–you’d feel the same way in my position.
The Gay Numbers
@Peter: First, I was using the word ‘trust” as in corporate concentration of power in industries (monopolies and oligarchs) that were broken up by Theodore Roosovelt. I was not referring to trust and estates with my discussion of trusts. You apparent do not know the duel use of the term.
Second, I don’t care about you, your family or your sob story. I care about how our general society works, and how these rules are meant to prevent aristocratic caste systems.
Third, your post is the height of ignorance or arrogance (I can’t decide which is at play) because when researching the numbers anyone can determine that a) we face once again oligarchial powers (that’s why the banks are “too big to fail” and we are not able to address the issue easily) and b) we have the greatest concentration of wealth in the top 5 percent in over a century. I can provide you the data, but I expect you to ignore it. That’s why I don’t have much hope for Americans.
This two facts are not unrelated. So, take your sob story, and ply it on the ignorant masses who do not understand what’s been happening over the last few decades- the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 5 percent. There is a reason why all of Geithner’s plans are structured as they are the banks- namely spread the risk to the voters, but keep the profit for a privileged view. This is because that’s been the general policy for decades now. Even the tax code has been written this way. The tax code favors the wealthy throughout their lives and has for decades.
Mark Z
This story doesn’t make sense. Yes she’d have to pay for any inheritance, but why not just sell part of the inheritance to do that? I think there’s more to this story, probably bad money management on Annie’s part.
blake
@Peter:
No one hates rich people. What is being said is that while Annie Leibovitz’s story of inheritance tax issues is regrettable, the problems that face regular GLBT Americans reflect a greater magnitude of pain and suffering.
The average gay and lesbian American will not have to worry about the effects of the estate tax.
The inheritance tax historically only affects inheritance above $1 million dollars. That means that 95% to 98% of all Americans will never be affected by it. That changed under G.W. Bush:
“The federal estate tax exemption – the amount you may leave to heirs free of federal tax – has been rising gradually and will hit $3.5 million in 2009.
Meanwhile, the top estate tax rate is coming down. The estate tax is scheduled to phase out completely by 2010, but only for a year. Unless Congress passes new laws between now and then, the tax will be reinstated in 2011 and you will only be allowed to leave your heirs $1 million tax-free at that time.”
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson21/
Me
“I think that an article on inheritance that affected non-wealthy gays and lesbians would be more meaningful.”
THANK YOU!! That’s exactly what I thought as I read this. There was a larger issue here that was getting occluded by this whole poor-little-rich-girl story about these two highly sucessful women. When someone is complaining about millions while I’m doing well to scrape $20 together… I can’t sympathize. The more impactful story would have focused on the everyman (or woman), using only her story as a jumping off point, perhaps.
John Smith
First of all, taxation is stealing. The government steals 50% of a dead person’s property. Must the government be this greedy? Why not just take 25%? We need a government, and taxes support the government, but taxes need to be reasonable.
sam
@The Gay Numbers: You claim that the estate tax was designed to fight against oligarchies, so we need to keep it around because of all these oligarchies that have sprung up. There are SO MANY better ways rich people have devised to concentrate their wealth in fewer and fewer hands than the estate tax (nepotism, e.g.) as to make it almost worthless as an anti-trust weapon. Instead, it just screws over random people who weren’t clever/wealthy enough to get fancy lawyers and accountants before they died.
The Gay Numbers
@sam: Except systemically, you are wrong- there aren’t so many better ways because no one addressed these issues at all until recently. The SEC is useless. So are the rules for antitrust law.
The inheritance tax law is only one of many measures to address concentration of powers- I was giving an analogy of anoother rule (trust busting or antitrust law), and why rules regarding concentration in power matter in total. How they interrate and touch on one another. Many of these rules- most Americans don’t know shit about them- including the inheritance tax rules other than right wing talking points which you repeat here.
I was making an analogy about structural power, and why rules are created to protect us against concentration of powers that arise say from concentration of wealth.
Yes, the wealthy have ways around it, but that only serves to illustrate why the whole “death tax ” b/s is really just a way to avoid any attempts to prevent the formation of an aristocratic class. Your response is not a reason to eliminate an inheritance tax. It’s a reason to be mindful of just how powerful this small group of people are in our political system.
Even your argument over random people being mysteriously ‘swept up” is b.s. The threshhold for the inheritance tax is high, and, at any rate is not something that is unavoidable. Anyone who knows the stats on who this affects instantly knows this. To put it bluntly, the question one must always ask is whether a story or anecdote is representative of the class or data? Your statements are just right wing talking points. Not the reality of who this mostly affects.
The point of discussing the oligarchs is to give a structural understanding of how these things work. That these issues are all interrelated. It explains why all these supposed separate rules exists. For example, if you allow an aristocratic class to arise with money, that class willl try to take over in other ways such as business related oligarchial power. These are the lessons that Americans have forgotten and why we find ourselves in one of the worse economic downturns since the Great Depression.
That these issues are systemic. Not that the inheritance tax is meant to prevent oligarchs, but that the rules about inheritance exists to stop aristocratic controls which again like the issue of oligarchs are related to control and power being concentrated in the hands of a few.
The Gay Numbers
@Me: Agree with this. I would l love to have read a story about inheritance in general. Often times when people discuss marriage, for example, we gloss over real world reasons why marriage matters. Inheritance is one of the reasons.
blake
@John Smith:
Taxation is not stealing. I like those things called roads, libraries, schools, hospitals, army, navy, NASA, etc.
Again, 95 to 98% of the American people will never be hit by the estate tax. Why is that so hard to understand?
oneway
Heavens. No idea clicking into the comments link would feast this much debate on taxes before my eyes.
Only point I was going to make is that off all the stories out there about the inequality of the estate tax, this one doesn’t exactly induce much sympathy. High-profile face on the subject, yes. But that’s it.
Japhy, how about following this up with a story or two about the survivor partner who has to sell their house to pay the taxes. Or worse yet, the survivor partner who has to fight the biological family just to live in the place he’s called home.
You want to put a face on injustice — that’s where you’ll find it.
Giovanni
If I am not mistaken Liebovitz is in financial hot water because of a massive reno of her town house that went horribly wrong. Apparently the work being done rendered the building next to hers completely unsafe and Liebovitz was forced to buy the the NYC home from her neighbors for what one can only imagine was a hefty price. Taxes may be an in issue for her but a fucked contractor is an ever bigger one.
boarderthom
Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head.
Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.
Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, “That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all.”
Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.
Stop gay apartheid.
Cam
I would feel more sympathy if either of them had ever once acknowledged their relationship as people who get married must do. They were both wealthy, lived in a very liberal area, were involved in the arts for their income and were friends with the liberal elite. There was no reason for them to be in the closet about their relationship, yet they were. They each had no trouble commenting on many other political issues, but never once had the strength of character, if their relationship was a truly deep one, to do what the everyday gay couples going out and getting registered as domestic pertnerships do.
Part of getting married, declaring domestic partnership, civil union, etc… is declaring publicaly that you are in a committed relationship. If neither of them ever felt the need to do this…back when it could have done some good for gay rights, then why should Annie now expect any of the benefits deriving from the type of relationship she never behaved like she had?
John Smith
@Blake:
Taxation is stealing. It’s stealing for a good cause like roads, schools, libraries, the Army, Navy, etc. It also enriches a political class and their friends, the lobbyists. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but he was a thief.
Sebbe
@John Smith – That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Taxation is not stealing.
When you pay your taxes you are receiving something in return. Even if you are only using some of the services provided to you (directly or indirectly), roads, police, military, schools libraries, the money you use for economic exchange.
Therefore the definition of “stealing” does not fit. In essence you choose to be taxed through the democratic process. Legislators are elected freely and those that are voted in decide who is taxes, how much they are taxed and how those dollars are spent.
As a citizen of any nation you are in a contract with all the other citizens. If you break the contract (don’t pay your taxes which you otherwise choose to do freely), then there are consequences as with a breach of almost any contract. No one is forced to reside in this country or any country in which they live. You may move, revoke you citizenship (and all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with it) and move to a country with a tax structure more favorable to you. If you are an America citizen you will be forced to still pay taxes for 10 years since you have already been using services and received the benefits in advance of citizenship.
Digital Al
Sorry to hear that about an artist, but Annie caused its own bad Karma. She was well known to recruit unpaid interns from the Harvard College and totally abuse them. None of them did much of the photography and most of the time they were just running errands and she just yelled at them most of the time.
Even Harvard Lampoon did one spoof about how abusive she was.
But one must say that she made lots of really memorable photographs. She is on the same level as Mappletrope, in my mind. Her particular genius was to create a good working atmosphere with person she was photographing and to give something back during the photo shoot. That is why each of the images she published were so unique.
Anyway, here are some really boring photographs of mine, so please come and visit my photo blog.
GEORGE ARNOLD
Given Sontag’s virtual silence regarding her relationship with Annie Leibowitz, and subsequent Sontag’s death, Leibowitz’s initial reticence followed by utterly oblique reference to the same, it seems a bit unfair to fault the Times or NPR for inaccurate reportage in their respective Sontag obituaries.