Just like the financial market, taxation, the domain of public finances, is torn between two trends: one with a dynamic future, and so progressive and the other static, frozen in time, resistant to change, and so conservative.
The two bullish or bearish visions are on opposite sides of the fence, but beyond this similarity with financial markets, they are two more general visions which are confronting each other and which assess the problems to be overcome in two different ways.
I like Winston Churchill's quote on pessimism and optimism: "A pessimist see a problem in every opportunity and the optimist sees an opportunity in every problem."

With this in mind, let us return to our subject, the impact of taxation on the art market. First of all, we are faced with a major reality check. The market has a problem: There are not enough buyers. In addition, the definition of the art object has been set in stone for too long.
In fact, these two issues have economic and societal consequences.

Indeed, the market is not as healthy as it should be. Clearly, there are major collectors who act like market regulators in public sales, but the volumes are far from optimal, whether for public or private sales.
We will not go over the aspects everyone knows such as capital gains, inheritance, droit de suite (artists' right to receive a fee on the resale of their works of art) or wealth tax.

These provisions are not sufficient, since they do not generate recurrence, in other words: repeated multiple investments on the market.   Putting in place taxation standards like in other fields to support investments, rather than drive them, has yet to be done. 

Thus, taxation has a new role to play in supporting the art market by encouraging repeat investments in two areas: creating and preserving.  Taxation must use its evolving standards to encourage artistic creation by supporting artistic expression, something it already does, but above all to allow collectors to preserve craft, industrial or artistic originality which is in danger of disappearing over time if no-one attempts to preserve it. The collector will then become a guardian investor of social standards. This entails becoming more interested in art investment and ensuring that the market is more open than it is at present, both for persons and for assets.

To achieve this, it is worthwhile investigating the phenomenon of recurrence from the concept of the collection.  By definition, it is a collection of objects which also stimulates their owner.  This owner will therefore seek other objects to add to their collection or to exchange them in order to focus on specific aspects or even sell or give them away, but in all cases the collection is a testimony.

Therefore, when it comes to taxation, the status of the collector and the definition of the collection are fundamental to develop the market. 

With respect to the second point, I was lucky to be part of a working group which submitted a document to the Ministry of Finance concerning how to change the definition of an object registered in the general tax code. 

Modernising concepts in order to defend the past or current art world, and better yet, preserve it in the face of potential arbitrary political infringements is down to the market, because the more collectors there are, the more a society's culture will be preserved.

Even if this development is littered with problems, it is nevertheless the key to the future.  

Increase the number of collectors and develop the collections: this is the challenge!

So, let's remain optimistic and hold our course!