LETTER: Putting tax on paintings into perspective
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.DESPITE what Chris Blackhurst and Liz Searl wrote in "Private view: why you can't see the pictures you pay for" (23 July), conditional exemption from inheritance tax on works of art is not a tax loophole. Tax is not waived but postponed until a future sale, or until the wish of the owner not to abide by the conditions. When tax is charged, it is often on a much higher valuation, and from the Revenue's point of view the system could be considered an investment. Having a Canaletto hidden away is a pleasure, but does not provide an income, and there is no way to use the system for gain.
The point of this rule is to avoid forcing a sale of works of art after a death, when often the estate does not have the cash to pay tax on a valuable painting. In return, the new owner agrees to look after the work, and to allow public access. There are advantages also to museums and galleries in Britain, and they will hope that the system continues.
If an exempted painting is sold there is a financial gain to the owner to sell it directly to a public art gallery in Britain. The Revenue allows the vendor to receive slightly more than the open market value after tax, and this price is a considerable saving to the gallery. There is often a similar advantage against capital gains tax. It is through this means that the Tate has been able to afford many of the 17th- and 18th-century British paintings that still hang on our walls.
If it were not for this conditional exemption, more paintings, furniture and porcelain would be sold suddenly, at full value, and probably go abroad. As it is, although the things are difficult to get at, there is a good chance that they will finally belong to a public museum in Britain.
David Fraser Jenkins
Tate Gallery, London SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments