Paintings Can be Plant and Machinery - Castle Howard Case Update

Share this content
1

Owners of stately homes are a fairly rare breed but those that open their doors to the public will be considering whether they can benefit from a recent Court of Appeal Case.

The ongoing saga of HMRC v The Executors of Lord Howard of Henderskelfe recently reached the Court of Appeal.  The taxpayer came out on top again in this round of judgements having previously being successful in the Upper Tribunal and High Court.  With a lot of tax at stake it is likely that HMRC will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but we must wait to see.  HMRC had been provided with initial encouragement after a win in the First Tier Tribunal.

Crux of the Case

The late Lord Howard's estate sold a 'Old Master’ painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds for a significant gain.  They claimed an exemption from capital gains tax as they believed it was plant and machinery and therefore a wasting asset.

Leading precedent in the consideration of whether an asset is plant and machinery is Yarmouth v France.

As the painting had been loaned to an associated trading company whose business was inviting the general public to view the house, the Court held that the asset was kept for permanent employment in a business.  Therefore, as it was a chattel it was plant and machinery, which qualified as a wasting asset and for the beneficial CGT treatment.

For a more detailed analysis see our previous blog regarding the earlier High Court decision.

Replies (1)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By plummy1
14th Apr 2014 01:33

Taxpayer on Top

It says the tax payer came out on top but as it was paid out of the deceaseds esate he's not going to come out on top unless they exume the body. 

Thanks (0)

Related content