‘Tax implications of Art & Cultural Heritage being a fixture?’

The general law relating to ‘fixtures’ applies to ‘listed buildings’, see:
(i) Section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
(ii) R v Secretary of State for Wales ex p. Kennedy [1996] 1 P.L.R.97, in which the court held that the definition of ‘fixture’ is the same for the purposes of the listed buildings legislation as for any other area of the law.
(iii) Berkley v. Poulett [1977] EGLR 86 – which contains the definitive pronouncement.
Whether an article or chattel is a fixture, depends on:
(a)   The degree to which the article in question could properly be said to be annexed to the building.
(ii)   The purpose for which it was put there.
See the planning decisions in Time and Life Building [1999] J.P.L. 292 (which concerned reinstatement of: bronzes; a painting; a clock; and a sculpture); and Noseley Hall [1999] J.P.L. 1145 (which concerned reinstatement of paintings).
Consequently, any decision of a Council, Inspector or Court that the removal of works of art [‘WA’] requires ‘listed building consent’, necessarily involves a decision that the WA was a ‘fixture’, and therefore part of the building or ground. People, sometimes even entire branches of families, think/beleive that they own WA, only to discover as the result of such a decision, that the WA in fact belongs to the owner of the building or ground to which it has been deemed to be fixed. This can leave a taxpayer (‘TP’) between a rock and a hard place because:
(i)                       The owner [‘O’] may sue the TP in conversion, and possibly bailment, or on the grounds of the existence of a constructive trust. Unless there is a Limitation Act time-bar, O may also sue the purchaser [‘P’] in conversion and P may counter-claim against TP. If WA is worth millions, this is likely to result in substantial and complex litigation.
(ii)                      Where an estate paid IHT on the basis that it was the owner of chattels which it has now been decided constitute fixtures, and therefore belong (and a fortiori might always have belonged) to some other person i.e. ‘O‘, HMRC may be protected from a mistake of law under section 255 of IHTA 1984, because any question of whether too little or too much tax was paid is determined on a view of the law then generally received or adopted in practice.
One of my essays for the Diploma in Art Law course at the Institute of Art Law in London is ‘Co-Mediation of Tax Disputes Involving Art & Cultural Heritage Assets’, which I am planning to write in October, see the ‘Mediation of Art & Cultural Heritage Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk. In the essay, I will set out the framework of both ‘tax law’ and ‘general legal’ issues (including title), that apply to the settlement of ‘tax liabilities’ using art and cultural heritage assets i.e. WA. This includes due diligence about the potential impact of monument and treasure laws in England and Wales on a TP’s assumed title to WA, i.e. because a TP cannot settle a tax liability using WA that he/she does not own.