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.YOU POINT out that public access to works of art that are conditionally exempt from inheritance tax is dependent on the "By Appointment" system, and that this has been abused by some owners of works of art. You then suggest that the Chancellor is quite right to amend the law now in order to require owners to provide open access at fixed and advertised times.
We have no quarrel with the open-access proposals as outlined in last year's Budget for future agreements. Owners will know the requirements and will be able to decide whether they wish to opt for conditional exemption and house-opening, or whether they would rather pay the tax and not open their houses to the public.
We do, however, take issue with the retrospective nature of this legislation. Prior to last year's Budget, owners could opt for conditional exemption and agree, with the Inland Revenue, to access by appointment. If they had known that the terms of access were to be varied, many of them would perhaps not have entered the scheme in the first place. There may well be a few owners who have not complied with the spirit of the "By Appointment" legislation, but surely the correct course would have been to make that legislation work.
There is no doubt that many of those affected will do their best to open for the required 25 days. For others, there are logistical and security difficulties that, with the best will in the world, will preclude them from complying with the access proposals except by prior appointment.
It is not crying "wolf" to suggest that inevitably some works of art will be put on the market and possibly go abroad. Neither is it intended to be blackmail to suggest this is the case.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments