article_snippet.sent: Britain's leading art gallery has uncovered new evidence in Britain's leading art gallery attempt to keep a £1million Constable masterpiece that was looted by the Nazis from Britain's leading art gallery Jewish owner during the Second World War.
article_snippet.sent: Tate Britain chiefs believe the chance discovery of an export permit will bolster Tate Britain chiefs claim that the 1824 oil painting –
article_snippet.sent: Britain chiefs believe the chance discovery of a 1946 export permit (pictured) will bolster Tate Britain chiefs claim that Constable's painting was legitimately brought to Britain .
article_snippet.sent: The discovery of the permit in the archives of Budapest’s Museum of Fine Arts is the latest twist in an increasingly fraught dispute between the Tate and the descendants of the painting’s original owner, Baron Ferenc Hatvany, who died in 1958.
article_snippet.sent: The descendants of Hatvany – believed to be two daughters and a grandchild – say the Nazis stole the painting and smuggled the painting out of Hungary.
article_snippet.sent: the painting turned up in Britain in 1962 and passed through several hands before being donated to the Tate in 1986.
article_snippet.sent: The Government-backed Spoliation Advisory Panel, which rules on disputes over looted art, supported the heirs last year and said the Tate the Tate had a ‘moral obligation’ to return the painting.
article_snippet.sent: Sources close to the case say the export permit could prove the the Tate’s claim that Hatvany voluntarily disposed of the painting while he was still alive.
article_snippet.sent: the Tate does not dispute that the painting was looted by the Nazis but the gallery
article_snippet.sent: ’s understanding is that the Tate was returned to the owner after the war and then legitimately exported.
article_snippet.sent: One source said: ‘If you had stolen the painting, you would still need to get an export permit to get the painting out of the country.
article_snippet.sent: A source at the Tate explained that there was legal duty to protect any assets owned by the British public, which is why the gallery argued that the painting should remain in the UK.
article_snippet.sent: the gallery said: ‘No one disputes that the picture was at one stage looted by the Nazis, what is in dispute is what happened after the picture was returned to the picture owner.
highlights_snippet.sent: Tate and descendants of painting's original owner are locked in dispute .