Geoff

In New South Wales the heritage legislation distinguishes between movable heritage [building contents, machines etc] and building or works.  When the topic was being first discussed in the early 1980s  the preferred term suggested was portable, on the basis that with a bit of engineering and effort even the Great Pyramid would be movable, but it certainly wasn't portable [thank you John Wade].

The land valuer guy I sit next to here also says that the demarcation line between machinery  considered to be movable / portable or as part of the building, ie a fixed asset, varies slightly according to legal definitions that are not themselves necessarily consistent between different laws, and across different professions like valuation practice, eg. in costing building versus contents, as opposed to how engineers see the same sites.  

Denis

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 
Denis Gojak
Heritage Asset Manager
NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
2-10 Wentworth Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
PO Box 404 Parramatta 2124
Ph:    +61 2 9895 7940
Fax:   +61 2 9895 7946
Email: [log in to unmask]

>>> [log in to unmask] 06/07 6:00 pm >>>
i'm back to translating something which works out to be "moveable and immovable
monuments" - it works OK in french (meuble and immeuble) and as copied into
german (moebel and immobilien) but doesn't really make sense in english -
        how would that be with investments? real estate (or fixed investments?)
vs stuff like cars and computers...
        i think in industry the machines and stuff are sometimes called "plant"
but...
        any ideas?


geoff carver
http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/ 
[log in to unmask]