The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 04-23-2009, 09:34 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427

What the fine print says is this:

"Official expenditure incurred by their Royal Highnesses Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales in the course of their official duties and met by His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales' income from the Duchy of Cornwall, or by Her Majesty the Queen from the Privy Purse, may be deducted in arriving at the amount of income which is charged to income tax."
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 04-23-2009, 07:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
Can I just clarify one point?

Here in Australia if a business employs people, rents/leases space to carry out the work etc it is a tax deduction.

Is that the same in the UK?

If so then why shouldn't the Duchy of Cornwall claim the expenses involved in employing some people to work for them?

I don't understand.

I know that many British people object to spending any money on the royal family and would like the monarch to fund themselves but still work for the country and I understand that some will see this as Charles claiming something more than is allowed but what I am trying to do is simply establish whether or not another business in Britain is able to claim the expenses associated with running that business as a tax deduction as happens here.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 04-24-2009, 03:25 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,285
Completely valid point. It is much the same in the UK - reasonable expenses incurred in the pursuit of the "business" are tax deductable, subject to some checks and balances.

My sense is that here this was more a point of clarification than actually a change in the position. As the boys are not the Prince of Wales, and in effect, not directly eligible to use the income from the Duchy of Cornwall (which is for the use of the Prince of Wales), I suspect this clarification from the Treasury would have been required. If somebody knows more, I would love to hear about it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 04-24-2009, 04:33 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Here in Australia if a business employs people, rents/leases space to carry out the work etc it is a tax deduction.

Is that the same in the UK?.
Similar, but there are strict rules governing what can and can't normally be claimed, which is why it is seen as a concession for Charles.

Allowable Expenses and Deductions - The Tax Guide (UK)

"In most instances, expenditure can be counted as allowable expenses if it was required solely in order to acquire income"; clearly not the case here.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 04-24-2009, 05:30 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Similar, but there are strict rules governing what can and can't normally be claimed, which is why it is seen as a concession for Charles.

Allowable Expenses and Deductions - The Tax Guide (UK)

"In most instances, expenditure can be counted as allowable expenses if it was required solely in order to acquire income"; clearly not the case here.
.... though the Tax Guide probably does not apply to the case of Royal Finances as they are subject to specific rules agreed with the Treasury.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 04-24-2009, 05:44 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
I remember reading once (sorry can´t remember where) that the biggest concession is that it was the Queen who volunteered to pay tax and fixed the percentage to be paid, if this is untrue please correct me.
IMO not many people in the world can tell the tax authorities how much they are willing to pay. Not that I am grudging her, I would do the same if possible.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 04-24-2009, 06:19 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
I remember reading once (sorry can´t remember where) that the biggest concession is that it was the Queen who volunteered to pay tax and fixed the percentage to be paid, if this is untrue please correct me.
IMO not many people in the world can tell the tax authorities how much they are willing to pay. Not that I am grudging her, I would do the same if possible.
I know that Charles voluntarily paid 50% of his income in tax until he married Diana and then it was reduced to 33%.

The Queen started paying tax voluntarily in 1992, partly I believe at the suggestion of Charles. As to how much she pays I have no idea.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 04-24-2009, 06:33 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
.... though the Tax Guide probably does not apply to the case of Royal Finances as they are subject to specific rules agreed with the Treasury.
Which is exactly the point, special 'rules', that are not permissible for ordinary businesses or taxpayers, have been applied for Charles and in these times of recession, it can only damage the monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 04-24-2009, 08:03 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Which is exactly the point, special 'rules', that are not permissible for ordinary businesses or taxpayers, have been applied for Charles and in these times of recession, it can only damage the monarchy.
Based on what has been disclosed, there is nothing new in the "special" rules, other than this slight clarification. We are going over old ground here, but if you take away the "special" rules, HM and the PoW would be paying no tax at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 04-24-2009, 12:58 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
perhaps you didn't have time to read the article -
Quote:
In a little-noticed supplementary document to the Budget, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, announced that the taxpayer would pick up the cost of running an office recently created to support Princes William and Harry. The future King, who funds a six-strong team for his sons out of his £16 million-a-year income from the Duchy of Cornwall, will now be able to deduct their salaries from his annual tax return
So, not clarification.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 04-24-2009, 02:33 PM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
perhaps you didn't have time to read the article -
So, not clarification.
The future King, who funds a six-strong team for his sons out of his £16 million-a-year income from the Duchy of Cornwall, will now be able to deduct their salaries from his annual tax return.

The article was badly written and misleading, with the first sentence suggesting the cost of the office would be bourn by the government, and only the second one clarifying that the expenses relating to the office would be tax deductible - clearly two quite different things. This may explain perhaps why you may have missed the point.

The work and costs relating to the Princes were previously paid for by the Duchy of Cornwall, as it is now - except it was not separately highlighted - so the costs were previously deducted as well. My sense is that the only real difference is that now it has been established as a separate office (and the costs are probably higher), so perhaps, the clarification was necessary.

If you have more information from reliable sources that could shed further light on the matter, I would welcome it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 04-24-2009, 05:16 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
No, I don't think the headline or story were misleading, they are both clear and to the point, although some might misinterpret the article. The supplementary document to the budget now allows for the running of W & H office as being tax deductible from the Duchy's tax return. This is not normal practice. Normally the only deductions must be for expenses incurred for the company or in this case The Duchy.

What you are suggesting would be for Bauger to be able to claim tax relief on expenses incurred by Iceland, Hamleys, House of Fraser or Goldsmiths (to name but a few), or indeed for me to claim tax relief for salaries paid to my daughters staff.

Although the cost of the separate office was met by the Duchy, they were unable to claim tax relief on it, until now.
Quote:
Fury over Royal tax break - Alistair Darling has been criticised for giving Prince Charles a tax break in the Budget. The move means the taxpayer will now cover a significant proportion of the costs of official duties carried out by Prince William and Prince Harry. At present, Charles employs a six-strong team of aides for his sons out of his £16million-a-year income. He will now be able to deduct their salaries from his annual tax return, saving him hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Labour MP Ian Davidson said: 'At a time of great economic difficulty, one of the richest men in the kingdom is being given a special deal. I am surprised that the Chancellor chose to do it.'
It is at the bottom of the page.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ivate-jet.html

If you need further clarification, the full budget is available online.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 04-27-2009, 08:55 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The supplementary document to the budget now allows for the running of W & H office as being tax deductible from the Duchy's tax return. This is not normal practice. Normally the only deductions must be for expenses incurred for the company or in this case The Duchy.

What you are suggesting would be for Bauger to be able to claim tax relief on expenses incurred by Iceland, Hamleys, House of Fraser or Goldsmiths (to name but a few), or indeed for me to claim tax relief for salaries paid to my daughters staff.
The Duchy is not a company, and is not governed by the Companies Act. The "business" of royalty is not and cannot be compared to that of Baugur, or any other investment company. By its very nature, it is unique in its purpose and function, and by extension, its tax arrangements with the Treasury.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Normally the only deductions must be for expenses incurred for the company or in this case The Duchy
The costs associated with the royal duties of Princes W & H were and continue to be met by the Duchy - so in effect, in line with your statement above. Whilst as an illustration of the principle the example of allowable expenses can be used to demonstrate the point, it is not exactly the same, as I am sure you understand.

The only difference from previous years is that the team supporting the Princes has recently been beefed up in view of their increasing public orofiles, and it is referred to as the office of the Princes W & H as opposed to Clarence House or whatever the office of the PoW is called. I am not sure how this can affect the tax treatment of these costs - it is merely renaming or rebranding in my mind, little else.

Coming back to your example of Baugur, if any of Iceland, Hamley's, House of Fraser or Goldsmiths had been 100% subsidiaries of Baugur, the story would have been different - they never were. Baugur may have been lead shareholder, but Baugur did not own 100% of the equity in any of these companies, and I am sure you are aware of the difference in tax treatment of subsidiaries and affiliated companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Although the cost of the separate office was met by the Duchy, they were unable to claim tax relief on it, until now.
It is at the bottom of the page.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173588/Green-initiative-Charles-cost-80-000-leave-53-ton-carbon-footprint-flies-12-seat-private-jet.html

If you need further clarification, the full budget is available online.
It is my understanding that the costs of the office were always tax deductible, but were never separately shown as the boys were "run" from the office of the PoW.

If you have any credible and reliable information other than an extract from the Daily Mail to substantiate a view of the facts that is different from what I have surmised, I would welcome it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 04-27-2009, 10:29 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The only difference from previous years is that the team supporting the Princes has recently been beefed up in view of their increasing public orofiles, and it is referred to as the office of the Princes W & H as opposed to Clarence House or whatever the office of the PoW is called. I am not sure how this can affect the tax treatment of these costs - it is merely renaming or rebranding in my mind, little else.
Clarence House announced that William & Harry would have their own separate office at St James's, I am surprised you missed it.
Quote:
Coming back to your example of Baugur, if any of Iceland, Hamley's, House of Fraser or Goldsmiths had been 100% subsidiaries of Baugur, the story would have been different - they never were.
No, it wouldn't, a company cannot claim allowances set against another company, whether it partially or completely owns it and it operates under another name or not. These facts I know from my own dealings with HMR&C over a number of years and to date.
Quote:
It is my understanding that the costs of the office were always tax deductible, but were never separately shown as the boys were "run" from the office of the PoW.
Then your understanding is skewed, the moment a separate office opened and costs were incurred by people employed by W & H, their costs were no longer deductible from Charles tax account. This is why a new ruling was introduced
Quote:
If you have any credible and reliable information other than an extract from the Daily Mail to substantiate a view of the facts I would welcome it.
As I have already suggested to you, look at the wording of the ministerial note, (which I admit I took to be within the budget). I think it might be considered 'credible and reliable', more so than your current 'understanding'.

The fact remains, it is a new tax concession made to Charles that is not available to other non royal trusts, companies or employers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 04-28-2009, 04:48 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The fact remains, it is a new tax concession made to Charles that is not available to other non royal trusts, companies or employers.
The key point here is that the Duchy of Cornwall is not either a "non royal trust" or a company. The tax arrangements for the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall have always been separate from those of "normal" trusts, so applying normal tax law is complete incongrous with their status.

I suspect the larger point you are trying to get to is that you would probably like HM and the PoW to be taxed as normal individuals - but that, IMO, is a separate debate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Clarence House announced that William & Harry would have their own separate office at St James's, I am surprised you missed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
the moment a separate office opened and costs were incurred by people employed by W & H, their costs were no longer deductible from Charles tax account.
No, I did not miss the fact that W & H now have their own offices. But what these offices do and how they are funded is not any different from previously. Clearly, as the public profiles of the princes grows, the staff required to support them grows, but in effect they are still "run" the same way as they were previously. Separating the offices are merely a PR exercise, in my mind, and that ought to have no bearing on the tax implications for the Duchy. After all, the "Office of Princes William & Harry" is not a company.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
the moment a separate office opened and costs were incurred by people employed by W & H, their costs were no longer deductible from Charles tax account.
On what basis did you work that up? Is there a set of tax statutes relating to the taxation of the Duchy of Cornwall in the public domain that set out clearly what is and is not deductible, for the purposes of computing the tax liability of the Duchy?

If it was felt this was an issue by the Treasury, CH could very simply have continues to employ the staff of W&H (which they may still do, we do not really know who their emloyment contracts are with), and the staff could then be seconded to W&H.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
a company cannot claim allowances set against another company, whether it partially or completely owns it and it operates under another name or not.
Where did the name of a subsidiary come into the picture? Not that any of this has anything to do with the point being discussed, are you suggesting that the tax treatment of 100% subsidiaries is the same as that of an affiliate or associate company? Are you suggesting the tax treatment of a normal company and its subsidiary is the same as that of an investment company (like Baugur) and its investee companies, the vast majority of which were minority investments?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 04-28-2009, 05:05 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
We're discussing the Duchy of Cornwall here, not companies or subsidiary companies.
We should keep to the topic rather than be distracted by red herrings.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 04-29-2009, 06:18 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
I've removed nine posts. As the discussion has become personal we will move on from this particular topic.

thanks.
Warren
British Forums moderator
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 04-30-2009, 09:44 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,248
Queen Elizabeth received 500,000 euros in EU farm subsidies

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II received more than 500,000 euros in European agricultural subsidies in 2008, according to figures released Thursday by the department of rural affairs (Defra).

The monarch -- who is Britain's 214th richest person with 270 million pounds according to the Sunday Times Rich List -- received 473,583.31 pounds (about 700,000 dollars, 530,000 euros) for her farm at Sandringham.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 05-01-2009, 04:30 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Everyone is entitled to claim these subsidies. It is about time the criteria was changed to ensure the money goes to the farmers who need it the most.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 05-01-2009, 05:49 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
I've no idea how these agricultural subsidies work but the Sandringham Farm must be a much larger enterprise than we may have thought to warrant the amount it has been given.
Are agricultural subsidies EU-based or entirely determined by national governments?
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, civil list, finances


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 69 12-04-2014 08:44 PM
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 111 10-12-2014 05:39 PM
Royals and Wealth, Costs and Finances kcc Royal Life and Lifestyle 384 09-28-2012 02:27 AM
Wealth of The German Royal/Princely Houses kcc Royal Families of Germany and Austria 12 12-30-2007 04:35 AM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]