Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[muriel]

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

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/art...rbon-footprint-flies-12-seat-private-jet.html

If you need further clarification, the full budget is available online.

 

[muriel]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[muriel]

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.

Clarence House announced that William & Harry would have their own separate office at St James's, I am surprised you missed it.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Warren]

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.

 

[Warren]

I've removed nine posts. As the discussion has become personal we will move on from this particular topic.

thanks.
Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[wbenson]

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

 

[Warren]

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?

 

[Skydragon]

Each country is allocated a certain amount by the EU but it is DEFRA who allocates the funds in the UK. It was supposed to help small farmers receive a guaranteed income but it now helps the larger land owners who claim it.

 

[Skydragon]

Ministers and the Queen's most senior officials have been heavily criticised by a committee of MPs for allowing historic buildings on the Royal estate to fall into disrepair

Ministers and Queen's officials blamed for royal estate falling into disrepair - Telegraph

Buckingham Palace should open to the public more often to help plug a £32million black hole in the budget for essential repairs to royal buildings and monuments, say MPs

The Queen's £32m repairs black hole: Open the Palace more to pay bills, say MPs | Mail Online
------------------------------
It certainly seems to be time to stop employing people to employ people to employ people to employ people to allocate where the money they do receive, is spent.

 

[Skydragon]

If business seems brisk at Tetbury’s Close Hotel they’re almost spilling on to the pavement at the Ormond pub.
A prawn salad at the Chef’s Table brasserie might be nice, while cowboy boots and horse couture are galloping out of Overider, a friendly boutique on the corner of Church Street.

Sunday Express | UK News :: The royales who pay their way

 

[love_cc]

Hi.

Does any body have any idea about when the queen's annual account this year will be published?

 

[Skydragon]

It's normally towards the end on June.

 

[branchg]

Only The Prince of Wales has a truly independent income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The Queen still receives Civil List monies for reimbursement of various expenses from Parliament, which is required as part of the precedent of relinquishing the income from the Crown Estate in return for support from Parliament.

The income from the Duchy of Lancaster is used to support other members of the royal family in their duties, again replacing Civil List support that used to be received from Parliament. The Queen's private fortune of various investments is her only truly independent income.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Civil List is the payment for being Head of State.

The Queen's private income is generated from the Duchy of Lancaster and it is from this income that she pays the rest of the family, sets up trust funds for her kids and leaves an inheritance for them as well.

What she leaves Charles will be the Duchy alone to create his own private income as King.

Over nearly 60 years the Queen has been able to develop a large personal income from the income of the Duchy, and whatever else she may have been left by her grandparents and father for instance. These days she mightn't even need the income of the Duchy but is it the basis of her fortune.

 

[branchg]

The Queen has no doubt been able to accumulate a considerable fortune since her accession in 1952 from the Duchy of Lancaster, mostly due to the fact she enjoyed tax-free status for most of her reign. In addition, the Civil List provided monies to other members of the royal family in carrying out their public duties, a practice that has now ended with the exception of The Duke of Edinburgh.

Keep in mind she came to the throne with far less money than most monarchs due to her father unexpectedly becoming King with her uncle's Abdication. George VI had to buy back Balmoral and Sandringham from The Duke in addition to paying him a considerable allowance ever year. Since The King was never Duke of Cornwall, he only had approximately 1 million pounds sterling from George V as his private money.

The Duke proved to be quite greedy in terms of money, having accumulated years of income from the Duchy of Cornwall as the heir in addition to the income from the Duchy of Lancaster for the year he reigned as King. In today's terms, he left Britain with over $30 million in capital in 1936, which was considerably more than his brother possessed.

 

[Warren]

Post discussing the Duchy of Cornwall annual accounts have been moved to the Duchy of Cornwall thread.

 

[Skydragon]

The backlog in repairs at Buckingham Palace and other crumbling buildings on the Royal estate has soared from £32 million to £40 million in 12 months

Queen's repair bill for crumbling palaces soars to £40 million - Telegraph

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 69p per person last year - an increase of 3p, Buckingham Palace accounts have revealed.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090629/tuk-royal-family-cost-the-taxpayer-69p-6323e80.html

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 69p per person last year - an increase of 3p, Buckingham Palace accounts have revealed.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Royal-Accounts-The-Queen-Publishes-A-List-Of-The-Cost-Of-Keeping-The-Royal-Family/Article/200906415322860?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15322860_Royal_Accounts%3A_The_Queen_Publishes_A_List_Of_The_Cost_Of_Keeping_The_Royal_Family

The Queen has been forced to raid her 'savings' in order to sure up her crumbling palaces as the bill for royal travel soars to record levels

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-Family-soars-1-5m-taxpayer-hits-41-5m.html

 

[Ella Kay]

Okay, I'm a little fuzzy on how a lot of the funding for the royal works, so if this is a totally stupid question, I apologize.

Here's how I understand it: the taxpayers fund the Civil List, which in turn funds The Queen and Prince Philip. The Queen doesn't pay any of this money back. However, the funding for other members of the family, staff, and residences comes from a parliamentary annuity, which is then replenished by The Queen through the privy purse funds from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If that's the case, why doesn't The Queen pay back the Civil List funds from the Lancaster money? Is it because these funds are supposed to cover public costs she incurs as Head of State? If so, why are the public costs that someone like, say, Prince Andrew incurs while fulfilling his officialy duties paid back, while The Queen's aren't?

 

[tommy1716]

The Queen recives the following money from the taxpayers in the following ways:
The Civil List - paid by the UK Treasury to meet the Queen's official costs such as staff (about 300 are paid through the civil list), entertaining guests and vistors, office costs etc. Prince Philip is the only otehr member of teh royal to recieve a taxpayer funded allowance.
In addition HM then recives the following Grants in Aid for the stated reasons:
Grant in Aid for Travel - to meet the costs of official travel by air and rail by ALL members of the royal family. It is paid by the Department for Transport.
Grant in Aid for the Occupied Royal Palaces in England, Royal Communcation, and the Upkeep of Malborough House. - paid by the Department of Media,Culture and Sport. It pays for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace, St JAmes' Palace parts of Kensington Palace, Windosr Castle, and Frogmore House, Clarence House, Malborough House Mews, The Queen's gallery, Hampton COurt Mews as well as some buildings in Windsor Great park and Home Park. In addition there is a small allowance here to mee the costs of dealing with the media.

HM then recives the INCOME from the Duchy of Lancaster. HM does not own this but is, as Soverign, entitled to the income generated. This is used to meet other official costs not met by the above allowances as well as some of HM's private costs. HM uses this to reimburse the Treasury the Palimentary Allowances of other Members of teh Royal Family. This is carried out this way as HM recives tax deductions of the reimbursed amounts.

HM then has her own personal income and assets which are entierly seperate from any of the above and are private.

The Prince of Wales uses the INCOME from the Duchy of Cornwall to meet his costs apart from the Travel by Air and Rail which is met from the above mentioned grant in aid as is an alloance for the upkeep of Clarence House. HRH also recives a small allowance for dealinng with media matters.

Therefore most members of the royal family have all but their official travel by air and rail met through either the Duchy of Lancaster of HM's personal funds. Until the early 1990's the Queen's children and cosuins recived their Palimentary Allowances from the treasury, however after public pressure over the costs of the monarchy and HM's personal taxation and other bad press for the Royal Family it awas decide only that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother recived their allowances from the treasury. The costs met by the taxpayers money are those incurred by HM's role as HEad of the British State.

 

[Al_bina]

Queen Elizabeth Almost Broke - The Daily Beast

Any truth in this article?

 

[Skydragon]

Yes, some.
------------------------------------------end of reply to Al bina
tommy1716 Interest from the Duchy helps to bolster HM's private income, after repayments etc. It works in the same way as the Duchy of Cornwall and if you bear in mind how much income that generates......
---------------------------------------------------

The royal family is to demand a pay rise from the taxpayer to fill a looming £40m hole in its finances.The Queen wants an extra £4m a year to pay for repairs and improvements to her homes, including Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and St James's Palace. Courtiers may also request an increase in civil list payments to cover rising costs of running the royal family, which hit £41.5m during the 2008-09 financial year – an increase of £1.5m

Times may be hard, but one needs a £4m pay rise (and it could be more) | UK news | The Guardian

Last week Clarence House indicated that he costs of the visits by the Prince and Duchess of Cornwall to the Far East and South America were just over £500,000 each

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...osts-rise-because-of-the-Prince-of-Wales.html

 

[sgl]

Here's some more info about the royal costs:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/9089-...oucesters-south-pacific-visit-costs-revealed/

 

[BMC]

Fund the repairs- Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle etc are not her personal property [Balmoral & Sandringham are], she merely has life use of those properties. They belong to the UK and it is up to the country to pay for the repairs much like the White House & Capitol belong to us and we have to pay for their upkeep & repair.

As for the Civil List- well apparently it hasn't been increased in almost 10 years. And apparently HM was able to make some savings on what she had received previously & put it in a "rainy day" fund that would pay her bills if they exceeded her Civil List allowance [how many government departments in any country can be said to have done that- darn few I'll wager]and that fund is now being used up rapidly if I understand the articles correctly. So some adjustment is in order.

I have to say the gall of the MPs complaining about the costs is amazing considering how much they've helped themselves to the British public's money. It isn't like HM is asking for money to buy new horses, jewels etc etc. She is asking for more money in order to pay her staff who assist her in the performance of her duty to and on behalf of the UK and the expenses that come with that performance.

As for the timing- well I doubt if there is ever truly a good time for the Queen to request more funding. She's damned if she does in many quarters regardless of whether times are good or bad.

 

[tommy1716]

Palace officials spent £300,000 on Beatrice's student digs | Mail Online

Apparently £300,000 was spent refurbishing the St James' Palace apartment that Bea moved into earlier this year.

 

[Skydragon]

A great deal of money is probably wasted on staff employed to manage staff who manage etc. They could cut costs a great deal if they got quotes from people rather than use the old boy network.


HM didn't save the money, the government realised they had overpaid/allowed HM and the money was then set aside for future use! You say BP, WC etc belong to the nation, they do, so perhaps HM should start to pay rent! Just look at the money wasted on improving an apartment in St James for Beatrice!
------------------------------------------------end of reply

Globetrotting Prince Charles sent the travel bill soaring with the two of the most expensive trips in the history of royal accounts.
A tour on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Far East last autumn cost taxpayers £694,081, including flights for staff. And his visit to South America in March racked up a bill for £698,890.

'Green' Prince Charles, the private jets and a bill for £1.3m | Mail Online

 

[tommy1716]

Well I do think that HM and her staff have cut costs, in the early 1990's the monarchy cost around £90million, now it is down to just over £40million so clearly cuts have been made but I’m sure more could be made. The biggest area to cut seems to be travel, it does amaze me at the difference in the costs for some trip. I mean if you look at the list of trips that cost more that £10,000 Princess Anne and the Earl and Countess of Wessex appear 2 or less times each, indeed one of those trips for Anne was £20,000 on scheduled flights to Australia after the bush fire tragedy. Yet other members appear repeatedly. I think there needs to be a change in attitude by royal staff and some royals themselves. Scheduled flights should become the norm for all but the most senior royals in most cases (i think even the PoW could use more scheduled flights or smaller aircraft) .

At the end of the day though there is only so much you can cut costs before you take away the parts that are special and meaningful about the monarchy. And £40milion isn’t that bad when you think of the costs of other heads of state I'm sure HM is comparable.

 

[BMC]

A great deal of money is probably wasted on staff employed to manage staff who manage etc. They could cut costs a great deal if they got quotes from people rather than use the old boy network.

HM didn't save the money, the government realised they had overpaid/allowed HM and the money was then set aside for future use! You say BP, WC etc belong to the nation, they do, so perhaps HM should start to pay rent! Just look at the money wasted on improving an apartment in St James for Beatrice!
------------------------------------------------end of reply

Maybe the Government did over pay HM. However my point is she didn't waste that money, it was set aside for "future use". And the future is now because that money is being used up.

I agree that staffing is probably the best place to cut- Lord knows payroll is the most expensive cost of any profession.

I don't agree about charging HM rent for occupying those buildings. Her relatives & retired staff are another matter altogether....