Tax Avoidance - By Royal Appointment?

[LazyGun]

So it would seem that the Revenue are looking into the tax arrangements of the Duchy of Cornwall - Anyone else see the irony in Prince Charles being investigated by Her Majesties Revenue and Customs? :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/14/prince-charles-estate-tax-avoidance

[Zacs-Master]

Prince Charles isn't being investigated. The duchy of Cornwall is. The article states:
The duchy insists it "is not subject to corporation tax as it is not a separate legal entity for tax purposes". But John Angel, principal judge at the information rights tribunal, ruled last December it was a separate legal body to the prince.

[LazyGun]

I know - it is an interesting decision.

Still, the Duchy of Cornwall is a crown entity, and its profits funf Prince Charles personal wealth. Thats what such crown entities were set up for, no?

Now Charles has agreed to subject himself to paying income tax which is all well and good, but as it currently stands, the Duchy of Cornwall is exempted from paying corporation tax, at least until now, by virtue of being a crown entity. The question is , should it be exempt?

[Zacs-Master]

No. Just another example of one rule for them and another for us.

[ZedBloke]

Yes I imagine it gives the anti royalists a huge thrill!

[pdq1]

You can bet he's blaming his accountant.

[jno]

of course he'll be blaming his accountant. This is the sort of thing accountants are hired to do, and they're supposed to do it properly.

In fact, it most likely was done properly according to best practice at the time. It's only now that a tribunal has ruled that the practice is wrong. And it still sounds, from the quotes in the article linked to, as if nobody's quite sure what it all means.

[FredPuli43]

It's bit harsh to call it tax avoidance. Nobody is suggesting that the Duchy and its businesses were set up to avoid corporation tax. That would be like saying that a farm or a trading business was set up to avoid inheritance tax (both are exempt, having 100 per cent relief). But the Revenue has a habit of suddenly making a rule, whereby the tax is claimable: an example is with farms and farmhouses. They suddenly decided that relief wasn't claimable unless the deceased was actively farming the farm himself rather than delegating it. So my 93 year-old mother was supposed to be on a tractor rather than employing contractors. That's what they do; they reinterpret and what seemed accepted is suddenly not. (We got relief, but only after great expense on a QC and other experts)