IHT and the royals
Discussion
They were talking about the ginger whinger and his wife on the radio this morning, and mentioned that their cottage is actually owned by Her Majesty.
Got me thinking - what happens when she pops her clogs? Does Charlie get hit with an IHT bill to end all IHT bills? Or are they somehow exempt?
Got me thinking - what happens when she pops her clogs? Does Charlie get hit with an IHT bill to end all IHT bills? Or are they somehow exempt?
davek_964 said:
They were talking about the ginger whinger and his wife on the radio this morning, and mentioned that their cottage is actually owned by Her Majesty.
Got me thinking - what happens when she pops her clogs? Does Charlie get hit with an IHT bill to end all IHT bills? Or are they somehow exempt?
I'm pretty certain that bequests from one sovereign to the next are IHT exempt. Whether Charles chooses voluntarily to make an IHT contribution would be another matter.Got me thinking - what happens when she pops her clogs? Does Charlie get hit with an IHT bill to end all IHT bills? Or are they somehow exempt?
Don't forget that the Queen's personal wealth is estimated to be 'only' £300m, mainly comprising the Balmoral and Sandringham estates and a personal art collection
If you can find a way to somehow say that you don't own it (through a trust or by calling it the 'crown's rather than your own) you can pretend that it's not 'yours' (even though you may have exclusive use of it) and therefore because you don't 'own' it you don't have an IHT liability as it's not part of your assets when you die.
In the case of the Queen there's some truth because, for example, while she has (almost) exclusive use of Buckingham Palace, she can't sell it. It belongs to the country (not that you and I can use it although we may be able to visit it for a fee).
But the Duke of Westminster avoided IHT by having some large and expensive parts of London (Mayfair) heldin a trust. Should be a law against it.
In the case of the Queen there's some truth because, for example, while she has (almost) exclusive use of Buckingham Palace, she can't sell it. It belongs to the country (not that you and I can use it although we may be able to visit it for a fee).
But the Duke of Westminster avoided IHT by having some large and expensive parts of London (Mayfair) heldin a trust. Should be a law against it.
I honestly don't blame them for wanting to walk away from the circus they have top perform in. They live in a cage where their entire day (and life until they die) is arranged for them. Admittedly, its a rather nice gilded cage, but they don't have the same freedoms as the rest of us.
jaja4421 said:
If you can find a way to somehow say that you don't own it (through a trust or by calling it the 'crown's rather than your own) you can pretend that it's not 'yours' (even though you may have exclusive use of it) and therefore because you don't 'own' it you don't have an IHT liability as it's not part of your assets when you die.
In the case of the Queen there's some truth because, for example, while she has (almost) exclusive use of Buckingham Palace, she can't sell it. It belongs to the country (not that you and I can use it although we may be able to visit it for a fee).
But the Duke of Westminster avoided IHT by having some large and expensive parts of London (Mayfair) heldin a trust. Should be a law against it.
You are confusing the personal assets of an individual and those of a corporate entity - or series thereofIn the case of the Queen there's some truth because, for example, while she has (almost) exclusive use of Buckingham Palace, she can't sell it. It belongs to the country (not that you and I can use it although we may be able to visit it for a fee).
But the Duke of Westminster avoided IHT by having some large and expensive parts of London (Mayfair) heldin a trust. Should be a law against it.
ClaphamGT3 said:
You are confusing the personal assets of an individual and those of a corporate entity - or series thereof
Not sure the Crown is a corporate entity...With regards 'nobility' see https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/03/i...
"The heirs of the late sixth Duke of Westminster paid no inheritance tax on the bulk of his £8.3bn family fortune following his death in 2016. Probate records show that Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, who died aged 64 in August 2016, left a personal estate of £616,418,184 after payment of debts and liabilities.
The rest of his wealth had already been transferred to family trusts which largely passed on to his son Hugh, 28, without incurring inheritance tax. His son also inherited the title, becoming the seventh Duke of Westminster and the world’s 108th richest person with a £9.2bn fortune, according to estimates by Bloomberg Billionaires"
davek_964 said:
They were talking about the ginger whinger and his wife on the radio this morning, and mentioned that their cottage is actually owned by Her Majesty.
Got me thinking - what happens when she pops her clogs? Does Charlie get hit with an IHT bill to end all IHT bills? Or are they somehow exempt?
What do you think the HM in HMRC stands for? Got me thinking - what happens when she pops her clogs? Does Charlie get hit with an IHT bill to end all IHT bills? Or are they somehow exempt?
Hol said:
I honestly don't blame them for wanting to walk away from the circus they have top perform in. They live in a cage where their entire day (and life until they die) is arranged for them. Admittedly, its a rather nice gilded cage, but they don't have the same freedoms as the rest of us.
That’s fine, but try then can’t enjoy the benefits.As mentioned already, they can’t have their cake and eat it.
IJWS15 said:
A lot of what people think the queen owns are not actually owned by her but by the crown.
The young duke of Westminster has most of the dosh, about 10 bill expect the 'the ginger whinger' to get a book deal in the 50-100 mill range, currently i believe he is unable to earn any none family sourced money or civil list
Edited by Dave Hedgehog on Friday 10th January 10:28
Exige77 said:
Hol said:
I honestly don't blame them for wanting to walk away from the circus they have top perform in. They live in a cage where their entire day (and life until they die) is arranged for them. Admittedly, its a rather nice gilded cage, but they don't have the same freedoms as the rest of us.
That’s fine, but try then can’t enjoy the benefits.As mentioned already, they can’t have their cake and eat it.
irocfan said:
TBH I suspect that this puts people in an awkward spot. As the brother to the future KoE (estranged or not) he be, one might imagine, a very desirable target for all manner of scumbags. On this basis alone I'd be happy for him to continue to get his royal protection detail
I take it you assume Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland will become independent when the Queen dies? (P.S. - Her title is NOT the Queen of England - never has been).Jasandjules said:
davek_964 said:
Does Charlie get hit with an IHT bill to end all IHT bills? Or are they somehow exempt?
Rich inbreds do not pay IHT. One dodged a few billion IHT a couple of years ago..."Don't worry son, they'll let you know."
Hol said:
I honestly don't blame them for wanting to walk away from the circus they have top perform in. They live in a cage where their entire day (and life until they die) is arranged for them. Admittedly, its a rather nice gilded cage, but they don't have the same freedoms as the rest of us.
Terrible is it not?HE had no choice but indulges in endless whingeing.
SHE intentionally set out to snare any male that was rich naïve & blinkered. Then it was simply a case of dropping a kid asap (just one does the trick) & bingo a life of leisure is assured. Masses of monetary support (for the kid of course which will have 'special needs' as per the current fashion) & the poor rich bloke can naff off.
Exige77 said:
That’s fine, but try then can’t enjoy the benefits.
As mentioned already, they can’t have their cake and eat it.
I agree, but also I believe it is a question of good manners/etiquette not to have at least discussed it with his Father/HM and the statement should have come from the palace, he is showing the same petulance of his mother and is certainly being led by the nose by his wife who has just discovered that being a "Royal" is not what she had perceived; she should take a leaf out of Catherines book.As mentioned already, they can’t have their cake and eat it.
Inheritance tax isn't meant to bag the rich. It's there for the middle classes.
A friend's daughter was at university and wanted to study a particular painting. It was held in trust for the country by some rich bod who would allow the peasantry to view it once a year or so. She put in an application and was told that it would be ages before she got a look in. She saw her lecturer who told her that the painting had been sold. She pointed out that it couldn't have been as inheritance tax had been saved by keeping it, and other works of art, available for the enjoyment and education of the hoi poloi.
The problem is that no one cares. 'They' know what's going on with the ultra rich, but don't bother to enforce the requirements. If you grans house is £48 over the limit though, prepare to be boarded.
I'm no lefty, I mean, apart from on PH of course, but my feeling is wills should be advisory. The dead should not control the living in any way. If gran didn't give her money and assets away when she was alive, then tough. If you're dead, then get out of the lives of others.
I've left it up to my kids to decide who gets what when I shuffle off this mortal coil.
A friend's daughter was at university and wanted to study a particular painting. It was held in trust for the country by some rich bod who would allow the peasantry to view it once a year or so. She put in an application and was told that it would be ages before she got a look in. She saw her lecturer who told her that the painting had been sold. She pointed out that it couldn't have been as inheritance tax had been saved by keeping it, and other works of art, available for the enjoyment and education of the hoi poloi.
The problem is that no one cares. 'They' know what's going on with the ultra rich, but don't bother to enforce the requirements. If you grans house is £48 over the limit though, prepare to be boarded.
I'm no lefty, I mean, apart from on PH of course, but my feeling is wills should be advisory. The dead should not control the living in any way. If gran didn't give her money and assets away when she was alive, then tough. If you're dead, then get out of the lives of others.
I've left it up to my kids to decide who gets what when I shuffle off this mortal coil.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff