Hugh Grosvenor got a whopping £4 BILLION tax break from the British taxpayer when he became Duke of Westminster - what for?

[TallerSally]

Yeah.

£4bn that could have been invested into public services in the UK. £4bn that hard-working tax-payers are having to make up for.

The usual feeble protests about this inheritance tax (IHT) break being the law or tradition just won't cut it - laws and traditions that aren't in the public general interest and just exist to uphold the privileges of a small (and in this case unarguably underserving) minority can and should be changed.

Because, what exactly has Hugh £10bn fortune Grosvenor done for the British public to deserve a £4bn IHT break?

And so pathetic to see the media skirt around the issue, as they fawn over his wedding today and try to faff about irrelevant peripheral pseudo-dramas instead.

£4bn, folks!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/06/07/duke-of-westminster-olivia-henson-wedding-latest-news/

He’s contributing a ton more than you, nevertheless.

Why is this on the Royal Family board? the Duke of Westminster isn't a royal.

Because someone is upset that William is getting more virtual sausages today than the spare.

If farmers and landowners paid IHT on their land it would end family farming in the country.

Owning land is a low income asset, it takes investment and stewardship to look after it.

This is a naive post with poor understanding of farming and land ownership.

I sound like one of these out of touch High Court Judges - what is "S&B" pray !

Style and Beauty 😊

This is very interesting to me as many Americans are setting up trusts for their children and grandchildren. It is being encouraged by estate planners. I may set one up myself.

Several years ago, I read Deborah Mitford's autobiography. When her father-in-law died, they were hit with enormous taxes since he had done no estate planning. They donated an estate to the National Trust and paintings to museums to pay the inheritance taxes ( I'm remembering 80% but I could be wrong). They then set up a trust.

I've read her books about Chatsworth and followed the estate over the years. Not only does Chatsworth employ an enormous amount of people but it also was environmentally friendly long before it became popular. Deborah's son, the current Duke, is a supporter of independent bookstore Heywood Hill. They are hiring local people and the money is staying in the UK. Visits to the estate seem to give people an enormous amount of pleasure. It is better than turning the land into housing developments.

The UK is losing its green spaces. The great estates are unofficial wildlife refuges if properly managed. The new Duchess is apparently very ecoconscious and it will be interesting to see what she does. The wedding has brought a big economic boost to Cheshire. The fact that the bride and groom are paying for all the annul flowers in the summer planting of their local city shows that they support pollinators.

Thanks for the heads up. But that makes it worse then, appearing that Royalistas are more engaged with the cut and thrust of the soap opera rather than cementing them into the national foundations of our consciousness post the marvel that was QE2. Interesting !

They've also provided a nice financial boost and free advertising to three small local businesses (The ice cream shops).

On that subject we had a family meet up for my brother's 60th birthday and we stayed in a cottage owned by the next door which was a palatial house with views over the river, near Bakewell that one of the Duke's bought for one of his mistresses. Like thoroughbred horses, having a stable of women came with the territory.

... and yours sounds even more naive in the absence of a breakdown of where Hugh's £10bn comes from.

You and a few others are assuming most of the value comes from farming land.

Last I checked, assets and land in Mayfair and Westminster were a sizeable part of Hughie's £10bn fortune.

Again, nice try attempting to justify the status quo. It isn't working.

Well I think the problem may have been that the negative thread may have beaten everyone to it. And I don’t think it’s really necessary to point out that the Royals have been doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing with regard to the D Day commemorations. They are already in our national consciousness as you put it 😊

Last year, I read Isabella Tree's two books about rewilding. She inspired me to read Oliver Rackham. I've also read Roger Deakin.

I have thought for a long time that if Harry were really into wildlife conservation, he could have started small on his own estate ( rewilding, beaver reintroduction, etc) and eventually taken over Highgrove.

He has loads of opportunities to help California wildlife. He even lives near a bird sanctuary. He talks a good game but is apparently all talk.

Pretty misleading. You're viewing it like it's his big pile of cash to do whatever he pleases with. It's not. It's more like a business - a big, multi-faceted one. That employs many, many people, invests in projects and pays lots of tax. A trust structure is still subject to taxation.

I sound like one of these out of touch High Court Judges - what is "S&B" pray !

You sound like someone who doesn't understand legal procedures.

A case must be decided on the evidence presented in court and nothing else. If something or someone is mentioned in evidence that is a bit niche or obscure or a popular culture reference that some people might not get, the judge must be sure that everyone on the jury has understood - especially now that there may be jury members who did not grow up in the UK and may not be aware of all UK cultural references.

And the jury must have these things defined as part of the evidence given in court, so they all hear the same thing, not something they discover by Googling or asking their mate down the pub. And the judge must always err on the side of caution, even if it leads to digs about 'out of touch judges'.

Hence questions such as 'who are the Beatles?' or 'who is Gazza?'

The Duchy of Cornwall is also like a corporation. William will have had to learn about his holdings and how to move money to pay for his projects, like housing.

ThexDukecof Westminster actually went to school for land management so that he would be knowledgeable about that part of his fortune.

Also, Grosvenor has invested in projects such as the regeneration of Liverpool - during the economic downturn when many other property companies were scaling back - and can focus on reinvesting profit (unlike some other types of property businesses that have to strip out profits to investors, including non-UK tax residents).
But this is all publicly stated on their website which sets out the IHT position very clearly.

Just look up Liverpool ONE. This is how a modern estate is successfully used.
https://www.grosvenor.com/news-insights/grosvenor-reveals-liverpool-one-s-transformative-impact-over-the-last-15-years

Didn’t realise he was a member of the Royal Family ??

He's not a bad man though - donated £10 million to Covid relief, his estate provides a lot of food, employs loads of people and is working towards a sustainable future in agriculture. He could be a lot worse.

He has also provided free ice cream for anyone in Chester today for his wedding.

With his money he doesn't have to do any of this.

IHT will more than likely have been paid on those properties. Generally rental properties are seen as investments and won’t qualify for BPR.

An offshore account is not a tax loophole. Taxpayers resident in the uk are due to pay tax on their global income regardless of whether or not their income is paid to or from an offshore account. Equally being paid “through a company” (I assume you mean a personal service company) is not a way to avoid tax. These are both just myths

Bet the lucky sod gets to benefit from the trust though!

This isn't a tax loophole available only to the rich. It's just tax planning. Anyone can set up a trust and then those assets would be subject to the same IHT regime as the Duke's trust.

If you want to be pedantic about it, inflation erodes the value of money over time. The fact the trust is liable to pay IHT every 10 years at up to 6%, on the market value of the trust at each 10 year anniversary, the government will actually get more in its coffers than if it was charged on a lump sum in the beginning. If distributions are made from the trust, the same up to 6% IHT rule applies.

Assuming the trust is set up for a standard 80 years (I have seen others up to 125 years) then realistically, the government is getting up to 48% IHT, which also tracks the market value of the trust assets so if his wealth increases, so does the amount going to the government coffers.

This is not a tax loophole. If your granny wanted to put her assets in trust too, getting the same IHT break, she's more than welcome to.

Indeed. But many don't really understand this and choose to ignore basic facts.