Property developments on Duchy of Cornwall land

[BoxingHare]

Outline planning permission has been given for 620 new homes to the south of Shepton Mallet, Somerset. This land is on Duchy land and the development is an enterprise between the Duchy and the developers. This and other developments will net the Duke of Cornwall considerable profit.

In 1760, when the monarch was allowed to hold onto management of the two Duchies they were near worthless. This has changed massively, and now the Duchy of Cornwall bankrolls William to the tune of over £20m a year.

The situation with the Duchy has been ambiguous to say the least. On the one hand it's run as a private enterprise, and profits go directly to whoever is PoW at the time. It describes itself as a private estate, and our government goes along with this. Although in the past (most recently the 1930s), the government has taken profits for State use, as it does actually belong to the State, and all profits could go to the State if it pressed for this.

William seems to be going hard on the maximisation of profits for himself and his family, and he's doing it with assets that don't belong to him. He's running the Duchy and taking everything for himself. Imagine of that instead went back into the public coffers.

I think it's time William was paid a salary for his management of the Duchy, but all profits need to return to the State and he can apply for another allowance if he likes. Considering the Crown Estates profits have meant that the Royal Family receive far in excess of what they used to, that application should be refused.

This is another recent application for 100 homes near Hardy's Max Gate that's been approved.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c629656k9z3o

This is a development in Faversham, Kent of 2500 homes.

I'm not commenting on the good or bad of housing developments, but all the profits from these need to go to the State, not the man who's managing the Duchy on behalf of the State!

https://sefaversham.co.uk/our-vision

Chronic housing shortage

Seems eminently sensible to me

and I don’t give a hoot about who makes money from it because 690 families will be housed

I'd rather the State made money from it, and used it on public expenditure. Not the person managing it on the State's behalf.

People would be a little bit better off, if the State could utilise this money.

More likely it would be spent on a vanity project like HS2, with millions wasted and nothing to show for it.

The Duchy, via William pays higher rate income tax on all profits so a significant proportion of the benefit of this will go to the state.

Also, I don't know about the other areas, but Shepton Mallet is a town really in need of investment so this will be a positive thing there.

The Duchy, via William pays higher rate income tax on all profits so a significant proportion of the benefit of this will go to the state.

We don't know that.

We do.

The Duchy of Cornwall annual accounts (a legal document) state that 'His Royal Highness pays income tax at the prevailing rates in respect of the net revenue surplus of the Duchy'.

Tell me how he would choose not to disclose this like his father has for very many years then?
I would have far more respect for him if he did

I don't know why he's decided not to give the details.

I've shown before the legal documents (Duchy of Cornwall accounts, and Memorandum regarding Royal Taxation) that say he does pay tax on the same grounds as his father did.

I've also pointed out the legal situation in the UK, which is that tax is a personal matter between the individual and HMRC (unlike some other countries).

Some people think it would be better PR if he disclosed the figure. Others think he's entitled to the same privacy in the matter as anyone else.

I could get on board with that if the same tax rules applied to him as to everyone in the UK. He is not like 'everyone else'. Far from it.
That is not the case. Especially on the Duchies. No Capital Gains Tax. No Corporation Tax.
They have recently sold a piece of land for a multi million pound profit. No CGT. It is wrong, very wrong.

So be transparent!

Remembering, of course, that the PoW has no access to capital benefit - he gets revenue only (which is what he pays tax on). Any profit from capital sales goes back into the Duchy.

Also, that the Treasury has to approve any property sales over £500k.

I know all that

But the Duchies having the tax advantages over any other property company gives them huge huge advantages

Every Government has a lot to answer for, allowing this ridiculous situation

I was glad to read 35% of the Dorchester development will be affordable housing.

Plus, of course, the remaining houses will ease demand and therefore help make housing in the area more affordable in general.

I am also glad the LA where I live is building Council housing again - i hope there is a way of avoiding 'right to buy' enabling private individuals to asset strip from tax payers.

Just no.

This is the sort of half truth that royal PR uses extensively .
The statement says Charles and William pay tax at the prevailing rate.
What they won’t confirm is ‘pays tax on what exactly ?’ Both William and Charles decide for themselves what they will deign to pay tax on and these accounts are then presented .

Charles was found to be putting Camilla’s household expenses ( before they married) through at one point , his polo ponies etc -goodness knows what has not been uncovered

The National Audit office has asked repeatedly to be allowed to properly examine Duchy accounts and has repeatedly been refused.

Perhaps you weren’t aware of this important detail but now you are .

Oh and they are not private estates - a fact which the Windsors themselves also use in order to avoid other taxes!

The National Audit office has asked repeatedly to be allowed to properly examine Duchy accounts and has repeatedly been refused.

They aren't reviewed by the National Audit Office because they aren't government departments.

The annual accounts of the Sovereign Grant, which supplies the funds the official Royal Household, are reviewed by the National Audit Office.

The annual accounts of both Duchies are examined by the Public Accounts Committee.

The Duchies are private estates, held in trust to ensure income for the monarch and heir. There are specific restrictions around what can be done (e.g. neither monarch nor heir can receive proceeds from capital sales) to ensure ingoing financial security.

The monarch and heir are not legally liable for tax. This is separate to the status of the Duchies. They voluntarily pay income tax on the revenue they receive, as mentioned above.

You can repeat ‘they are private estates’ until you are blue in the face @bluegreygreen but the Windsors themselves use the argument that the are NOT private estates in order to avoid paying tax

Peope are not buying the old bullshit that used to work decades ago. We can see that William is lazy and hypocritical and his refusal to offer even the small degree of transparency that his father offered says it all.

Twenty years ago the head of the National Audit Office told parliament that the Duchy accounts needed proper scrutiny .
I’d say the head of the national audit office knows perfectly well what requires scrutiny and what does not

And this was under Charles , who has been more open than William
William has high handedly closed the books ! He’s far worse .
This was in 2005

”Sir John Bourn, head of the National Audit Office, said yesterday that the accounts of the two oldest royal estates - the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster - should be open to parliamentary scrutiny for the first time in nearly 700 years.

I remain convinced that William knows the game is up and is raking in as much money as he can while the going is good
He does next to nothing in his ‘royal’ role but is very keen to keep cracking the whip re profits he can pocket from the Duchy of Cornwall.
For now …

PS William if you are trying to bullshit people into believing your fairytale that you will modernise - maybe don’t back track on the small attempts your father made to be slightly more open

You can repeat ‘they are private estates’ until you are blue in the face

I think they've gone from blue to grey to green and beyond!

What is it exactly that makes them so? And what makes @bluegreygreen right and the rest of us wrong?

Sir John Bourn, head of the National Audit Office, said yesterday that the accounts of the two oldest royal estates - the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster - should be open to parliamentary scrutiny for the first time in nearly 700 years.

That was the Guardian's report.

Sir John said that he 'would like to see the books' during the Public Accounts Committee examination of the Duchy of Cornwall accounts for that year (February 2005).

He was making a distinction between the Treasury as part of executive government, and the NAO as responsible to Parliament in general. The suggestion was that as well as the Treasury seeing all the transactions, the NAO should look at the books.

The response from the witness being questioned (the Secretary and Keeper of the Records for the Duchy of Cornwall) was that the books were audited by PriceWaterhouse like any other private business (apart from the Treasury overview), and the procedure being followed was set out in the 1982 Duchy of Cornwall Management Act.

I think I saw some of that Public Accounts hearing. There was a lot of shifting, obfuscation, and not answering the questions on the part of the Monarchy's representative.
And frustration at this on the part of the Committee
The PAC scrutinized the lack of independent scrutiny by the treasury and the secrecy surrounding its financial strategies and land deals, with officials appearing to give evidence
There was a focus on the avoidance of CGT and Inheritance tax also.
MPs questioned why the Duchy, acting like a corporation (e.g., owning a Holiday Inn), wasn't taxed like one, with arguments that it used (LLPs) to potentially avoid tax and restrictions, a move considered unprecedented.

A lot of blustering went on. Margaret Hodge was chairing it.

The response from the witness being questioned (the Secretary and Keeper of the Records for the Duchy of Cornwall) was that the books were audited by PriceWaterhouse like any other private business (apart from the Treasury overview)

So not quite like "any other" private business, then, because it isn't a private business, and because it isn't a private business it has a Treasury overview.

Sorry, the bit in parentheses was my wording.

The full response to the question of 'Why not let them [NAO] have a look at the books?' was

I am satisfied with the arrangement we have with PriceWaterhouse auditing our books on the private side of the Prince of Wales's business and I do not see the difference between that and any other private business. It does the job and I am quite certain the National Audit Office would do the job just as well but this is a procedure which was set out for us to follow in the 1982 Management Act. I have not seen a strong enough reason yet to do it differently.