Thoughts on the King and Prince of Wales tax disclosures

[Kirschcherries]

According to the BBC KC and PW have released details of the tax they paid in the 2024-2025 Tax Year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8x2151y8q4o

Apparently KC is in the Top 100 tax payers - The Sunday Times Rich List for 2025 placed him at 238.

I think it’s good they have done this and believe they are entitled to use the same legal tax avoidance measures everyone else can use. I don’t think we have a right to know every detail of their personal wealth but this is balanced against transparency regarding the Sovereign Grant and Duchies.

I was reading an MP question asking for the legal basis for the fact that William and Charles are not subject to tax law .

Well he’s clearly never applied any curiosity to this issue then because the legal basis is crystal clear, and set out in various HMT documents.The Sovereign is not legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax because the relevant enactments do not apply to the Crown. The Prince of Wales is not legally liable to pay income tax on the income from the Duchy of Cornwall to which Crown exemption also applies (The Prince of Wales is
otherwise subject to taxation in the normal way).

I was reading an MP question asking for the legal basis for the fact that William and Charles are not subject to tax law .
The answer was it was based on a ‘memorandum of understanding’ ie there is no legal basis for the fact that William
and Charles stiff the taxpayer and get away with it .

I assume the MP was asking that as a rhetorical question, or to make a point in argument.

If it was asked out of ignorance they should be ashamed of themselves, given the amount of information freely available in the parliamentary libraries and parliamentary online resources.

William is subject to tax law on other income, as noted above. He is not required to pay income tax on the income he derives from the Duchy. He does pay tax on that voluntarily.

The King, as monarch, is exempt from statute in the UK unless specifically included ('the Crown is not bound by statute save by express words or necessary implication').
Of note, since 2010 this has not been the case for Acts of the Scottish Parliament, and since 2020 for Acts of the Senedd.

Sorry, @Serenster. I was looking up a couple of things before I posted and didn't see your post.

For @simpsonthecat

No worries! Sometimes you can’t say it enough 😀

As we both pointed out, the tax affairs of the Sovereign are directly within the control of the elected, democratic government of the UK. Despite the legal position, the incumbents nonetheless less have voluntarily paid tax for more than 40 years.

Thus proving no good deed goes unpunished, as they are the baddies for doing so for some people…

yes @bluegreygreen I too assumed it was a rhetorical question used to point out the fact that there is no law exempting the Windsors

@Serenster could you you point out the statute exempting the Windsors ? I think you’ll struggle as no such law exists.
Yet you keep referring to ‘not legally required’
Well you’ve said you are a solicitor or a barrister I’m sorry I can’t remember which so surely you’d also point out that the ‘Memorandum of understanding’ re their taxes often referred to here, is of zero legal standing ?

There is no legal basis for the Windsors not being subject to tax - that was the point of the MP’s question I assume - not lack of curiosity!
There is however a long history of unchecked privilege and greed.

He's nearly 70 but he should get a job, okaaaay 🤣

You don’t see the irony in someone who lost their employment 11 years ago and didn’t take another position describing someone else “workshy.”?

I think that is fair and I think there are a range of opinions being expressed. What isn't acceptable to me is when there is an obvious cover up - we must keep asking pertinent questions of the royals.

At the end of the year there were understandable questions re: files relating to the royals are routinely withheld from release under the Public Records Act. This was highlighted because of AMW, again.

Or maybe he was nearly 70 all of these years.

My neighbor is pushing 80 and still practicing law and helping children. (He looks younger than Norman Baker though and obviously we don’t all age the same way physically nor mentally).

As to your comment about him having been an MP for so many years (yet very long ago). Well, it brings to mind the type of child who, when asked to take out the rubbish says “But I did it last week!”

There is no legal basis for the Windsors not being subject to tax

You may have missed it - the legal basis is in my post: the King, as monarch, is exempt from statute except where expressly included.

The Prince of Wales is subject to tax law other than for the Duchy of Cornwall.

The King and Prince of Wales both pay tax as agreed with the government under the Memorandum (linked below for others).
For clarity, I have not said that this holds the weight of law. Parliament could, if it wishes, pass a law to enforce the measures in it (or any others it deemed fit)

Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation

could you you point out the statute exempting the Windsors ? I think you’ll struggle as no such law exists.
Yet you keep referring to ‘not legally required’
Well you’ve said you are a solicitor or a barrister I’m sorry I can’t remember which so surely you’d also point out that the ‘Memorandum of understanding’ re their taxes often referred to here, is of zero legal standing ?

If you actually read my posts, I have already provided the answer at the top of this page: “The Sovereign is not legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax because the relevant enactments do not apply to the Crown”. That is the answer in and of itself - unless an Act is specifically stated to apply to the Crown (and some do) then it is presumed not to apply to it. Tax acts do not state that they apply to the Crown.

This is a rule of statutory interpretation consistently confirmed by the courts, including the highest courts in the UK. As expressed by Lord Keith of Kinkel in Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council [1990] 2 AC 580:

“Accordingly it is preferable, in my view, to stick to the simple
rule that the Crown is not bound by any statutory provision
unless there can somehow be gathered from the terms of the
relevant Act an intention to that effect. The Crown can be
bound only by express words or necessary implication”

This passage was recently quoted and approved in Lady Justice Hale’s judgment in the Supreme Court case of R (on the application of Black) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 81.

The UK’s judiciary have not been swift to find that it is necessary to imply that a statute applies to the Crown absent express wording. So if it’s not in the statute, it doesn’t apply.

(I love a bit of Constitutional law! Boris Johnson’s period as Prime Minister was my jam…😀 . So you couldn’t be further from the truth with your ludicrous “you’ll struggle” jibe)

It’s hard to take legal questions seriously when they include an amorphous term like “The Windsors”.

Am I wrong in thinking you never see “The Windsors” in any statute or act?

No.
He's served his time as a public servant, so really no.

🤣

My neighbor is pushing 80 and still practicing law and helping children. (He looks younger than Norman Baker though and obviously we don’t all age the same way physically nor mentally).

🤣. Good for your Benjamin Button neighbour!

Maybe writing two books, and updating them from time to time has kept our Norman busy! Just a thought

Ah, so at least you do allow that people may be keeping quite busy without you being fully aware of the extent of their activities.

An effective way forward would seem to be to continue to encourage MPs to ask searching questions of the monarchy.

I was surprised to find out, because of Andrew again, that there isn't a prohibition, in the House of Commons, on criticising the royals.

“What is £13m in tax to a man like the King?”

I mean, I totally agree, but then what is 13m in tax to anyone whose revenues are such that their tax bill is that high?

Yes I did see your post @Serenster which is why I asked for the statute exempting William and Charles .

It doesn’t exist .

The feudal despotism contained in the medieval ‘ the king can do no wrong’ and is therefore above the law is what you are pointing to . Centuries of unchecked privilege is what I and others call it .
Well we know the Windsors can do a great deal of wrong .

Your circular royalist argument of ‘ he’s above the law because he’s king’ is empty and rightly being scrutinised .

Norman Baker has written quite a few books, I do want to read the one about David Kelly

These are your opinions. They don’t represent the legal position, as I’m sure you know. A statute exempting Charles and William doesn’t need to exist, because the legal position in our common law jurisdiction is clear. And in this country it is the law that governs peoples’ obligations. Unless and until it changes (and there’s no indication of any appetite in this country to change them) they remain the position.

The U.K. is a constitutional monarchy, so @Serenstercomments ( although I don’t believe she actually used that term!) he’s above the law because he’s king , is in fact the point!

Well, he hasn't been above the law until recently - Magna Carta.

Really? This is your argument? Something that happened June 15th 1215 ? We all know history!