Prince Charles – the Scrooge McDuck of Cornwall

My good friend and colleague Professor Sick Premma has written on one of his pet topics, that tax avoiding neoliberal Prince Charles. I am more than happy to help him.

Duck of Cornwall

Prince Charles, yesterday

Sick writes:

The UK House of Commons Pubic Accounts Committee has found Prince Charles, heir to the throne, guilty of tax avoidance in accordance with the precedent set by Margaret Hodge v Common Sense 2012 PAC NRAC 37. He has been sentenced to making £10m in voluntary tax contributions each year for an indefinite period.

The Duchy of Cornwall is the remnant of a bygone age where the residents of Great Britain were ruled by a monarch who would call themselves “King” or “Queen”.  The Ducky owns all of Cornwall, and most of the South-West.

Rather like a Scottish partnership, Limited Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, it has its own legal identity. And my good friend and colleague, the Fuhrer of Researchers for Taxes, Murphy Richards, has confirmed that all of those things are in fact companies and subject to corporation tax.

Prince Charles pays income tax at the top rate of income tax on the profits of the Duchy of Cornwall. He should continue to do this but also pay corporation tax. And capital gains tax.

Obviously, if he were to treat the income as dividends he’d end up paying less than he does already so I am adamant that he should pay tax in a way that no other entity in the UK pays: he should pay corporation tax at 25% on his turnover and income tax at 45% of the profits. He should then be subject to capital gains tax on the remainder at 28%.

So why is the Ducky a company (that exceptionally should be subject to income tax and capital gains tax too)? Well, it is registered for VAT and employs people.

My good friend and colleague, Viceroy of the Justice for Taxes Network, Murphy Richards reliably informed Margaret Hodge that anything that is VAT registered or employs anybody must be a company. As the Duchy does both, it must be a company. He also told Austin Mitchell that there was no reason why any of the Prince’s expenses should be allowable deductions.

And as I have described above, all the things that have a separate legal identity must be a company. So it is simply not possible that something that has a separate legal identity can be anything other than a company.

The controversies about Prince Charles aren’t going to go away. Or at least I hope they won’t because Murphy told me I should cash in by publishing a book on the subject. So until I finish my book I am going to keep banging on about Prince Charles unless we make all payments to any part of the monarchy via Giro cheque through the Pubic Accounts Committee.

Obviously, Sick has taken advice from some reputable tax experts in arriving at his conclusions and there is no reason to question the validity of his analysis.

If it quacks like a trust, walks like a landed estate, swims like any unincorporated business, it must be taxed at the highest imagineable rate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s