King Charles pays no inheritance tax on the Queen's $750M private estate

[Hydrogen]

• King Charles has inherited the Duchy of Lancaster estate valued at more than $750 million.
• He will not have to pay inheritance tax on the estate due to a rule approved in 1993.
• The duchy generated income of $27 million for the Queen last year, financial records show.

King Charles will not have to pay inheritance tax on the Duchy of Lancaster estate he inherited from the Queen due to a rule allowing assets to be passed from one sovereign to another.

Charles automatically inherited the estate, the monarch's primary source of income, while his eldest son, Prince William, inherited the Duchy of Cornwall estate - valued at more than $1 billion - from his father.

The new king will avoid inheritance tax on the estate worth more than $750 million due to a rule introduced by the UK government in 1993 to guard against the royal family's assets being wiped out if two monarchs were to die in a short period of time, i News reported.

The provision was first exercised in 2002 when the Queen Mother passed on an estate worth about $80 million to the Queen including a collection of Faberge eggs.

The clause means that, to help protect its assets, members of the royal family do not have to pay the 40% levy on property valued at more than £325,000 ($377,000) that non-royal UK residents do.

The Lancaster estate generated revenue of £24 million ($27 million) last year, its financial records state, and the King is now entitled to its income.

It had assets worth more than £650 million ($754 million) at the end of March this year, the duchy's website states. A law passed in 1702 forbids the monarch from selling any of the assets.

The Queen began voluntarily paying income and capital gains tax on the estate in 1993 and Charles may decide to follow suit.

The Duchy of Lancaster estate, founded in the 13th century, consists of "commercial, agricultural and residential" properties, including a portfolio of financial investments, according to its website.

Its five rural units, or Surveys, cover about 18,000 hectares of land in England and Wales.

The Foreshore Survey covers about 36,000 hectares (one hectare is equal to about two and a half acres) from the river Mersey, on which the city of Liverpool is built, to Barrow-in-Furness in the north of England. It also consists of the Minerals Survey, comprising limestone and sandstone quarries from south Wales to North Yorkshire.

However, most of its income comes from the Urban Survey, which includes extensive commercial property interests in central London such as the Savoy Hotel.

The Balmoral and Sandringham residences are owned by the royal family, while most of the other properties they use including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are part of the Crown Estate.   

The Duchy of Lancaster was contacted for comment.

https://www.businessinsider.com/charles-doesnt-have-to-pay-inheritance-tax-750-million-estate-2022-9

....


The Duchy of Lancaster estate is appraised highly at $750 million is due to it encompassing 45,550 acres of land (18,000 hectares).

What this article refers to as the inheritance tax is usually referred to as the estate tax or death tax in the USA. It has been a point of considerable debate from 2016 onwards. Many american millionaires and billionaires were unhappy about 40% of their net worth being taxed and confiscated by the government upon the event of their untimely passing.

On the flipside, I see many commenters who appear to support taxes being raised higher.

In this day and age it would seem that royalty and monarchs are a protected class. They're treated like an endangered species that is in danger of extinction. I don't mind that at all. None of them have the upward mobility to turn their wealth into a financial powerhouse like google, amazon or tesla.

They could preserve historical landmarks and perform some useful function. But it would seem any real fire to produce change they had is greatly diminished.

[jackg]

I think it's mainly been a topic of debate because of how the tax is actually incurred by people paying it. Most populous areas in the south of the UK have houses worth over £400,000 and areas like Surrey used to have houses starting at £1M. Does the death of a loved one mean you should immediately move house in order to pay their inheritance tax? I'm not sure how the whole system works but I know there's a year's cooling off period before assets are able to be given to the inheritors (this might be different if you live in the house, but I doubt it's much different and probably requires remortgaging - if you can get one to cover that tax - or selling).

[Gayong88]

It seems hard to complain about this without being interpreted as ungrateful. After all, the Queen has done a lot for Great Britain as her head of state. He has spent his entire life serving his people and his country. This was the least he deserved for all that he had given over these past 64 years. It looks like it will take a lengthy national conversation about tax justice to re-raise.

[Leviathan.007]

I'm not sure what other people think. Still, in many countries, the kings and queens will never pay anything that is called tax for their government and that's something normal for them. Contrary to this, Great Britain typically requires its citizens to pay taxes, regardless of whether they are kings or ordinary citizens. Due to the fact that we are not familiar with King Charles yet, we cannot be certain whether he has the right to not pay taxes, but since his mother ruled for more than 60 years and served well during this time, it is likely they have the right and the reason to not be taxed as inheritors of this estate.

[jackg]

Additionally actually, King Charles lost £300mln in having his son inherit his duchy as he became king so maybe there's an argument against taxing Charles over it (perhaps he's already been taxed).

It seems hard to complain about this without being interpreted as ungrateful.

They made a good earning during that time for where they were placed, it wasn't like she served the country and didn't ensure the duchy remained profitible and that she benefitted from the situations too.

There's probably a bit to be said about the efforts she played in the war - but a most citizens already had to participate in that too.

It looks like it will take a lengthy national conversation about tax justice to re-raise.

I think they'll benefit of the fact this could be a discussion that remains open and divided (they don't have to act on it if someone will be against them being taxed on the inheritance - that isn't them or part of their family).

Great Britain typically requires its citizens to pay taxes, regardless of whether they are kings or ordinary citizens.

The Queen did pay income tax for about 30 years too (in retribution for the government rebuilding her Palace after a fire). There's still uncertainty if King Charles will pay the same though and I imagine it might go undocumented either way (unless he doesn't want it to).

[xzy887]

The Crown Estate, estimated to be worth over $34.3 billion in assets, will now belong to King Charles III.

Source : Bitcoin

[The Sceptical Chymist]

What this article refers to as the inheritance tax is usually referred to as the estate tax or death tax in the USA. It has been a point of considerable debate from 2016 onwards. Many american millionaires and billionaires were unhappy about 40% of their net worth being taxed and confiscated by the government upon the event of their untimely passing.

It should be debated and more hotly contested than it is or has been, because the IRS and their many agents have their hands in as many pockets as a human is capable of having.  It's no wonder houses don't stay in families for generations anymore--people are taxed to death during their lifetime and then even after death they get hit with a tax bill.  Jesus-H-Christ.

As far as the royal family goes, big surprise there that there's a law making them exempt from death taxes.  If you have the power to make laws (or basically control the people who do), there's rarely a case where some kind of laws aren't passed out of self interest.  It's a shitty thing, too, because I think they should have to pay that tax if it's basically what everyone else in the UK is required to do.

[paxmao]

It is really terrible to be honest. Most people in the Southwest of the UK are property owner that simply want to leave their houses - for which they have paid a little fortune - to their children and they simply can't so that they end up being the property of foreing rich investors. I believe that much forced selling is happening for this reason.

British monarchy is possible the most expensive to maintain in the developed world and this is just another cost.

[lizarder]

As far as one can argue about this, if there are special rules governed by the system, the power of the state is not greater than the influence of the kingdom, when compared to the presidential system, I think in this realm it is final, considering the many things and positive impacts that the Queen has made for the country.

Personally I don't really understand the legal and statutory issues in the royal system, that when the royal family leaves they are exempt from the death tax. Even if the law has been formed, talking about the legal power to change the law still looks weak to propose revisions, especially Queen Elizabeth II (Specific) is the longest-serving leader of the British Empire, reaching 70 years. I think it will be difficult to argue in this area. Even people in the parliament themselves do not dare to agree if someone proposes it.
Although in reality there may be many people who do not agree with these rules, but that is the royal system that applies to this day.

[NeuroticFish]

As far as the royal family goes, big surprise there that there's a law making them exempt from death taxes.  If you have the power to make laws (or basically control the people who do), there's rarely a case where some kind of laws aren't passed out of self interest.  It's a shitty thing, too, because I think they should have to pay that tax if it's basically what everyone else in the UK is required to do.

The thing is not necessarily about the royal family and exempts. Imho 40% is a huge amount for any sane person, hence I am sure that especially the wealthy people do their "optimizations" as early as they can to avoid surprises.
Gold and art are the first things that come into my mind. Bitcoin is also nicely suitable for the job.

The law is something that has to keep up with the times. Imho it should be changed/improved.

[dothebeats]

It seems hard to complain about this without being interpreted as ungrateful. After all, the Queen has done a lot for Great Britain as her head of state. He has spent his entire life serving his people and his country. This was the least he deserved for all that he had given over these past 64 years. It looks like it will take a lengthy national conversation about tax justice to re-raise.

You have a point, but the thing is, this family has been living on an estate funded by the public for centuries, and in a time wherein the government is already handled by the representatives from the public, I think the royal family should only serve a ceremonial purpose and not meddle with the government with decisions and such. Also, they need to start paying regular taxes like the regular people, but what do I know? The majority of the people in the United Kingdom still holds the royal family in a high regard that I don't think this monarchy will be abolished any time soon.

[samcrypto]

It seems hard to complain about this without being interpreted as ungrateful. After all, the Queen has done a lot for Great Britain as her head of state. He has spent his entire life serving his people and his country. This was the least he deserved for all that he had given over these past 64 years. It looks like it will take a lengthy national conversation about tax justice to re-raise.

You have a point, but the thing is, this family has been living on an estate funded by the public for centuries, and in a time wherein the government is already handled by the representatives from the public, I think the royal family should only serve a ceremonial purpose and not meddle with the government with decisions and such. Also, they need to start paying regular taxes like the regular people, but what do I know? The majority of the people in the United Kingdom still holds the royal family in a high regard that I don't think this monarchy will be abolished any time soon.

There's a lot of privileges that the royal family is enjoying, and paying taxes might also be part of it. I'm not sure how the estate tax works in UK but its really unfair to see commoner paying their taxes for their small houses while the royal family with a lot of money and huge properties can't even pay taxes simply because of the exemption, this should be address by the public. Well, most of the people in UK still loves the monarchy and the royal family, let's just stays on that and let's see if the monarchy will last longer.

[qwertyup23]

British monarchy is possible the most expensive to maintain in the developed world and this is just another cost.

This is also the reason on why only a few countries remained monarchy given on how much power is given to Kings and Queens and the costs of maintaining all of their properties plus service.

I think this should be resolve in a case-to-case basis. Given that Queen ruled and devoted for 70 years in her country, I think it is just necessary that the inheritance for King Charles should be waived and be exempted on paying taxes. As long as their laws allow such, then I definitely see no problem with it; though the tax that should have been paid will be for the benefit of their citizens.

[jackg]

The Crown Estate, estimated to be worth over $34.3 billion in assets, will now belong to King Charles III.

What would they do with such a big amount - they already have so much wealth and they have all the luxuries
I was wondering if there is anything they have ever longed for like we the poor people?
gathering money to buy sofa - counting and checking the account if we have not over spent - LOL

This bit isn't taxed because it's housed in a really weird way.

A lot of wealthy people make a trust to ensure their children can inherit something while being tax exempt (I've thought of this as like class a and class b share types where one can vote and one can't, the parent could have 1% of the shares and 100% voting rights while the child has 99% of the property and no voting rights - for example, I don't know if this actually works but it made sense in my head).

The government, King Charles III and the Crown estate claim they don't have full ownership of the property and don't make it explicit what they do have. The Crown estate include Westminster Palace afaik (where the government is housed and a lot of their resources) so the monarch can't just take it back. All that's public is that the crown estate and its ceo are liable to both the government and the King to maintain the property but neither own it directly (and indirect ownership could be legislated for - but that'd mean council tax might be due on the property, including property tax arrears which might be why it's owner doesn't want to own it - they might end up paying as much as the property is worth every 50 years).