Prince Andrew buys £13m ski chalet

bianchimoon

Given the state of the country, let us rejoice in the fact that the queens son on his modest navy pension and his ex wife who had a £5m debt a few years ago can afford to buy a £13m chalet as an investment for their children, there's hope for us all in these times of austerity... Citizens

pblakeney

Does Switzerland have an extradition treaty with the U.S.A.?

Just asking.....

bianchimoon

PBlakeney wrote:

Does Switzerland have an extradition treaty with the U.S.A.?

Just asking.....

if not, I'm about to start a petition for one

pblakeney

Nothing wrong with it as far as I can see.

Someone of German descent moving to Switzerland is nothing new.

rick_chasey

bianchimoon wrote:

Given the state of the country, let us rejoice in the fact that the queens son on his modest navy pension and his ex wife who had a £5m debt a few years ago can afford to buy a £13m chalet as an investment for their children, there's hope for us all in these times of austerity... Citizens

His money.
Not yours.
Can spend it on what he wants.

slowmart

This cretin couldn't sleep in bed straight.


His last home was sold for £3 million over the asking price, despite being on the market for 3 years. The buyer from Kazakhstan has a colourful past and since it was a wedding gift from his mom CGT should have been due. Except the lease is still in his mothers name and the property remains empty.

I'd like to think it's a matter for investigation, the source of his wealth and now the Anti Bribery Act is law has been breached.

Is it wrong to suggest the terrorists shot the wrong people?

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Given the state of the country, let us rejoice in the fact that the queens son on his modest navy pension and his ex wife who had a £5m debt a few years ago can afford to buy a £13m chalet as an investment for their children, there's hope for us all in these times of austerity... Citizens

His money.
Not yours.
Can spend it on what he wants.

Who's money? You jest yes?

napoleond

Arsed.

bianchimoon

Slowmart wrote:

This cretin couldn't sleep in bed straight.


His last home was sold for £3 million over the asking price, despite being on the market for 3 years. The buyer from Kazakhstan has a colourful past and since it was a wedding gift from his mom CGT should have been due. Except the lease is still in his mothers name and the property remains empty.

I'd like to think it's a matter for investigation, the source of his wealth and now the Anti Bribery Act is law has been breached.

Is it wrong to suggest the terrorists shot the wrong people?

Probably, but Im with you

rick_chasey

bianchimoon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Given the state of the country, let us rejoice in the fact that the queens son on his modest navy pension and his ex wife who had a £5m debt a few years ago can afford to buy a £13m chalet as an investment for their children, there's hope for us all in these times of austerity... Citizens

His money.
Not yours.
Can spend it on what he wants.

Who's money? You jest yes?

Yeah - it's in his name and his bank account right? And he's got it through legal means right?

If I pay a builder to do some work and he goes and spends it on whores - he's not spending my money - it's his.

Prince Andrew gets paid to be prince Andrew and he does with the money what he wants.

Shock horror, royal has a lot of money, spends it on chalet.

:roll:

bianchimoon

NapoleonD wrote:

Arsed.

Obviously

Wunnunda

The reports say it's being bought with a mortgage. Guaranteed by Mummy.
I doubt Andy has that kind of dosh hanging around.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Given the state of the country, let us rejoice in the fact that the queens son on his modest navy pension and his ex wife who had a £5m debt a few years ago can afford to buy a £13m chalet as an investment for their children, there's hope for us all in these times of austerity... Citizens

His money.
Not yours.
Can spend it on what he wants.

Who's money? You jest yes?

Yeah - it's in his name and his bank account right? And he's got it through legal means right?

If I pay a builder to do some work and he goes and spends it on whores - he's not spending my money - it's his.

Prince Andrew gets paid to be prince Andrew and he does with the money what he wants.

Shock horror, royal has a lot of money, spends it on chalet.

:roll:

Oh if only the civil list was paid from just from people like you who are happy to pay for these extravagances out of your tax rather than people like me who believe we are all equal still carry on being a subject and a second class member of society:roll:
See slowmarts post re legality of his money, or read up on it

rick_chasey

Then whinge about having a monarchy - not royals spending their money how they please.

Hate the game, not the player.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then whinge about having a monarchy - not royals spending their money how they please.

Hate the game, not the player.

One and the same, I do my bit for republic.org

Mr_Cellophane

Slowmart wrote:

since it was a wedding gift from his mom CGT should have been due.

I don't think so

ballysmate

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

since it was a wedding gift from his mom CGT should have been due.

I don't think so

Stevo?

slowmart

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

since it was a wedding gift from his mom CGT should have been due.

I don't think so

It's simply not an issue of tax on a gift.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... iends.html

Justin case you can't get past the firewall, below is a extract from the article.

Home owners are allowed to sell their properties without paying tax as long as they can show it is their main home, that they did not buy the property simply for profit and can show they had lived in it at least three years before the sale. But Prince Andrew’s disposal of the Sunninghill house was not this clear cut.
The new analysis reveals:


* The Duke never personally owned Sunninghill.
* The lease on Sunninghill was in the Queen’s name.
* Royal advisers paid just over £12,000 to buy the freehold of the property from the Crown Estate, which had owned it for the benefit of the nation.
* The Queen’s personal lawyer and her most senior financial adviser, not Prince Andrew, signed off on the sale to the new Kazahk owner.
Land registry documents show that in March 2003 the Duke decided to leave Sunninghill for good and had signed a £1 million lease on the late Queen Mother’s former home, Royal Lodge, on the Windsor estate. The house, it was announced, was to be his new official residence.
The Duke could not move in immediately as the pink-washed Lodge needed to be completely refurbished at a cost, according to the National Audit Office, of more than £7.5 million, for which the Prince was apparently liable under the terms of his new lease.
However the Sunninghill sale did not go ahead until September 2007 - more than four years later and longer than the tax exemption rules normally allow.
During this period the Duke was seemingly desperate to secure a buyer and reportedly used trips to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to drum up interest in the property among wealthy people he met in his official role.
The deal is further complicated by the opaque ownership of Sunninghill. The land was owned by the Crown Estate, whose huge property portfolio is held “to benefit the taxpayer” with revenue going straight to the Treasury.
In 1987 a 125 lease was registered for land in Sunninghill Park in the names of the Queen, The Crown Estate and a company called Tyrolese (83) Limited, whose directors worked for Farrer and Co, the Queen’s lawyers. The price paid for this was not recorded, but it was on this land that the house for the Duke and his new bride was built.
By 1996 the couple had divorced with the Duchess reportedly relinquishing any claim on the house, where the Duke continued to live.
After the death of the Queen Mother in 2002 he began negotiating his move to Royal Lodge and signed a lease early in 2003.
However there was a problem about what to do with Sunninghill, a 1990 unfashionable two-storey red-brick house dubbed “Souhyork”, which was seen as difficult to sell and with a lease which is believed to have restricted its transfer to other members of the royal family.
In September 2003 the freehold of Sunninghill was sold to Mark Bridges, a lawyer at the Queen’s solicitors Farrer and Co, and Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Queen’s Privy Purse, who controls her personal income. Both were acting as trustees for The Sunninghill Park Settlement, a secret trust set up three years earlier.
The new freehold, which cost just £12,265, released the house from the constraints previously placed on any future sale.
However, it also raised a number of questions about who was now the owner of Sunninghill. The Sunninghill Park Settlement is private and its beneficiaries secret.
Royal officials have always suggested that the Duke of York owned Sunninghill and that it was he who sold it to the Kazakhs.
But legal experts suggest if he was behind the purchase of the freehold at the same time as he was preparing to move out of the house for good he might fall foul of tax avoidance rules.
Tax law says that you cannot buy an interest in a property which you have no intention of living in and purchase merely to sell on for a profit.
Property barrister Mark Loveday suggested that the sequence of events surrounding the Duke’s purchase of the freehold could fall foul of this law. He said: “There are anti-avoidance provisions in the legislation which prevent you buying a property simply to then sell it on. This is to stop property developers claiming tax relief.
“If, as it appears, the Duke purchased the freehold of the property at a time when he had no intention of living there, there must be a question mark of whether he is liable for tax on any gain which resulted.”
A second tax expert said that the case law in the area also suggested the Duke of York was liable for tax on Sunninghill. The Appeal Court case had ruled that a divorcing husband who moved into a new house, he had originally purchased for him and his wife, for a short period while their separation was finalised had to pay capital gains tax on his profit because he knew that it was a short term acquisition.
However there is a further intriguing possibility. The trustees that purchased the freehold of Sunninghill are two of the Queen’s most trusted advisers.
The document also places a number of new restrictions on the future use of the house in the name of the “Her Majesty and Her Successors and the Commissioners (of the Crown Estate)”.
Both appear to be evidence that the ultimate purchaser of the house was Her Majesty the Queen who is exempt from capital gains tax and would also have been in the position of selling it on and gifting the money to the Duke of York, again with no tax payable.
Last night sources with a detailed knowledge of the transaction claimed that the Duke had no tax liability on the sale of Sunninghill. They said confidential documents made the ownership of the house clear cut.
The decision to buy the freehold making a future sale more straight forward was described as a “normal transaction” which many homeowners with a long and valuable lease did to make selling and alternations to their property easier.
The source also suggested that only a small sum was paid for the freehold because the long lease which it replaced had been costly and reflected the value of the property. However this figure, which would have been paid to the Treasury, is confidential.
The source also disputed any suggestion that the time of the purchase of the lease on Royal Lodge and the purchase of the freehold on Sunninghill made it liable for tax. He added that the owner of Sunninghill qualified for tax relief as it had been their main home for many years.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “It was a private sale between two trusts. All appropriate taxes were paid.”

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

since it was a wedding gift from his mom CGT should have been due.

I don't think so

Stevo?

Queenie's tax status appears to be that she's exempt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family
But she voluntarily pays taxes according to Wiki.

If it was Prince Andrew who owned the property then looks like he's subject to the same rules as the rest of us. The principal private residence rules have been around for ages and well known. It usually depends on the facts of how long/when you lived at the property as your main residence - not sure about the relevance of the references to intent in the article above.

Here's a link to the HMRC guidance for those of you who want to argue it either way:
https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323679/hs283.pdf

As mentioned above, may well hinge on the facts of the case.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

As mentioned above, may well hinge on the facts of the case.

We don't usually let trivial matters like that get in the way of debate.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As mentioned above, may well hinge on the facts of the case.

We don't usually let trivial matters like that get in the way of debate.

Play on...

tlw1

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As mentioned above, may well hinge on the facts of the case.

We don't usually let trivial matters like that get in the way of debate.

Play on...

is it wiggles fault?

finchy

matthew h wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

As mentioned above, may well hinge on the facts of the case.

We don't usually let trivial matters like that get in the way of debate.

Play on...

is it wiggles fault?

Blimey matthew, not heard that one for quite some time. You'll need to come up with something more original for the next post, though. It's the big 8-0-0-0.

arran77

It's not a ski chalet, it's a peodo chalet where he can molest underage girls while his security staff turn a blind eye

bianchimoon

shhh he was keeping that bit quiet

Coach H

arran77 wrote:

It's not a ski chalet, it's a peodo chalet where he can molest underage girls while his security staff turn a blind eye

Is it really as a few of my friends stayed there about 5 years ago(ish). I wonder if their wives know

slowmart

It looks like the locals are protesting after hearing Randy Andy is moving in..

VTech

I doubt that there is any truth in this allegation against him.
I also think he has the right to do with his money whatever he choses.

capt_slog

VTech wrote:

I doubt that there is any truth in this allegation against him.
I also think he has the right to do with his money whatever he choses.

Of course.

What does surprise a lot of people though, is just how much money he appears to have.

How much does he get paid?

VTech

Capt Slog wrote:

VTech wrote:

I doubt that there is any truth in this allegation against him.
I also think he has the right to do with his money whatever he choses.

Of course.

What does surprise a lot of people though, is just how much money he appears to have.

How much does he get paid?

He does a lot of jobs outside of his role as a state figure.
He offers business advice as well as many other jobs all of which I would presume pay handsomely.

arran77

VTech wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

VTech wrote:

I doubt that there is any truth in this allegation against him.
I also think he has the right to do with his money whatever he choses.

Of course.

What does surprise a lot of people though, is just how much money he appears to have.

How much does he get paid?

He does a lot of jobs outside of his role as a state figure.
He offers business advice as well as many other jobs all of which I would presume pay handsomely.

I can see this turning into another debate about whether the royals are good value for money