Starbucks

[DimPrawn]

Starbucks shortchanges British taxypayers by paying just £8.6m in tax over past 14 years | Mail Online

Starbucks has paid just £8.6million in tax in 14 years of trading in Britain, it emerged last night – and nothing at all in the past three years.

The tiny payments to the Treasury come from a coffee chain whose 735 UK outlets have so far run up sales of £3billion.

It uses a range of complicated measures to minimise its profits – and its tax bill. These include paying large royalties to another arm of the firm for using the brand name.




This is globalisation at work. Giant companies paying almost no tax as they all make a paper loss, except some tiny office in the Cayman islands where all the profit is realised, at a rate of 0% tax. And all the workers are immigrants at the lowest cost taking more from the welfare state than they contribute in tax.

[tractor]

...

Starbucks shortchanges British taxypayers by paying just £8.6m in tax over past 14 years | Mail Online

Starbucks has paid just £8.6million in tax in 14 years of trading in Britain, it emerged last night – and nothing at all in the past three years.

The tiny payments to the Treasury come from a coffee chain whose 735 UK outlets have so far run up sales of £3billion.

It uses a range of complicated measures to minimise its profits – and its tax bill. These include paying large royalties to another arm of the firm for using the brand name.




This is globalisation at work. Giant companies paying almost no tax as they all make a paper loss, except some tiny office in the Cayman islands where all the profit is realised, at a rate of 0% tax. And all the workers are immigrants at the lowest cost taking more from the welfare state than they contribute in tax.

It does make me laugh when I remember starting out and discovering that the Revenue would expect a shop owner to be making at least 15-20% profit before tax or they would assume that fiddling is going on, although at that time, interest was quite high and they were saying you would be better off keeping your money on deposit rather than investing in an unprofitable business.

On £3bn turnover, using that rationale they should have been taxed on 600m profit - over 150m i guess. That's more than they would realise from 10 years worth of IR35 takings.

The bolded part shows that they are taking more in subsidies from the taxpayer (WFTC) than they actually pay.

[d000hg]

While the "it's legal" argument applies to them as much as it does when we're vilified for avoidance, and no doubt corporate stuff is very complicated, SURELY it's possible to legislate such blatant avoidance as evasion where they literally funnel all profits through one country?

I suppose the problem is you need all countries to change laws in sync otherwise they can say "we're subject to the laws in X"

[tractor]

...

While the "it's legal" argument applies to them as much as it does when we're vilified for avoidance, and no doubt corporate stuff is very complicated, SURELY it's possible to legislate such blatant avoidance as evasion where they literally funnel all profits through one country?

I suppose the problem is you need all countries to change laws in sync otherwise they can say "we're subject to the laws in X"

That's where the Euro proponents for a harmonised tax (fiscal) regime and policies come in.

When these people (like Barclays and HBOS) threaten to move home if they have to pay their 'fair share' I say tell em to p off then. But stop them doing any business of any kind in this country. Nationalise them immediately then resell them straight away with a caveat that says there can be no foreign investment in them in the future. That's what should have happened with the utilities privatisation, if it had we would not be owned now by France, Germany and Canada.

[The Spartan]

I would hope so as the money is more or less leaving the country as none of it is being put back in via tax, this is one of several threads that have appeared on here lately where big corporations are paying little or no tax and when the government could be getting their greasy hands on billions but are content to not do anything about it.

[SimonMac]

It would be nice if they quoted the profits rather than the sales when talking about tax payments, but then again the numbers won't look as impressive that way. I assume like most of these big Multinationals the UK arm pays a heavy licence fee to the rights holder in some tax haven in the middle of no where which has more favorable tax rates

[The Spartan]

Are taxes for corporations here really that bad compared with other countries? or is that the rules here are easier to exploit

[DodgyAgent]

That's where the Euro proponents for a harmonised tax (fiscal) regime and policies come in.

When these people (like Barclays and HBOS) threaten to move home if they have to pay their 'fair share' I say tell em to p off then. But stop them doing any business of any kind in this country. Nationalise them immediately then resell them straight away with a caveat that says there can be no foreign investment in them in the future. That's what should have happened with the utilities privatisation, if it had we would not be owned now by France, Germany and Canada.

I am sure they can find some communists from previous eastern european regimes to help them implement such a system

[tractor]

Are taxes for corporations here really that bad compared with other countries? or is that the rules here are easier to exploit

It's not about being easier to exploit. The Revenue argues that these corps have the money, will and legal resources to tie any assessment or investigation up for years so they take the view that negotiation and immediate payment is the lesser of two evils.

a la Vodaphone, Amazon, Barclays and all the others that have been in the press and many that have not.

[tractor]

..

I am sure they can find some communists from previous eastern european regimes to help them implement such a system

It's got nothing to do with red vs blue. It's about private ownership and at least keeping some of the profits here to benefit the consumer indirectly.