Corporate Tax Evasion

pay sod all tax

"sod all" means "nothing".

Well, I'm neither an uppity know it all brit nor a liberal communist hellbound degenerate.

Historic claims made by Starbucks executives in little-scrutinised briefings to analysts and shareholders laid the way for the company to be slammed in a report by MPs today. The multinational is accused by the Public Accounts Committee of conniving to avoid corporation tax by pretending to be unprofitable in the UK — ‘exporting’ the real profits to jurisdictions with lower tax rates:Starbucks told us that it has made a loss for 14 of the 15 years it has been operating in the UK, but in 2006 it made a small profit.Starbucks claimed to the committee that it has been difficult for us to make a profit in the UK. Indeed, 2007 was ninth year in ten that the company filed losses in the UK. Strange, then, given that annual reports singled out the UK as one of the company’s cash cows:In particular, our Canada, Japan, UK, and China MBUs account for a significant portion of the net revenue and earnings Annual Report 2011Revenues from countries other than the US consist primarily of revenues from Canada and the UK, which together account for approximately 66% of net revenues Annual report 2009But it was phonecall briefings to analysts from this period in which Starbucks really screwed themselves over:On the release of quarterly earnings figures in 2007, then Chief Operating Officer Martin Coles told analysts that the profits from the UK were being used to pay for expansion in foreign markets
CEO Howard Schultz claimed that Starbucks’ UK arm was so successful that he would adapt lessons learned here for the American market
Again in 2007, then-Chief Financial Officer Peter Bocian claimed Starbucks UK had pulled in profits margins of nearly 15 percent almost 50m
Despite that impressive roster of duplicitous statements, it would take something to top claims made in respect of 2011, where Starbucks’ accounts department would have us believe the UK business made losses of 33m. At the time, executive John Culver told investors:We are very pleased with the performance in the UK.But CFO Troy Alstead told the select committee:We are not at all pleased about our financial performance [in the UK].

Tangle writes: If Starbucks thought it could charge 2.30 instead of 2.10, it would do it today - tax or not.

Petro writes:Since it hasn't been asked by any of the septics or others here, why did you title this "Corporate Tax Evasion" when in 6 pages you have provided no evidence of evasion?

Petro writes:I do support an increased tax on Starbucks the end result will be the cost will be maybe 2.30 instead of the about 2.10 it is now.

Petro writes:Well actually you will pay it along with all the other Starbucks drinkers, corporations pass taxes along in the cost of their product.

Petro writes:I wish you luck. If you are successful you and the British government can show the populace you have forced Starbucks to be socially responsible at "no increased cost to the citizens".

Petro writes:In no way do I think you are being played for a fool by your government, which happens to be interested in increasing your tax on premade coffee drinks.

Petro writes:It's all about getting an evil company to pay its fair share.