View Single Post
Old 01-17-2013, 02:22 PM   #37
JoeD
Guru
JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 889
Karma: 4383958
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: Hanlin v3, iPad, Kindle 4NT
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
The UK operation makes a "loss" because they transfer all the money to the Netherlands as royalty payments for use of the Starbucks brand. They also buy all their coffee from related companies in other geographies at inflated prices. They have created a loss in order to avoid paying taxes.
Doesn't that only avoid income tax on profits and not VAT. VAT would be charged at 20% by starbucks and be payable whether they're operating at a profit or loss?

I do agree that if a company is running as a "shell" for the sole purpose of been run at cost or a loss in order to bolster the revenue of a company based outside the same country that needs looking into and laws changing. However, that's not what Amazon is accused of/doing is it?

Last edited by JoeD; 01-17-2013 at 02:25 PM.
JoeD is offline