Originally Posted by murraypaul
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?