Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx
@anothercat, so do you think Starbucks should have paid the UK taxes or not?
Gee, this country that you're not naming (because they are often shamed?) Should be able to withstand chatter about it, shouldn't it?
(And whilst trying to absorb your very informative post I too am enjoying arvo tea. [Daylight savings has finished here.])
|
Daylight savings finished here too (Easter weekend) and cooling down (not that it gets terribly warm here anyway
).
Regarding Starbucks, I couldn't (and wouldn't even though it seems many also can't comment but do) have an opinion as I am not involved and so not privy to the actual facts.
So the following is not an opinion just a statement; Starbucks UK claim they make no profit in the UK and the reason is due to trading conditions and transfer payments such as royalties and other intercompany charges. I assume those transfer payments are deductible in the UK as they are in most (all?) western jurisdictions, in which case I personally do not see a methodology problem. If the UK Revenue disagrees with the company's valuation of those transfer payments or with its other deductions from trading then it is up to the Revenue to take them to court to get a determination.
Personally I don't see why anyone should be upset unless they think that the likes of subsidiaries or franchisees are not entitled to take as costs of business the services their owners or franchisers provide to them (which includes a rental for the branding). One assumes that payment of those costs becomes revenue to the owners or franchisers in which case that contributes to their profit upon which THEY pay tax, albeit that may be in a different country and that country also may have a higher or lower company tax.
Regarding the country I am not naming; yes they (and others like it) do withstand the chatter about it (mostly by ignoring) as they have no desire to nor way of closing down the internet's chattering class media. So the chatter happens. As for myself I am too tired to engage on the matters specific to it because most of the chatter is just ideologically driven promulgated by those with genuine but misguided, or else malicious intent by "chattering" with the chattering classes, stirred on by activists having no rational basis. I suspect those countries feel much the same with respect to the chatter and so don't waste time taking part in it.
There that is tellin' yer, so I won't be naming it
?