Share this content
0
11
983

Starbucks

In the news today: "Starbucks has bowed to public outrage over its tax affairs and made a voluntary £10m annual offering to HMRC, on top of the tax it currently pays, for the next two years."

Hm. Does this seem like Starbucks is in a position to just decide for itself what tax it pays? The idea of them (generously) "making HMRC an offer" seems very weird to me. On what basis is the payment calculated? They make it sound like a goodwill gesture. Mind you , not that much goodwill, it's only for 2 years.

All a joke.

Captain

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

06th Dec 2012 16:47

They want the lucrative UK market

Simples ... they have finally realised they have to pay 'something' to keep it.

Deciding to pay tax? Yes, that is exactly the position! The large companies have always been able to 'negotiate' their tax and it would take a big court battle to get more tax than they are willing to pay, even if was legally due.

It is public opinion that brought this change about, not the government.

EDIT: what is the 'tax it currently pays'? I didn't think they paid any tax!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ACDWebb
07th Dec 2012 10:39

Presumably

ShirleyM wrote:

EDIT: what is the 'tax it currently pays'? I didn't think they paid any tax!

the usual claim for VAT, SDLT & Employer NIC's, possibly even trying to lump in employee PAYE
Thanks (0)
avatar
06th Dec 2012 16:57

It said they will pay an extra £20m

So unless they also plan to somehow include this bonus tax payment on their CT return, HMRC will just send it back (after a while).

Still, they get to say that they paid it.

 

Thanks (0)
By GaryMc
06th Dec 2012 21:33

Not claiming allowances

The tax payments are going to be generated by not claiming some of the royalty payments as deductions thereby creating taxable profits rather than just sending a cheque that will get sent back.

Thanks (1)
avatar
06th Dec 2012 17:30

State sponsored extortion…

….pay £x because the mob have been whipped into demanding blood.

 

When politics and the law colide, the law and rights come second.

Thanks (1)
06th Dec 2012 17:39

They made a fatal mistake ....

... by bragging about their 'UK profits'. You can't have your cake & eat it, but I suppose they haven't done too badly so far.

Thanks (0)
avatar
06th Dec 2012 23:07

Smart move
My first reaction was disappointment that Starbucks had given in to the mob, and lamenting yet another nail in the coffin of the Rule of Law.

Then it occured to me that (a) this isn't £20m of tax, it's £20m of PR repairs, and (b) in any case it's not £20m, it's £20m less whatever they would have paid on those royalties in The Netherlands (or wherever it was) and they get to relieve some of those losses they've been building up over here.

Thanks (1)
avatar
07th Dec 2012 10:06

rule of law...nope.....

they haven't given into the mob....they have had to adjust there position due to customer demand (or lack of).  This has nothing to do with MP's.....this is the free market.....people (just like starbucks) have made a choice....nowt unethical....no mob rule....

 

I remember hearing that Terry Wogan was paid several thousand to present the children in need appeal....'technically' it wasn't paid by the charity....it was paid by the BBC....but if you are going to ask children to empty their piggy banks then for me you should lead by example.....the result....i will never give anything to that charity......

Thanks (0)
avatar
07th Dec 2012 10:17

CIN

justsotax wrote:

I remember hearing that Terry Wogan was paid several thousand to present the children in need appeal....'technically' it wasn't paid by the charity....it was paid by the BBC....but if you are going to ask children to empty their piggy banks then for me you should lead by example.....the result....i will never give anything to that charity......

 

Me too, but I heard it was 6 figures, and I too will not give to that charity - or indeed any "charity" which needs to pay its top staff such obscene remuneration levels.

Thanks (0)
avatar
07th Dec 2012 10:19

Consumer power, yes.

justsotax wrote:

they haven't given into the mob....they have had to adjust there position due to customer demand (or lack of).  This has nothing to do with MP's.....this is the free market.....people (just like starbucks) have made a choice....nowt unethical....no mob rule....

 

I remember hearing that Terry Wogan was paid several thousand to present the children in need appeal....'technically' it wasn't paid by the charity....it was paid by the BBC....but if you are going to ask children to empty their piggy banks then for me you should lead by example.....the result....i will never give anything to that charity......

 

Hence the Rule of Law point was only my first reaction.

Re your Children in Need point - I remember last year part way through (I think) CiN (or maybe Comic Relief?) they announced that a 'donation' had been received from the government. "OK", I thought, "that's my donation sorted, I'll put my credit card away."

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
07th Dec 2012 11:09

Sorry, I gave at the office

should_be_working wrote:
I remember last year part way through (I think) CiN (or maybe Comic Relief?) they announced that a 'donation' had been received from the government. "OK", I thought, "that's my donation sorted, I'll put my credit card away."

Absolutely, so when Pudsey accosts you with a bucket next year, just say, "Sorry, I gave at the office".

At least with the local cat re-homing sanctuary I can see where my money is being spent (primarily cat food, vets, neutering and accommodation)

Thanks (0)