Murph on Starbucks

“They’re saying that they won’t claim capital allowance for the next few years but they will be able to claim all of it in two years’ time,” said Richard Murphy, founder of the Tax Justice Network. “They’re only deferring the claim, they’re not giving it up.”

And what\’s wrong with claiming capital allowances? Surely even Richard Murphy doesn\’t think that\’s tax avoidance?

9 thoughts on “Murph on Starbucks”

  1. Well, I suppose he’s trying to say that some of the £10m Starbucks is going to pay annually isn’t actually new tax, but is bringing forward tax payments that would otherwise be made, presuming future profitability, in future periods.

    I made the point about CAs on Friday. Don’t suppose he’ll be giving me credit 😉

  2. Richard Murphy isn’t saying he is against capital allowances.

    He’s pointing out that Starbucks won’t be paying £20m “extra” tax (as their attempted PR wheeze is claiming) merely that they will voluntarily forgo claiming £20m of tax relief now but then “probably” claim it in future tax years.

    So it’s just a PR scam by Starbucks that costs them the interest on £20m for a few years.

  3. And, frankly, given that the various all-your-money-are-belong-to-Govt idiots are playing PR scams with the law, a PR scam back in their direction is the least they deserve.

    If Starbucks are obeying the law, then great. If they are not obeying the law, then HMRC should do them over.

    A bunch of maliciously ignorant whiners and paid stooges don’t make law in the UK.

    Err, okay. That was clearly wrong. The ‘bunch of maliciously ignorant whiners that are UKuncut and the paid stooge that is the Murphmeister’ don’t make law in the UK.

  4. Murphy is a former accountant however he has forgotten the first principle of accountancy: There’s no accounting for stupid!

  5. SE, agree totally that a particular set of maliciously ignorant whiners and paid stooges make law in the UK. They even get our vote! What that says about us voters…. or says about those who run for office and don’t win (can they be worse?)…

  6. @Christie Malry. As David Gaulke pointed out is isn’t even tax but a donation. The point is there rightly shouldn’t be any tax whether we are talking about the letter of the law, the spirit of the law or the intention of parliament. They made real losses and we have transfer pricing rules already that set inter-company prices at an arm’s length price. It’s just bonkers to think this is UK tax avoidance.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “But at least the mendacious wife-beating shit won’t be standing next time.”

    Which of the many? Although the wife-beating is new.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *