But let me also be clear: Boots has been an industrial scale tax avoider, using interest charges that were incurred to buy the company and not to promote its business to massively reduce its UK corporation tax bills for the benefit of foreign owners.
Might I make the suggestion that if Boots had not done that and been part of a whole cultural movement that sought to undermine UK government revenues then we might not need food banks at all?
I think Boots might like to reflect a little harder on what corporate social responsibility really means. I can say for certain it is not asking customers to donate products bought at full price back to the company for it to benefit from a second time round.
But tax avoidance is only what a reasonable legislator could not forsee. And we have thin capitalisation rules, meaning that they have forseen this tactic. And Boots was within the limits of what the rules allow. Thus it was not a tax avoider.
Note that I am only using Spudmonster’s own definition to show that Spudmonster is wrong.