Theoretical overview of tax avoidance on case of Starbucks

Companies try to maximize their profit and governments try to serve the country. Taxes are imposed on individuals and corporations in the best interest – to fund vital public services. While people get tax forms on regular basis dropped into their mailboxes, some companies are involved in complicated schemes with purpose of minimizing their tax amount. They even go a step further claiming they are doing business with losses while funneling profits to another low-taxed country. When companies do not pay their fair share, governments look for tax in another place and inevitably they look for it in VAT. The products that we use, the water we drink, diapers and hygiene products have VAT on it. In other words, governments are stripped of their revenues, shifting the burden of higher taxes and budget cuts on citizens. In recent year media attention has been focusing on several companies that do not pay their fair share of taxes, one of them being Starbucks European business. They were accused of paying only £8.6M corporate tax over period of 14 years. In attempt to regain trust of consumers, the company moved its headquarters from Amsterdam to London in 2014, raising its tax payments. While avoiding taxes, Starbucks met all international tax standards and regulations which is the core of tax avoidance. Everything is legal and well thought through – at least from far sight. If tax authorities had the resources to “dig deeper” into each companies tax report many more would be subject to public scrutiny and justice system. We are in the age of deep financial crisis with government cuts and welfare reductions. The public is well aware of that situation and has been incredibly vocal about companies like Starbucks who evade their responsibility. If the avoidance came to light prior the financial crisis, public would probably not pressure companies to this extent. Public feels something is not functioning within tax authorities and demand action. It is crucial and necessary to adopt the tax system to new, modern ways of doing business. Besides the negative financial side of tax avoidance, brands like Starbucks also suffer in terms of image they created. In the wake of 2012 Starbucks case, even members of UK Parliament called consumers to boycott the coffee retailer. Marketing experts, however, believe that a brand of this caliber will not suffer long-term consequences since their customers are highly loyal. There are many ways a multinational company can evade taxes : using transfer prices, intra-corporate loans, royalty payments by locating intellectual property in low-taxed country and by deferral of foreign affiliate income. All ways of avoidance stated above are legal, often advised to companies by consultancy firms. Through this paper, a reader will get to know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, examples and purpose of tax havens, latest tax avoidance strategies multinational companies use, in-depth analysis of Starbucks business model and how they pay minimum taxes. Furthermore, attention will be brought to moral and ethical issue of tax avoidance and the damage tax avoidance brings to the brand