According to Ritchie anyway
I know and respect Michael Izza, but on this occasion have to say he has just got this wrong. As example, the transcript of the hearing before the House of Lords I attended on Wednesday will show that Bill Dodwell of Deloitte, who was also giving evidence, said he could not see how Starbucks were avoiding tax in using the arrangements they did in the UK.
Now if Michael is agreein with Bill that there was no tax avoidance then his comment is justified.
If on the other hand the Prime Minister is right in correctly reflecting the mood of the country that the schemes used were obviously abusive tax avoidance, which the Public Accounts Committee concluded as do I,
Recall, that when everyone dived into Starbucks’ accounts, we found out that they really hadn’t been making a profit in the UK. No, not even when you added back in the royalties etc.
According to Ritchie not making a profit is tax avoidance these days.