The tax issues Starbucks is facing with the UK government Essay

The tax issues Starbucks is facing with the UK government - Essay Example Their action of tax evasion stoked public protests whereby demonstrators brandishing ply cards flushing harsh words against Starbucks. Example of one held in a crowd huddled up in one of the entrances of a Starbuck coffee branch read â€Å" 74% of 45 billion pounds benefit cuts taken from women’s income† while another screamed in bold â€Å" Starbucks have not paid tax since 2009 (Mangold, 2010)†. The protesters seething with vent also threatened to switch allegiance to rival companies like Costa. These threats appeared to shake-up Starbuck who feared their customers were starting to decline and this compelled them to appease the population by volunteering to the British taxman 10 million pounds more tax than required by law for the years 2013-14. Since the start of the economic depression that ails most of the western world there has been deliberate action to conjure up ways to hoard up monies to revive the economy. One of ways to expand the exchequer is to invoke strict laws to close down on tax evaders and enact tougher punishments for offence (Gilbert, 2008, p. 67). This has been the main attribute as to the disclosure of how much cooperation tax Starbuck and other large corporate pay and prompting the revenue collectors up to their ante. A scrutiny at a SWOT analysis of Starbucks reveals its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Starbucks Corporation serves restaurants and coffeehouses worldwide with its headquarters in the USA. Its revenue and profits for 2012 were $ 13.29 billion and $ 1.38 billion respectively (Barney, 2009). With its CEO Howard Schultz, Starbucks employs 149,000 employees. Some of its biggest competitors include MacDonald Corp., Costa Coffee, Caribou Coffee Company, Dunkin Brands Group, and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters among others. Starbuck is the no. 1 brand coffeehouse chain in the

Are corporations persons with religious freedom rights Case Study

Are corporations persons with religious freedom rights - Case Study Example ) The court observed that the reason of extending these rights to corporations was to protect the right of employees, shareholders and officers of the corporation. Allowing these corporations to enforce RFRA claims serve to protect the religious liberty of the corporation. c) The court also reasoned that corporations would be considered persons with religious freedom rights within the meaning of the RFRA. Non profit organizations are considered persons within the meaning of the RFRA and this should be extended to for profit organizations. Although the main objective of these organizations is to make money they also undertake humanitarian and altruistic endeavors similar to those of non profit organizations. d) The court also noted that the governments mandate on contraception greatly hinders the exercise of religion. In its judgment the court noted that the government already had an existing and functional mandate that was already implemented for non profit organizations and this could be extended to corporations with religious reservations. The government would therefore use the non restrictive mandate for Hobby Lobby (Churchill 2014). a) The most likely impact the outcome in Burwell v Hobby Lobby will have will be the perceived impact on employees and employers. However, the court was quick to point out that the decision concerned the contraception mandate only. Thus the outcome cannot be applied where the employer’s religious beliefs conflict with any other requirement. b) The court also clarified that the decision only applies to closely held corporations which are operated according to the sacred beliefs of its owners. What this means is that all other for profit organizations that are closely held are exempt from providing contraception coverage for its employees (Cohen, Lynch, & Curfman 2014). c) The outcome in this case will also affect the mandate of ACA. Under the ACA, exemptions apply only if the employer qualifies as a religious employer, or