BOYCOTT CADBURYS
Cadbury’s Owner Paid NO UK Tax
000.0%
Boycott All Their Choclate Products
They did everything they said they'd never do !! Closures and massive redundancies
Mondelez International, formerly called Kraft Foods, has lawfully avoided tens of millions of pounds of corporation tax since its controversial £11.5bn takeover of Cadbury five years ago, which was funded with billions of pounds of loans. At the same time the company has cut hundreds of jobs from its British workforce.
Cadbury’s tax bills in Britain are being wiped out with the help of interest payments on an unsecured £8.2bn debt, listed as a bond on the Channel Islands stock exchange. These are then offset as losses against tax in its British operation. Mondelez made more than $12bn (£8bn) in gross profits worldwide last year and has reported “solid margins” in its European business.
Cadbury UK made profits of £96.5m in the year to December 31, 2014, but paid no corporation tax. Its holding company, Cadbury Ltd, previously Cadbury plc, paid dividends of £1.3bn in the same year — but also paid no corporation tax.
Margaret Hodge, chairwoman of the Commons all-party group on responsible tax, said: “Multinationals like this are deliberately exporting their profits with artificial company structures to avoid tax. The founders of Cadbury who set it up as an ethical company will be turning in their graves.”
Mondelez caused outrage after breaking its pledge not to shut the Somerdale chocolate factory near Bristol with the loss of 400 jobs.
If they can't pay their taxes remove them from your basket
#onerulefortherich #poorgettingpoorer
Laughing all the way to the bank
*****************************************************
Rosenfeld’s company, Mondelez International — formerly Kraft Foods — had clinched its £11.5bn bid for Cadbury in 2010. Yet the chief executive refused to appear before the business select committee to discuss the takeover, claiming it was “not the best use of my personal time”.
MPs were furious that a pledge to keep open the Somerdale chocolate factory near Bristol was ditched just days after the takeover. They were also concerned over the risk to other jobs and that the huge loans raised for the deal and a move of some operations to Switzerland might cost the government lost tax revenues.
It now looks as if some of their fears have been realised. A Sunday Times investigation into the tax payments of Mondelez reveals it has lawfully avoided tens of millions of pounds of tax in Britain since its controversial takeover.
At the same time, hundreds of jobs at Cadbury have been lost — although Mondelez says it has invested heavily in the UK since the takeover.
Cadbury’s corporation tax bills in Britain are being wiped out with the help of interest payments on an unsecured £8.2bn debt, listed as a bond on the Channel Islands stock exchange. It is unclear how and when this debt was accrued.
Lindsay Hoyle, one of the MPs on the Commons’ business, innovation and skills committee that investigated the takeover in 2010, said: “It’s wrong that companies like these hide behind an international tax system at the expense of loyal British companies who pay their tax.”
An analysis of Mondelez International’s most recent company records in Britain reveal how it has cut the corporation tax bill previously paid by Cadbury. Before the takeover, one subsidiary alone — Cadbury Trebor Bassett Services — paid more than £45m in corporation tax in just one year.
An analysis of three of the biggest Mondelez companies in the UK reveal none of them paid corporation tax last year.
Much of the cash generated from their operations is ultimately transferred to an obscure partnership in the low tax regime of the Netherlands.
The firms that paid zero corporation tax include Cadbury Ltd — the former Cadbury plc, once an industrial colossus in Britain. It had more than £25m of taxable profits in 2014 but paid no corporation tax.
One of its key subsidiaries, Cadbury UK, made profits of £96.5m in 2014 but also paid no corporation tax. A third company, Mondelez UK, had revenues of £1.8bn and an operating profit of £23.7m last year. Again, it paid no corporation tax, deferring a liability of £4.1m.
Dividends from the Cadbury companies are used to help pay interest on a £8.2bn debt, comprised of the bond listed in the Channel Islands. The interest repayments can be used to offset tax in any firms in the group.
The main British corporate structure at the apex of this money-go-round is called Chromium Suchex LLP. It paid a dividend of just under £2bn last year to the partnership in the Netherlands.
Richard Brooks, a Private Eye journalist and author of The Great Tax Robbery, said: “Kraft’s acquisition of Cadbury back in 2010 had a huge element of tax engineering. Five years on, it’s clear that it has been paying interest on billions of pounds of debt through a corporate structure that creates a black hole for taxable profits.
“As a result, it looks like Cadbury has avoided tens of millions of pounds of UK corporation tax.”
Mondelez has also upset the public by changing some of Cadbury’s popular products. Earlier this year it confirmed it was replacing the Dairy Milk in its Creme Egg with its “standard cocoa mix chocolate”. One Twitter user complained: “I know Americans don’t get chocolate but urgh it’s horrid.”
A Mondelez statement said: “In common with all global businesses, we pay corporation tax based on the laws of the countries in which we operate. We comply with all applicable tax legislation in the UK, working closely with the relevant authorities, and on a global basis we pay hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate income tax annually.
“Since 2010 we are very proud to have invested over £200m into the UK across our world leading innovation, science and manufacturing sites and our 4,500 UK employees.
“This includes £18m into our global science centre in Reading, which gives us the largest research footprint outside of North America, and our world-class R&D site in Bournville.
“We’ve also successfully secured the next generation of UK manufacturing in Bournville, with a £75m investment.”
Comments