1) How were Starbucks' consolidated financial statements affected by Starbucks'

efforts to minimize UK corporate tax?

2. What tax strategies did Starbucks use to minimize the taxes it paid in the UK?

3. Is the allegation that Starbucks did not pay its "fair share" of UK taxes accurate?

4. Is it inconsistent for a company to claim to be socially responsible, and take credit

for paying fair wages to employees and fair prices to suppliers in developing

countries, and then not pay their "fair share" of taxes to local governments?

5. Even if it is legal for a company to avoid paying taxes in a country (or state,

county, or city), is it ethical to shift taxable income away from the jurisdiction

generating the profits to another jurisdiction with a lower income tax rate?

6. What organizational goals were affected by Starbucks' efforts to minimize taxes?

How should this affect the company's future tax planning?

7. Prior to the negative publicity, which stakeholders were the primary beneficiaries

of Starbucks tax avoidance in the UK? Which stakeholders were potentially

harmed by Starbucks' tax avoidance?

8. If tax avoidance is a common practice among multinational companies, why was

Starbucks targeted for its tax avoidance activities?

9. The media reports and protests focused on the amount of income taxes that

Starbucks paid in the UK. Are Starbucks' other contributions to UK tax revenue

relevant to this discussion? Why was the attention focused solely on Starbucks'

corporate income taxes?

10. What motivations might underlie Starbucks' decision to voluntarily pay corporate

income taxes in the UK?