I live near Buffalo and Tim Hortons is definitely a big deal here. Their coffee is my personal favorite.
In Canada the King will be represented by a Burger Governor General.
They are in combination locations (not saying they own it; just doubtful BK would share space with Wendy’s) here in Ohio. It’s not exactly like a Taco Bell/KFC, KFC/Pizza Hut. Taco Bell/Pizza Hut or KFC/Long John Silver- they have separate business setups but share a building and “dining room.”
:dubious: Tell me more, like will US BK’s, specifically the one where I often get my brunch, be offering them. Fresh ones, not the trucked-in donuts most DDs by me sell.
So, if they’re moving their legal headquarters to Canada, does that meat they’re becoming a Canadian corporation?
Good point. BK will still be paying US taxes on income earned in the US; by re-homing in Canada, what changes is that it escapes US taxation of its income in other countries.
In American politics money is always more important than democracy.
Anyone who is mad at Burger KIng for moving to Canada to pay less taxes should seriously consider whether that says something bad about Burger King or about our tax system. Just think for a minute: Burger King is fleeing to the land of universal health care to pay LESS taxes.
Yeah, I think it’s safe to say we need tax reform. And anyone who says they are unpatriotic, are the 2/3rds of corporations that don’t pay taxes also unpatriotic? Burger King was just a sucker corporation that didn’t have enough pull in Congress to avoid paying taxes. So now they get a fair shake in Canada, where corporations pay roughly the same rate.
Over the course of its history BK’s been owned by British and Brazilian conglomerates—I don’t see that it makes much difference! :rolleyes:
or, as they say in Quebec, bits de Tim. (I stole that joke from Dave Broadfoot.)
My understanding is that they want to move not because the corporate taxes in Canada are so much less (although they are lower), but because the US taxes corporations on their worldwide income, whereas Canada and most of the civilized world tax corporations only on the income they generate in their own country. So, BK in the US pays US tax on everything they make everywhere, BK in Canada pays Canadian taxes on Canadian income, British taxes on British income, German taxes on German income, etc.
That is the biggest issue. The US going to a territorial system should be a no-brainer, but for some reason a lot of people actually think the US should poach other countries’ tax bases.
That is interesting. Where did you read that?
We aren’t poaching anybody’s tax base. US-based corporations pay taxes to other countries on income they earn in those countries.
However, the tax rate in those countries is almost always lower than that in the US. The US then collects the difference between the foreign taxes and what the taxes would had the money been earned in the US. Which, of course, it wasn’t. But we tax it as if it was. So corporations have to keep two sets of books on non-US income, one to calculate foreign taxes, and one to calculate US taxes.
The triple-whammy of non-territorial taxation, high corporate tax rates (yes, higher than France or Sweden) and a Byzantine-complex domestic tax code make this a huge pain in the ass.
Hence, domicile in Canada. Or Switzerland. Or anyplace but here.
A big part of this is that if they don’t domicile in Canada, all of Tim Horton’s operations in Canada will become subject to US tax. This is not insignificant; I read that Tim Horton’s actually takes in more revenue and net profit than BK.
Here.
But didn’t the description originally refer to companies that were “bought” by one of their smaller foreign subsidiaries? Seems the buzzword is being more broadly applied.
Served up on an authentic replica fragment of a De Tomaso Pantera. Collect all ten!
Thanks!
I was always amazed that Tim Hortons caught on in Quebec. It would be like a chain called Derek Jeters catching on in Boston.