A coffee shop which mocks every element of Starbucks should expect a lawsuit - yet its founders say their lawyers can defend their baristas.
Starbucks admit that they have not yet paid the millions pounds they promised they would pay to the government after a row over their tax.
Starbucks volunteers to pay £20 million in corporation tax but will it be enough to satisfy tax dodging campaigners?
Starbucks' decision to move its European headquarters from the Netherlands to London is a "ringing endorsement" of the capital's business environment, according to the chief executive of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Colin Stanbridge.
This very positive move by Starbucks greatly reinforces London as a key global centre for business and a highly desirable location for firms to base their operations.
Creating the right environment for businesses to flourish is essential to London competing at an international level and we are delighted that Starbucks has given the capital a ringing endorsement.
Coffee chain Starbucks says it will "pay more tax in the UK" in the future after opting to move its European headquarters from the Netherlands to London.
The company said the move would make it "better able to oversee the UK market".
Starbucks has come under scrutiny over its tax affairs in the past, with the company telling a parliamentary committee in 2012 that it had not made a taxable profit for 14 of the 15 years it had been operating in the UK.
Starbucks UK confirmed to ITV News it posted a net loss of £30.4 million in the 2011-12 tax year, which it said was "an improvement" from the previous financial year.
A Starbucks spokeswoman said: “All full and part-time employees of Starbucks receive shares as part of their pay. Over half of the remuneration provided to our directors last year comprised the sale of vested equity shares.
"The reason for the increase is that the directors took the decision to sell some of their vested shares".
Starbucks posted a net annual loss of £30.4 million in the UK for the 12 months ending September 30, 2012, Sky News reported.
Starbucks Coffee (UK) Ltd posted a total turnover of £413.39 million in 2011-12, compared to £397.7 million in 2010-11, accounts filed with Companies House reportedly show.
The coffee chain reported a gross profit of £70.5 million, but taking into account £98.2 million in administrative losses, the loss for the 2011-12 tax year totalled £30.4 million.
Starbucks UK posted a net loss of £32.8 million for the tax year ending 2011, the report added.
Starbucks has paid £5 million in tax and will pay another £5 million later this year after a previous row.
It has promised to pay £20m with another £10m to come, according to a statement from the firm.
– Starbucks statement
Six months ago, we felt that our customers should not have to wait for us to become profitable before we started paying UK Corporation Tax.
We listened to our customers in December and so decided to forgo certain deductions which would make us liable to pay £10 million in Corporation Tax this year and a further £10 million in 2014.
We have now paid £5 million and will pay the remaining £5 million later this year.
The statement said: "We are also undertaking measures to make Starbucks profitable in the UK, such as relocating unprofitable stores to more cost effective locations, closing them where that is not possible and placing greater reliance on franchised and licensed stores.”
The statement comes in a response to a story published in the Telegraph.
– Starbucks spokesperson
We are on track to implement the unprecedented commitment to pay a significant amount of tax during 2013 and 2014.
Starbucks sources told me that they are working hard to get the tax deal done and promised to have it completed by the end of September.
– Anna Walker, spokeswoman for UK Uncut
As we said at the time of Starbucks announcement, their offer of £20m was simply a PR stunt, days before our protests targeted their stores across the country.
It's not up to companies to pick and choose when, if or how much tax they pay, its up to the government to force them to pay their fair share.
This government is making a political choice to cut legal aid, public services and the welfare state rather than force companies like Starbucks, Google, Amazon or Goldman Sachs to pay up.