評論
打印
All very complicated, yet perhaps rather lucrative for Pessina and KKR.
這一切都非常復雜，但對于佩西納和科克羅公司來說，可能相當有利可圖。
In 2013, a report published by War on Want, Unite and the US campaign group Change to Win,
2013年，慈善機構“戰爭之需”、“團結聯盟”和美國運動組織“變革謀勝工會”聯合發布了一份報告，
claimed that Alliance Boots had legally avoided paying over 1bn pounds in taxes to the UK since going private.
他們聲稱，自私有化以來，聯合博姿合法避稅超過10億英鎊。
Yet around 40% of the revenues for its British business come straight from the NHS.
然而，其英國業務約40%的收入直接來自英國國家醫療服務系統。
The campaigners complained to the OECD, the rich-nations’ thinktank, about what they saw as a violation of UK tax laws, although the OECD rejected the claim.
活動人士向富裕國家的智庫經合組織抱怨，他們認為此舉違反了英國的稅法，但經合組織否認了這一說法。
A Boots spokesperson categorically rejected the tax campaigners’ claims,
博姿公司的發言人斷然拒絕了稅務活動人士的說法，
describing their calculations as factually inaccurate, “heavily biased” and “defamatory”.
稱他們的計算是不準確的，“嚴重偏見”和“誹謗”。
The spokesperson stated: “We organise our tax affairs strictly in compliance with all applicable laws in each jurisdiction.”
發言人表示：“我們嚴格按照每個司法管轄區所有適用的法律來組織稅務工作。”
In the financial year from 2013 to 2014, Boots paid “around 577m pounds in tax in the UK”.
在2013年至2014年的財政年度，博姿在英國繳納了“約5.77億英鎊的稅款”。
The company refused to give any further details, apart from to say that the sum includes business rates and national insurance.
該公司拒絕透露更多細節，只是說這筆錢包括商業稅率和國民保險。
Yet business rates and national insurance are the cost any firm must bear to run shops and employ staff.
然而，商業稅率和國家保險是任何公司經營店鋪和雇傭員工必須承擔的成本。
A family is not granted a lower council tax bill because it has already shelled out for the electric and water.
一個家庭不能獲得較低的市政稅，因為他們已經支付了電費和水費。
If Nottinghamshire heritage could be junked in the new regime, financial stability didn’t count for much, either.
如果諾丁漢郡的傳統在新體制下被拋棄，金融穩定也就不那么重要了。
Before the takeover, Boots UK bore a modest 50p-worth of loans for every 1 pounds of equity, or net assets.
在收購之前，博姿英國每1英鎊的股本或凈資產就能獲得價值50便士的貸款。
Immediately after the takeover, that ratio shot up five-fold.
收購后不久，這一比率飆升了5倍。
It was as if a house worth only 100,000 pounds suddenly had a giant mortgage of 250,000 pounds.
這就好像一棟只有10萬英鎊的房子突然有了25萬英鎊的巨額抵押貸款。
Haslam, who is a former corporate financier, believes that balancing such huge debt on comparatively little equity would be judged by an auditor as “high risk”.
曾做過企業金融家的哈斯拉姆認為，在相對較少的股本上平衡如此巨額的債務，會被審計人員判定為“高風險”。
