Editing Imperial Brands
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 2,146: | Line 2,146: | ||
New research co-authored by University of Bath details tax avoidance tactics used by the world’s four largest publicly-traded tobacco companies. British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands move large dividends and interest payments to holding companies in the United Kingdom. British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands UK subsidiaries have lowered their corporation tax burden by GBP 2.5-billion over the past decade. They have done this by offsetting losses made by one subsidiary against profit made by another. This is known as group relief. In this way, Imperial Brands was able to lower its UK corporate tax bill by an estimated GBP 1.8-billion over the past 10 years and British American Tobacco by an estimated GBP 760-million. <ref name="BATH"> University of Batch, [https://web.archive.org/web/20201207072922/https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/big-tobacco-big-avoidance/ Big Tobacco, Big Avoidance], 5 November 2020, Accessed 7 December 2020 </ref> | New research co-authored by University of Bath details tax avoidance tactics used by the world’s four largest publicly-traded tobacco companies. British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands move large dividends and interest payments to holding companies in the United Kingdom. British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands UK subsidiaries have lowered their corporation tax burden by GBP 2.5-billion over the past decade. They have done this by offsetting losses made by one subsidiary against profit made by another. This is known as group relief. In this way, Imperial Brands was able to lower its UK corporate tax bill by an estimated GBP 1.8-billion over the past 10 years and British American Tobacco by an estimated GBP 760-million. <ref name="BATH"> University of Batch, [https://web.archive.org/web/20201207072922/https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/big-tobacco-big-avoidance/ Big Tobacco, Big Avoidance], 5 November 2020, Accessed 7 December 2020 </ref> | ||
| − | In August 2019 a US House of Representatives committee asked e-cigarette manufacturers to hand over details about the health impacts of products. The energy and commerce committee wrote to Fontem Ventures, a subsidiary of [[Imperial Brands]], Reynolds American, the US business of [[British American Tobacco]], [[Japan Tobacco International]] and Juul. <ref> [ | + | In August 2019 a US House of Representatives committee asked e-cigarette manufacturers to hand over details about the health impacts of products. The energy and commerce committee wrote to Fontem Ventures, a subsidiary of [[Imperial Brands]], Reynolds American, the US business of [[British American Tobacco]], [[Japan Tobacco International]] and Juul. <ref> [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/e-cigarette-brands-quizzed-by-house-of-representatives-over-risk-to-young-smokers-56d62hdgf E-cigarette brands quizzed by House of Representatives over risk to smokers], ''The Times'', 23 August 2019, Accessed 12 September 2019 </ref> |
| + | |||
| + | New Zealand MPs questioned Imperial Brand’s claim that they are not targeting new customers. In an inquiry into smoking in cars, MPs on the Health Select Committee questioned the company's integrity, after an Imperial Brands representative said the company is only looking to transition current smokers to vape products, claiming they are only concerned with "people who have tried absolutely everything and cannot quit." One MP pointed out that the company's website states tobacco maximisation as a core part of its strategy, seemingly contradicting the Imperial Brands’ representative’s claim. <ref> [https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/08/i-m-confused-mps-question-tobacco-firm-imperial-brands-anti-smoking-goals.html 'I'm confused': MPs question tobacco firm Imperial Brands' anti-smoking motivation], ''Newshub'', 28 August 2019, 12 September 2019 </ref> | ||
===Tobacco Litigation=== | ===Tobacco Litigation=== | ||
| Line 2,156: | Line 2,158: | ||
According to Imperial's 2017 annual report, no tobacco litigation claim brought against the Imperial Group has been successful and/or resulted in the recovery of damages.{{r|AR2017|p=27}} | According to Imperial's 2017 annual report, no tobacco litigation claim brought against the Imperial Group has been successful and/or resulted in the recovery of damages.{{r|AR2017|p=27}} | ||
| − | In February 2018, Dutch prosecutors rejected an attempted murder case brought against the world's largest tobacco companies, including [[Philip Morris International]], [[British American Tobacco]], [[Japan Tobacco International]] and Imperial Tobacco by mother with lung cancer. <ref>[ | + | In February 2018, Dutch prosecutors rejected an attempted murder case brought against the world's largest tobacco companies, including [[Philip Morris International]], [[British American Tobacco]], [[Japan Tobacco International]] and Imperial Tobacco by mother with lung cancer. <ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/smoking-netherlands-attempted-murder-case-philip-morris-british-american-tobacco-benedicte-ficq-lung-a8223381.html Dutch prosecutors reject attempted murder case brought against tobacco giants by mother with lung cancer], ''The Independent'', February 2018, Accessed 31 October 2018 </ref> |
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 2,199: | Line 2,201: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | In 2015, tobacco companies including [[Philip Morris International]], [[British American Tobacco]], [[Japan Tobacco International]] and Imperial Tobacco Group took the British government to court, arguing that the UK’s “plain packaging” law, unlawfully takes away its intellectual property. <ref> [ | + | In 2015, tobacco companies including [[Philip Morris International]], [[British American Tobacco]], [[Japan Tobacco International]] and Imperial Tobacco Group took the British government to court, arguing that the UK’s “plain packaging” law, unlawfully takes away its intellectual property. <ref> [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uk-tobacco-idUSKBN0TT1H820151210#QIEUq9UE2w3FzHLv.99 Big Tobacco takes UK government to court over plain packaging], ''Reuters'', 10 December 2015, Accessed 18 December 2018 </ref> |
| − | Imperial Brands (majority share owner of Lao Tobacco Company) and Lao-China Hongta Good Luck Company Ltd., violated the law by not printing pictorial health warnings on their cigarette packs. These two companies control over 80 percent of the cigarette market in Lao PDR. <ref> Tobacco Watch, [ | + | Imperial Brands (majority share owner of Lao Tobacco Company) and Lao-China Hongta Good Luck Company Ltd., violated the law by not printing pictorial health warnings on their cigarette packs. These two companies control over 80 percent of the cigarette market in Lao PDR. <ref> Tobacco Watch, [https://tobaccowatch.seatca.org/index.php/2018/02/11/lao-tobacco-companies-disregard-tobacco-control-law/ Lao: Tobacco Companies Disregard Tobacco Control Law], 10 February 2018, Accessed 5 December 2018 </ref> |
==Partners and Allies== | ==Partners and Allies== | ||
