Just very quickly, if I may give a parallel example, I look around the room and I see lots of Apple products. If you look on the back to see where it is made, you will see “assembled in China” but “designed in California”. The reason that's an important issue is the following. Even with transparency, even with disclosure, it's not magic to allocate profits across jurisdictions. So when we go and buy an Apple product for $1,000, how much of the profit Apple earns should be allocated to each of the jurisdictions? It's related to taxes, absolutely; that's where the transfer pricing comes in. But it's related to the value added, the functions, the risks, and so on associated with the global supply chains.
So, if we think about Starbucks, for example, one needs to think about the functions, what's actually done in the U.K. when someone goes out and buys a tall latte. Then one needs to think about all the work Starbucks did to generate the brand. When you think about the brand and so on, not all of that can be allocated to selling the coffee in the U.K. You have to think about these things very carefully. So, on the issue of transfer pricing, one needs to think very carefully about the distribution of value across the supply chain.
It's not straightforward even in an environment where there's transparency, because there's a lot of interpretation, as the Glaxo case we just talked about referred to.