英国卫报:走向失控的博姿药妆(10)（在线收听）

All very complicated, yet perhaps rather lucrative for Pessina and KKR.

这一切都非常复杂，但对于佩西纳和科克罗公司来说，可能相当有利可图。

In 2013, a report published by War on Want, Unite and the US campaign group Change to Win,

2013年，慈善机构“战争之需”、“团结联盟”和美国运动组织“变革谋胜工会”联合发布了一份报告，

claimed that Alliance Boots had legally avoided paying over 1bn pounds in taxes to the UK since going private.

他们声称，自私有化以来，联合博姿合法避税超过10亿英镑。

Yet around 40% of the revenues for its British business come straight from the NHS.

然而，其英国业务约40%的收入直接来自英国国家医疗服务系统。

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.

活动人士向富裕国家的智库经合组织抱怨，他们认为此举违反了英国的税法，但经合组织否认了这一说法。

A Boots spokesperson categorically rejected the tax campaigners’ claims,

博姿公司的发言人断然拒绝了税务活动人士的说法，

describing their calculations as factually inaccurate, “heavily biased” and “defamatory”.

称他们的计算是不准确的，“严重偏见”和“诽谤”。

The spokesperson stated: “We organise our tax affairs strictly in compliance with all applicable laws in each jurisdiction.”

发言人表示：“我们严格按照每个司法管辖区所有适用的法律来组织税务工作。”

In the financial year from 2013 to 2014, Boots paid “around 577m pounds in tax in the UK”.

在2013年至2014年的财政年度，博姿在英国缴纳了“约5.77亿英镑的税款”。

The company refused to give any further details, apart from to say that the sum includes business rates and national insurance.

该公司拒绝透露更多细节，只是说这笔钱包括商业税率和国民保险。

Yet business rates and national insurance are the cost any firm must bear to run shops and employ staff.

然而，商业税率和国家保险是任何公司经营店铺和雇佣员工必须承担的成本。

A family is not granted a lower council tax bill because it has already shelled out for the electric and water.

一个家庭不能获得较低的市政税，因为他们已经支付了电费和水费。

If Nottinghamshire heritage could be junked in the new regime, financial stability didn’t count for much, either.

如果诺丁汉郡的传统在新体制下被抛弃，金融稳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.

在收购之前，博姿英国每1英镑的股本或净资产就能获得价值50便士的贷款。

Immediately after the takeover, that ratio shot up five-fold.

收购后不久，这一比率飙升了5倍。

It was as if a house worth only 100,000 pounds suddenly had a giant mortgage of 250,000 pounds.

这就好像一栋只有10万英镑的房子突然有了25万英镑的巨额抵押贷款。

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”.

曾做过企业金融家的哈斯拉姆认为，在相对较少的股本上平衡如此巨额的债务，会被审计人员判定为“高风险”。