August 25, 2014 6:12 pm -

Burger King is in talks to buy Tim Horton’s a Canadian donut company, and word is they’ll headquarter in Canada.  Does that mean they’ll have to change their red, white and blue logo?


Shawn Simpson, who hadn’t heard of the talks until approached by a reporter while he was at a Burger King in New York City on Monday afternoon, said he didn’t like the idea of the company paying its taxes to another country.

“For them to take their headquarters and move it across the border is a negative for me,” said Simpson, 44, who was ordering a Double Whopper and onion rings. “It’s an American brand.”

A representative for Burger King, Miguel Piedra, said while the headquarters of the new company would be in Canada, Burger King would still continue to be run out of Miami. Piedra also said the comments on Burger King’s Facebook page represent a small fraction of the company’s more than 7 million followers on the social media site.

Burger King isn’t the first company to face fallout over a tax inversion, which is when a company acquires a business in another country, then relocates its headquarters there. Big U.S. companies, including pharmaceutical AbbiVie and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, recently have pursued tax inversions to cut their costs. Earlier this month, Walgreen abandoned plans to pursue a tax inversion after negative publicity about the planned move.

President Barack Obama and Congress have criticized inversions because they mean a loss of tax revenue for the U.S. government.[su_sky_ad]

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

19 responses to Burger King To Become–Canadian?

  1. edmeyer_able August 25th, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    I hate the fact that many of the products I purchase are produced overseas. With U S companies doing this inversion crap it makes me want to head to Alaska and live off the land. At least it will be easy to boycott BK, last time I ate fast food was 10 months ago.

  2. mea_mark August 25th, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    Perhaps we should consider two minimum wages in America. One for wholly owned companies and another, 20% higher, for companies that are foreign held and don’t pay taxes. Their employees can collect the money and spend it here creating are higher tax revenue base.

    • edmeyer_able August 25th, 2014 at 6:37 pm

      Democrats would have to hold both houses and have 6 seats on Scotus to get that through.

      • mea_mark August 25th, 2014 at 6:40 pm

        I don’t know, the isolationist republicans might get behind it. I can see how an idea like that could get bipartisan support.

        • edmeyer_able August 25th, 2014 at 6:45 pm

          Remember this..

          • mea_mark August 25th, 2014 at 7:07 pm

            So depressing, I really would like to forget. I guess we are just going to have to vote them all out then.

    • Eric Trommater August 25th, 2014 at 7:13 pm

      Yeah, I’m not a big fan of using either the tax code or wage laws to encourage one kind of company over another. For instance, the Capital Gans Tax, which encourages investment over earned income.

  3. Eric Trommater August 25th, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    I always felt the idea of having a Burger King was undemocratic and would be glad to see them go. In fact I hope they take Dairy Queen and Prince with them to Canada and leave us out of their plans at reinstating Bastard Feudalism. The tax revenue was never worth it. Also their fries are terrible.

    • Roctuna August 25th, 2014 at 7:09 pm

      They can all live in the White Castle! Bloody royalists.

  4. Roctuna August 25th, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    Why are they not taxed on revenues earned in the US? If they’re not, close that loophole. Any corp tax gurus out there?

    • Eric Trommater August 25th, 2014 at 7:17 pm

      It is more simple than it seems. It has nothing to do with their revenue but on the taxes they pay as a corporate entity. It isn’t a loophole it is simply competition on a global scale.

      • Roctuna August 25th, 2014 at 7:34 pm

        I consider that a loophole. You do business here? earn revenue here? Then there’s a tax bill due here, regardless of where corp hq is, otherwise those ornery revenuers shut the business down.

    • edmeyer_able August 25th, 2014 at 7:52 pm

      Why I watch the Daily Show.

  5. Robert Merrill Taylor August 25th, 2014 at 9:23 pm

    As a Canadian and a taxpayer, I have never heard of Canada being used as a corporate tax haven. Companies flee Canada to avoid taxes, usually to the United States. The Canadian corporate federal tax rate is lower than the rate in the United States. But HST, provincial corporate and medicare taxes combined with municipal tax levies more than make up the difference. Canadian companies with United States operations pay U.S. taxes plus Canadian taxes.

  6. Red Eye Robot August 26th, 2014 at 12:59 am

    Burger king is moving it’s headquarters to Canada to pay less taxes to the US govt. And here I thought the concept that increasing taxes actually decreases revenue was a myth.Art Laffer strikes again. .

  7. greenfloyd August 26th, 2014 at 1:44 am

    Burger King and the fast-food industry generally are significant polluters of the environment, our bodies and our minds. Like Capitalism itself, it’s an unsustainable business model and should be abolished. Eat Veggie Burgers instead, they’re tasty, good for you and sustainable.

  8. Always Right August 26th, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    This is a lot to do about nothing. BG will still run their business from Miami and will still produce jobs and tax revenue in the US. BK is another success story of Bain Capital and several partners who took it public in 2002. In 2010 a majority share was purchased by 3G Capital of Brazil, so even though it is a Delaware Corporation, there are foreign investors..

    My concern with all the negative talk is who really gets hurt with a boycott. Burger King reported it had over 13,000 outlets in 79 countries; of these, 66 percent are in the United States and 99 percent are privately owned and operated with its new owners moving to an entirely franchised model in 2013. Since 99 percent are owned by our neighbors and friends, a boycott will only hurt them and their 200,000 employees, not the Corporation who only employs 2,400 employees, because they will still collect their franchise fees.

  9. Always Right August 26th, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    Funny that the president’s good friend is facilitating the deal. Warren Buffett is helping to fund the deal.

    • OldLefty August 26th, 2014 at 9:29 pm


      Does the president have to agree 100% or 0% with Buffet??

      While this is a story that’s very much developing, it is not clear that the Burger King/Tim Horton’s deal is mainly about lowering taxes. As MONEY’s Paul Lim argued yesterday, it may have more to do with diversifying Burger King’s portfolio beyond the slow-growing hamburger business. (BK will still pay U.S. taxes on its U.S. earnings.