I am reading the "Conclusions and recommendations" section and I am not seeing any such criticism of "Activision for following the law". Rather, I am seeing sta

I am reading the "Conclusions and recommendations" section and I am not seeing any such criticism of "Activision for following the law". Rather, I am seeing statements like this one: > The case of Activision Blizzard is just another example demonstrating the need for governments to introduce more effective measures to deal with royalty-based tax avoidance schemes. In the UK this means changing legislation to make sure that royalty payments made to companies in jurisdictions where the UK has a tax treaty are included in the charge to income tax. That is not a criticism of Activision Blizzard. It is a straightforward statement of the fact that "more effective measures [are needed] to deal with royalty-based tax avoidance schemes". So, I don't really see what you're talking about. Let's try this: do you agree that they are "using offshore tax havens to reduce their tax burden"? If so, would you further agree that this is a "tax avoidance scheme"? Why or why not?