The law says that the fees paid for IP in this way have to be plausible. Franchising is a long-established business model and nobody would run a franchise if t

The law says that the fees paid for IP in this way have to be plausible. Franchising is a long-established business model and nobody would run a franchise if the franchise fee ate all the profit. So Starbucks' franchise fees are not plausible. Why doesn't HMRC challenge this? I've no idea.