Minimisation and avoidance are of course different, for example when minimising or avoiding risk. Part of the issue here is the politically convenient conflatin

Minimisation and avoidance are of course different, for example when minimising or avoiding risk. Part of the issue here is the politically convenient conflating of the two descriptions. Related to this is your second point, about profits. If indeed a company shows a profit on their yearly profit and loss account, then providing a false declaration to HMRC would be statutorily illegal. You can be sure that HMRC and Companies House will have a look at it, but it's going to be a waste of time for those hoping to find wrong doing, but if there were something wrong their accountants will find themselves with a letter of demand. There is a great body of precedent in statutes pertaining to the Companies Act, and it is based on rulings not only within the UK, but also from other jurisdictions including the most similar in heritage such as Canada and Australia. Companies have a duty to further the companies best interests. Usually this means as interpreted maximisation of profit. There are other factors though, including reputation. It is for that consideration that I describe Starbucks voluntary accounts adjustment as one of good will, a valid accounts classification in its own right.