Maya Forstater

The final sentence then admits the indicator will be at inaccurate. So how big is that and why try to use this artificial benchmark? Is it not like using the policy gap to redefine and remeasure the tax gap.

I have no knowledge of Pearson’s tax affairs but that cannot be right.

(* note -- its close but not quite what the proposed indicator would measure - indicator uses outward sales while Pearson report revenues including intracompany transactions ....but its close enough to get an idea of what the indicator captures in practice here)

Large if we take 'group adjustments' as indicative - towards 1/4 of all revenue. But it's the fact the group made such a heavy loss that's driving the pattern of results and makes them unrepresentative.

Just as well your indicator would exclude such anomalies then - or does it?