Thirty-Three Days

The Whopper and the Cajun chicken answer to a corporation in Canada and a head office in Miami, and the paycheck behind the counter was never either one's to move.

---

이 글의 한국어판 → 탈영한 것은 법인뿐이었다

The ‘corporate deserters’ speech of 24 July 2014 named no company — there was nothing to name. Thirty-three days later, Burger King and Tim Hortons announced a new parent based in Canada.

A speech about no one in particular

On July 24, 2014, Barack Obama stood at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College and talked about American companies that reincorporate abroad. "They're technically renouncing their U.S. citizenship," he said. "They're declaring they're based someplace else even though most of their operations are here. Some people are calling these companies 'corporate deserters.'" Then came the sentence that traveled: "My attitude is I don't care if it's legal — it's wrong."

He named no company, because there was no company to name. The speech was about inversions in general, and Burger King had announced nothing.

Thirty-three days later it did. On August 26, Burger King Worldwide and Tim Hortons, the Canadian coffee-and-doughnut chain, said they would combine under a new parent — "Founded in 1954," the release reminded everyone, "the original HOME OF THE WHOPPER." The new global company, it went on, "will be based in Canada, the largest market of the combined company." Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio had put out his statement the day before the joint release: "Burger King's decision to abandon the United States means consumers should turn to Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers or White Castle sliders. Burger King has always said 'Have it Your Way'; well my way is to support two Ohio companies that haven't abandoned their country or customers." The White House, asked on announcement day, declined to discuss the deal itself; press secretary Josh Earnest said only that Treasury was studying administrative actions to make such transactions less attractive.

Deserter is a strong word. It assumes you know where the soldier lives. This company makes that harder the longer you look, and the place to start looking is the shelf.

The six questions this series asks, answered at the end of 2025. The incorporation box says Canada, the head-office box says Miami again, and the sixth box has never moved.

Six questions

This magazine asks six questions of everything on an American shelf. Where was it born. Where is it incorporated. Where is the head office. Who owns the shares. Where are the stores. Who signs the paycheck. When the six answers cluster, there is nothing to write. When they scatter, the gap is the article.

Burger King scatters at the second question — and then, at the third, does something no other company in this series has done. It comes back.

Born: Miami, 1954, by the company's own unwavering account, with Popeyes born in Arabi, Louisiana, in 1972. Incorporated: Canada, federally. Head office: Miami again, as of the latest annual report. Shareholders: New York and Toronto listings, the founding shareholder down to about 21 percent. Stores: 33,041 at the end of 2025, more than 95 percent of them franchised. Paycheck: signed by the franchisee.

Each one-line answer hides a fight. Start with the birth certificate, which has two layers.

The drive-up stand and the detective

The company line has not wavered across a quarter century of documents. "Burger King Corporation was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Miami Florida," said the 2002 sale announcement. "Founded in 1954… the original HOME OF THE WHOPPER," said the 2014 merger release. "Founded in 1954… the Home of the Whopper®," says the annual report filed in 2026. The 2006 stock-offering prospectus supplies the texture: "When the first Burger King® restaurant opened its doors back in 1954, our founders had a smart idea," and those founders "sold the first Whopper® sandwiches in a Miami drive-up hamburger stand in 1957." The first Whopper cost 37 cents — a figure that traces to co-founder James McLamore's memoir, and one the company itself revived in 2021 by selling 37-cent Whoppers for the sandwich's 64th birthday.

Beneath the official layer sits an earlier one that the company's primary documents do not mention. Jacksonville's local historians and press date the name to July 23, 1953, when Keith J. Kramer and his wife's uncle, Matthew Burns, opened Insta-Burger King at 7146 Beach Blvd., built around a cooking machine called the Insta-Broiler. James McLamore and David R. Edgerton opened in Miami in 1954 as franchisees of that operation, and when the parent faltered they bought it and shortened the name. In 1959, by some accounts. In 1961, by others. I could not settle the year from a primary source, so it stays unsettled here.

Popeyes needs no excavation, because the company tells its own origin story with unusual candor. From the official newsroom, in 2022: "When entrepreneur Alvin C. Copeland Sr. opened the first Popeyes in the New Orleans suburb of Arabi back in 1972, he did it under a different name: Chicken on the Run." Customers stayed away. Copeland retooled around a spicier recipe and reopened as Popeyes — "named," the company says, "for Gene Hackman's hard-boiled police detective Popeye Doyle from the 1971 film The French Connection." Not the sailor. A detective. The first franchise followed in Louisiana in 1976, the "Love That Chicken" jingle in 1980, buttermilk biscuits in 1983 — and in 1984, the first restaurant outside the United States, in Toronto. Popeyes reached Canada thirty years before its parent company moved in.

Eight CEOs in thirteen years

In 1967 the founders sold to The Pillsbury Company of Minneapolis — about $18 million for a 274-restaurant chain, a price that survives in press histories but that I could not verify in a primary document. The sale itself is in the company's filings; the number is not. From there the Whopper's chain of custody reads like a lost-luggage tag. In January 1989, Grand Metropolitan plc of London took Pillsbury in a hostile deal at $66 a share, about $5.7 billion by contemporary accounts, after Pillsbury had weighed spinning off Burger King as a defense. In 1997 Grand Met merged with Guinness to become Diageo, a spirits company. What those years were like, the company itself later put on the record, in the 2006 prospectus, in language rare for a securities filing: Pillsbury made it "a subsidiary of a large food conglomerate," and under Grand Met and Diageo it became "a small, non-core subsidiary of a large conglomerate, making it difficult for the brand to prosper." Then the sentence that deserves the italics it never got: "From 1989, when Grand Met plc acquired Burger King Corporation, to 2002, we experienced eight CEOs, which led to frequently changing strategies and an absence of consistent focus."

Eight chief executives. Thirteen years.

The exit was ragged too. In July 2002 Diageo agreed to sell to a consortium of TPG, Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs for $2.26 billion. By November 18 the buyers "would not be able to complete," Diageo disclosed, "due to the highly competitive trading environment… and the deterioration in the capital markets." On December 13 the deal was re-signed and closed the same day at $1.5 billion — $1.2 billion in cash, $86 million of assumed debt, and $212.5 million of subordinated notes that Diageo itself took back. Diageo also guaranteed the new owners' $750 million senior loan and $100 million revolver, with a 5 percent annual fee if the debt was not refinanced within three years. The seller, in other words, supplied the discount, the paper and the guarantee to get the thing out the door. "We are pleased that we have been able to reach this agreement despite a difficult market," said Paul Walsh, Diageo's chief executive. Burger King had 11,455 restaurants that day.

The sponsors' era ended with a payday. On February 21, 2006, three months before the IPO, the company paid a $367 million cash dividend to shareholders — the sponsors' funds held about 95 percent — plus $33 million to holders of options and restricted stock, "primarily members of senior management," plus a one-time $30 million fee to terminate the sponsors' own management agreement, which had been collecting about $9 million a year. To fund the dividend, the company borrowed $350 million. In May 2006 it listed on the New York Stock Exchange at $17 a share, about 25 million shares.

In 2010 came 3G Capital: $24 a share, $4.0 billion including assumed debt, a 46 percent premium to the price before market rumors. The shorthand "Brazilian private equity firm" is not how 3G introduced itself. Its release described "a multi-billion dollar, global investment firm" whose "main office is in New York City." The founders — Jorge Paulo Lemann, Marcel Telles, Beto Sicupira — are Brazilian; the acquiring entities were American. Twenty months after going private, the company was public again, merged into Justice Holdings, the London-listed vehicle co-founded by Bill Ackman; 3G handed over 29 percent of the company, collected $1.4 billion, and kept 71.

So by the summer of 2014, the second-largest hamburger chain on earth had been owned from Minneapolis, from London, and from New York, and had been sold outright four times — 1967, 1989, 2002, 2010, my count from the record above. Which sharpens the question the word deserter has to answer: when this company finally left, what exactly was still there to leave?

The month of the deserters

The Tim Hortons deal was built plainly enough. Tim Hortons holders would receive C$65.50 in cash plus 0.8025 shares of the new company for each share — about C$89.32 of value at announcement, a 39 percent premium to the 30-day average. Burger King holders would swap into new shares, with an option to take units of an Ontario limited partnership instead, and 3G committed to take only the units. The release flagged the tax point itself: the transaction "is expected to be taxable, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, to the shareholders of Burger King," other than with respect to those units. The financing ran to $12.5 billion in commitments — a $9.5 billion debt package arranged by J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo, plus $3 billion of preferred stock from Berkshire Hathaway. What the whole deal was "worth" is a number the filings never state; the press wrote anywhere from $11 billion to $12.5 billion, and the only hard figures are the per-share terms.

The politics arrived on schedule. On September 11, five senators — Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Jack Reed, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown — wrote to the chief executive: "Now, after profiting from these taxpayer-funded benefits, Burger King intends to move its tax address overseas to avoid paying its fair share for these benefits." They counted about 7,400 U.S. restaurants and, from the prior year, $1.1 billion in revenue and $230 million in profit. They cited the cost of public assistance for fast-food workers' families — nearly $7 billion a year — and they questioned the partnership-unit structure that would let the largest holders defer capital-gains tax. One more sentence of that letter is worth saving for the end of this article, because the senators, mid-attack, described this company more precisely than anyone defending it managed to.

On September 22 the Treasury moved. Announcing Notice 2014-52, Secretary Jacob Lew said: "This action will significantly diminish the ability of inverted companies to escape U.S. taxation." The deal kept walking. It closed on December 12, and the stock began trading in New York and Toronto on December 15 under the ticker QSR.

Now the company's side, at full strength, because it is not a straw man. Daniel Schwartz, the 34-year-old chief executive, said on the announcement call: "[W]e don't expect our tax rate to change materially… this transaction is not really about tax. It's about growth." Alex Behring, the chairman: "This is not a tax-driven deal." And the strongest facts sat underneath them. Canada genuinely was the combined company's largest market — Tim Hortons had 3,630 of its 4,546 restaurants there. The agreement kept Oakville as Tim Hortons' global home and Miami as Burger King's. And the deal was structured to be taxable to Burger King's ordinary American shareholders, which an aggressively tax-driven deal need not have been.

The critics' numbers come with a label: estimates. Americans for Tax Fairness, an advocacy group, calculated in December 2014 that the company and its owners could avoid $400 million to $1.2 billion in U.S. taxes over the following four years — future foreign earnings, offshore cash already accumulated, and up to $820 million of large-holder capital gains deferred through the partnership units. The company disputed the report; the exact wording of its rebuttal I could not recover from a primary source. The same report conceded something useful: Burger King's 2013 effective worldwide tax rate was already 27.5 percent, "one of the lowest effective worldwide tax rates of any major American fast food company." Low before it ever left. The standard comparison that year ran 35 percent U.S. federal — roughly 39 with state taxes — against a combined federal-and-Ontario rate of about 26.5 percent, as Canadian broadcasters laid it out.

Then came the epilogue nobody scripted. In 2017 the United States cut its federal corporate rate to 21 percent, dissolving much of the arithmetic; RBI stayed Canadian anyway. And the company's actual effective tax rate, from its own reported figures: 20.1 percent in fiscal 2024 ($364 million of tax on $1,809 million of pre-tax income from continuing operations — my division), then 28.7 percent in fiscal 2025 ($483 million on $1,684 million), as global minimum-tax rules phased in. Higher, that year, than the 27.5 percent of its last full American year. A single year's rate proves nothing about an eleven-year-old decision — effective rates swing with accounting items, and I am not claiming the inversion bought nothing. But the number that started a national argument now points, on the latest page, in a direction that suits nobody who made it.

Nine percent, and no opinions

The quietest sentence in the announcement belonged to Omaha. "Berkshire Hathaway has committed $3 billion of preferred equity financing. Berkshire is simply a financing source and will not have any participation in the management and operation of the business." The terms, when they settled that December: $3 billion of 9 percent cumulative compounding perpetual preferred stock — 68,530,939 shares — plus warrants that Berkshire exercised into 8,438,225 common shares at one cent apiece. Nine percent of $3 billion is $270 million a year, my multiplication. One University of Maryland analysis put Berkshire's voting power, preferred included, at about 14.4 percent — an outside estimate, not a filing figure.

Warren Buffett, long the most famous advocate of higher taxes on people like Warren Buffett, was asked how he squared bankrolling an inversion. "I will not pay a dime more of individual taxes than I owe," he said, "and I won't pay a dime more of corporate taxes than we owe." The business press ran the criticism anyway; Fortune reached for the word "distasteful." On December 12, 2017 — three years to the day after the closing — RBI redeemed the entire class. The total was reported at about $3.3 billion including premium; the precise figure never surfaced in a primary document I could find.

The recipe came back for $43 million

Al Copeland grew up poor in New Orleans, left high school without finishing, and started in a doughnut shop, by his obituaries' account. What he built from the Arabi chicken stand reached 500 restaurants by 1985, third among American chicken chains. He lived the way the obituaries would later relish — powerboat racing, extravagant weddings, and a Christmas-lights display outside his suburban house so large that police directed traffic and the neighbors sued. In September 1989 he borrowed his way into buying Church's Fried Chicken, a larger rival, for about $398 million. By 1990, Al Copeland Enterprises owed about $391 million — nearly the price of the acquisition itself. In April 1991, secured creditors led by Merrill Lynch and CIBC, holding $427.6 million in claims, forced the company into involuntary Chapter 11 in San Antonio. In October 1992 the court confirmed the creditors' plan, and a new company, America's Favorite Chicken, took Popeyes and Church's.

Copeland lost the company. He kept the recipes. The spice formulas stayed with him, and his family's company collected an annual royalty under a contract running to 2029. He died on March 23, 2008, at 64, in a hospital near Munich, of complications from a malignant salivary-gland tumor — not broke, whatever the arc suggests. The royalties and a separate restaurant chain, Copeland's, were his to the end.

Which set up one of the strangest purchases in fast food. On June 16, 2014, Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen — the renamed AFC, by then rid of Church's — paid $43 million to Diversified Foods and Seasonings, the Copeland family company, to buy its own core recipes. The payment extinguished a royalty of about $3.1 million a year that was scheduled to run to 2029. Divide 43 by 3.1: about 13.9 years of royalties, paid at once, against roughly fifteen that remained. The chain had cooked from that formula for forty-two years — 1972 to 2014, my subtraction — without owning it.

Three years later, RBI bought the company around the recipe: $79 a share in cash, $1.8 billion, a 27 percent premium, announced February 21, 2017, and closed that March as a short-form merger under Minnesota law — Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. being, by way of its AFC ancestry, a Minnesota corporation. Cheryl Bachelder, the chief executive selling, pointed the credit backward: "its success reflects the amazing brand entrusted to us by founder Al Copeland, Sr." Under RBI, some 2,600 restaurants became 5,413 by the end of 2025, with the chicken-sandwich frenzy of 2019 as the pivot, as the trade press tells it.

Count the jurisdictions stacked on one box of chicken: a Louisiana brand named for a movie detective, held by a Minnesota corporation, under an Ontario partnership, under a federal Canadian parent, run from Florida. That last clause is the next section.

The address on the cover

Two errors circulate about Restaurant Brands International, and its own filings kill both. The first: that it is an Ontario company. It is not. The parent was born on August 25, 2014 as 1011773 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company — British Columbia — and on October 23, 2014 was continued under the Canada Business Corporations Act as 9060669 Canada Inc., a federal corporation, renamed Restaurant Brands International that December. Ontario enters one floor down, as the law governing Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership, the entity whose exchangeable units 3G took instead of shares. The 2025 proxy still speaks CBCA: three director nominees are identified as "resident Canadian as defined by the CBCA."

The second error: that the head office is in Toronto. It was — with dates attached. On the covers of the annual reports, the principal executive office reads Oakville, Ontario, for fiscal 2014 through 2017 — Tim Hortons' hometown. Then 130 King Street West, Toronto, for fiscal 2018 through 2023. Then, for fiscal 2024, Miami and Toronto side by side. And for fiscal 2025, filed on February 20, 2026: 5707 Waterford District Drive, Miami, Florida. Alone. Toronto is gone from the cover.

No press release announced any of this. I could not find one, and the change is visible only by stacking the filings in date order. The fiscal 2025 report explains itself in a single sentence: "In North America, our brands are headquartered in their home markets where they were founded decades ago: Canada for Tim Hortons, and the U.S. for Burger King, Popeyes, and Firehouse Subs." Earnings releases now dateline from Miami. The phone number on the SEC's registry still begins with 905 — an Ontario area code. And in Canada the anxiety runs the other way: Radio-Canada has asked, in a headline, whether Tim Hortons is still Canadian.

The shareholder box has moved too. 3G's 51 percent of December 2014 became about 27 percent of the votes by 2024, as reported; in November 2025 the firm exchanged units and sold up to 17.6 million shares in a registered offering, while the partnership bought back 2.78 million units, leaving 3G at about 21 percent fully diluted, by the company's own figure. Alexandre Behring still co-chairs the board. Bill Ackman's Pershing Square, aboard since the Justice Holdings merger of 2012, was still filing on Schedule 13D as of April 29, 2026. The chief executive since March 2023 is Joshua Kobza, who joined in 2012 when 3G arrived; the executive chairman is J. Patrick Doyle, formerly of Domino's.

So the second box says Canada, unmoved since 2014. The third box says Miami, as of 2026. The country that was deserted has the head office back; the country it deserted to keeps the incorporation papers, the partnership, and a phone number. Which leaves the last box — the one nobody in Washington or Ottawa ever held.

The person behind a franchised counter is hired, scheduled and paid by the franchisee. What flows up to the parent is a royalty, an advertising contribution and, on about 4,700 properties, rent.

Who signs the paycheck

The system, at the end of 2025: 33,041 restaurants — 19,900 Burger Kings across 126 countries, 6,232 Tim Hortons, 5,413 Popeyes, 1,496 Firehouse Subs — selling $46.8 billion of food a year. More than 95 percent of those restaurants are franchised. The company-run remainder is mostly an accident of 2024, when RBI bought Carrols Restaurant Group, its own largest franchisee — the 85 percent it did not already own, at $9.55 a share, about $1.0 billion of enterprise value — and inherited roughly a thousand Burger Kings that it says it plans, in the vast majority, to refranchise. The parent does not want to run restaurants. It wants to hand them back.

The payroll numbers make the design visible. RBI reported approximately 53,500 employees: about 3,400 corporate, about 1,300 in distribution centers and plants, and about 48,900 in company restaurants — overwhelmingly the Carrols inheritance. Fifty-three thousand people for thirty-three thousand restaurants is fewer than two per store, my division, and it is not a staffing crisis. It is the structure. The annual report states it in one sentence: "Our franchisees are independent business owners that separately employ team members in their restaurants." The crew behind the counter is hired by the franchisee, scheduled by the franchisee, paid by the franchisee. RBI does not count them. There was never a counter headcount to move to Canada, because headquarters never had one.

What headquarters collects instead: a royalty of 3.0 to 6.0 percent of sales at standard U.S. and Canadian restaurants; rent on about 4,700 properties RBI leases or subleases to franchisees, typically 8.5 to 10.0 percent of monthly sales or a fixed sum; advertising contributions of 2.0 to 5.0 percent of sales. Even the food is someone else's: Burger King, Popeyes and Firehouse buy everything from third-party suppliers — seven distributors serve U.S. Burger Kings, four of them covering 92 percent of restaurants; ten serve Popeyes, four covering 83 percent — and the syrup commitments to Coca-Cola and Dr Pepper run long enough that walking away would cost about $156 million. The exception is Tim Hortons, where RBI itself roasts the coffee at two plants and runs nine Canadian distribution centers, which is why supply-chain revenue muddies the parent's books. Of the $46,762 million the system sold in 2025, RBI's own income statement recognizes $9,434 million. The roughly $37 billion between those numbers is mostly the franchisees' business, not the parent's — though the parent's figure also contains company-store sales and the Tim Hortons supply chain, so the gap is not purely royalties either. My subtraction; their structure.

The franchisee's side of the counter is published too, with an asterisk: the company's estimate of a restaurant's annual four-wall operating profit, built on the franchisees' own reporting. For 2025, about $185,000 for a U.S. Burger King — down from $205,000 in 2023 — about $235,000 for a U.S. Popeyes, about $100,000 for a Firehouse, about C$295,000 for a Canadian Tim Hortons. Out of the store's economics come the wages, and around the wages stands the last set of numbers, the ones the senators used in 2014: more than half of fast-food workers' families, their letter said, depend on taxpayer-funded public assistance, at a cost of nearly $7 billion a year.

Which brings back the sentence I promised to save. September 11, 2014, five senators, mid-denunciation: "Perversely it will be your franchisees – small business owners who remain loyal U.S. taxpayers – that will suffer from your actions, while reaping none of the benefit." Read it again with the sixth box open. The senators were describing collateral damage. What they actually wrote down, more cleanly than any defender of the deal ever did, was the company itself: the taxpaying, hiring, paycheck-signing part of Burger King is thousands of small business owners, and it never went anywhere.

What never crossed the street

Add up the passport years, since the word deserter invites it. British, from January 1989 to December 2002: about thirteen years and eleven months. Canadian, from December 12, 2014 to this writing: about eleven years and eight months. Call it 25.6 years — roughly 36 percent of the seventy-two years since 1954, my arithmetic on the dates above — in which the Home of the Whopper was not, in law, an American company. The 3G interregnum does not count: the founders were Brazilian, the office was in New York, and the corporation was American. Capital's nationality and the corporation's nationality are different boxes, which is most of what this series exists to say.

The sixth box never had a nationality crisis at all. In 2010, when 3G arrived, about 90 percent of restaurants were franchised; by the 2014 announcement the release said approximately 100 percent, 3G having sold nearly all the rest; today it is over 95, with the Carrols batch marked for return. Under Pillsbury, under Grand Met, under Diageo, under the sponsor funds, under 3G, under the maple leaf, under the Miami cover page, the person paying the crew was the owner of the store.

The President said he didn't care whether it was legal. The senators said the franchisees would suffer. The company said it was about growth. Everyone was arguing about the flag on a filing. Thirty-three days before the announcement the word was deserters; twelve years later the incorporation is still Canadian, the head office is back in Miami, and the argument has quietly retired. The paycheck outlasted it without moving. It never crossed the street.