Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
Starbucks is embroiled in fresh controversy over its tax affairs after it was accused of using a little-known British company to avoid paying taxes across Europe. The U.S. coffee giant is being probed by the European Commission over some of the methods it used to lower its tax bills. It could face millions of pounds in back taxes if they are found to be illegal. For the first time yesterday, details emerged about the UK company at the heart of the probe, which is focusing on sweetheart tax deals between Starbucks and the Dutch government. Probe: Starbucks ran its European division - including the UK - through the Netherlands, but it paid just PS1.9million in tax to the Dutch government, from a reported PS300million profit. Starbucks ran its European business, including its booming UK division, through the Netherlands where it paid almost no tax on its profits. But it has

Summary:
1. Starbucks embroiled in fresh controversy over its tax affairs.
2. Accused of using little - known British company to avoid paying taxes across Europe.
3. Could face millions of pounds in back taxes if they are found to be illegal.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
