The Coca-Cola Company is embroiled in a tax dispute with the Australian Tax Office (ATO), facing allegations of offshore profit diversion. The ATO has assessed it $173.8 million in diverted profits tax for the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years.
Transfer Pricing Scrutiny
Under the diverted profits tax, profits deemed to be diverted offshore are subject to a 40% tax. According to the ATO's assessment, Coca-Cola Amatil did not pay fees to The Coca-Cola Company for the usage of intellectual property, resulting in a diverted profit tax benefit.
According to the Australian Financial Review, this arrangement helped the company avoid liabilities related to royalty withholding tax.
Coca-Cola's agreements with its foreign subsidiaries for licensing intellectual property, including brand names, product formulas, and trademarks, have faced scrutiny. These agreements, known as transfer pricing, regulate the charges from parent companies to subsidiaries and affiliates.
Coca-Cola is engaged in a long-standing battle with the IRS in the United States over $3.3 billion in tax liabilities related to transfer pricing, as per Yahoo. The IRS's liability and legal win, upheld by the United States Tax Court, have prompted Coke to appeal the decision, deeming the tax "unconstitutional."
Disputing the Diverted Profits Tax in Australia
In the Australian context, Coca-Cola disputes the notion that it received any benefits under the diverted profits tax or any other income tax assessments in the country. Additionally, the company denies engaging in strategies aimed at reducing taxes in other jurisdictions.
Coke emphasizes that all its agreements with Coca-Cola Amatil were conducted at arm's length. These agreements, namely the Bottler's Agreement and the Bottler's Agreement for Other Trade Marks, governed the relationship between Coke and its Australian affiliate. Coca-Cola Amatil, a wholly owned subsidiary of Coke, was obligated to purchase beverage bases, essences, and other ingredients solely from Coke or its authorized suppliers.
Coca-Cola Amatil was responsible for the preparation, packaging, and distribution of Coke products, using approved containers, labels, trademarks, and designs. Remarkably, Coke claims that this arrangement was conducted without the imposition of any fee.
As the ATO issued penalty notices totaling $173.8 million, Coca-Cola Company has taken the matter to the Federal Court of Australia. The ongoing dispute highlights the complexities of multinational taxation and the challenges faced by revenue authorities worldwide.
Photo: Lukas Ballier/Unsplash


TrumpRx Website Launches to Offer Discounted Prescription Drugs for Cash-Paying Americans
Uber Ordered to Pay $8.5 Million in Bellwether Sexual Assault Lawsuit
Federal Judge Restores Funding for Gateway Rail Tunnel Project
SoftBank Shares Slide After Arm Earnings Miss Fuels Tech Stock Sell-Off
Trump Backs Nexstar–Tegna Merger Amid Shifting U.S. Media Landscape
Tencent Shares Slide After WeChat Restricts YuanBao AI Promotional Links
CK Hutchison Launches Arbitration After Panama Court Revokes Canal Port Licences
Minnesota Judge Rejects Bid to Halt Trump Immigration Enforcement in Minneapolis
TSMC Eyes 3nm Chip Production in Japan with $17 Billion Kumamoto Investment
Global PC Makers Eye Chinese Memory Chip Suppliers Amid Ongoing Supply Crunch
Toyota’s Surprise CEO Change Signals Strategic Shift Amid Global Auto Turmoil
Nasdaq Proposes Fast-Track Rule to Accelerate Index Inclusion for Major New Listings
CK Hutchison Unit Launches Arbitration Against Panama Over Port Concessions Ruling
American Airlines CEO to Meet Pilots Union Amid Storm Response and Financial Concerns
Federal Reserve Faces Subpoena Delay Amid Investigation Into Chair Jerome Powell
Nvidia, ByteDance, and the U.S.-China AI Chip Standoff Over H200 Exports
Prudential Financial Reports Higher Q4 Profit on Strong Underwriting and Investment Gains 



