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


Federal Reserve Faces Subpoena Delay Amid Investigation Into Chair Jerome Powell
Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Unlawfully Halted EV Charger Funding
Uber Ordered to Pay $8.5 Million in Bellwether Sexual Assault Lawsuit
SpaceX Pushes for Early Stock Index Inclusion Ahead of Potential Record-Breaking IPO
Hims & Hers Halts Compounded Semaglutide Pill After FDA Warning
Nasdaq Proposes Fast-Track Rule to Accelerate Index Inclusion for Major New Listings
Citigroup Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment by Top Wealth Executive
U.S. Lawmakers to Review Unredacted Jeffrey Epstein DOJ Files Starting Monday
Google Halts UK YouTube TV Measurement Service After Legal Action
Sony Q3 Profit Jumps on Gaming and Image Sensors, Full-Year Outlook Raised
Tencent Shares Slide After WeChat Restricts YuanBao AI Promotional Links
Court Allows Expert Testimony Linking Johnson & Johnson Talc Products to Ovarian Cancer
OpenAI Expands Enterprise AI Strategy With Major Hiring Push Ahead of New Business Offering
TrumpRx Website Launches to Offer Discounted Prescription Drugs for Cash-Paying Americans
SpaceX Prioritizes Moon Mission Before Mars as Starship Development Accelerates
Supreme Court Tests Federal Reserve Independence Amid Trump’s Bid to Fire Lisa Cook 



