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


Missouri Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Starbucks’ Diversity and Inclusion Policies
Newly Released DOJ Epstein Files Expose High-Profile Connections Across Politics and Business
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration Move to End TPS for Haitian Immigrants
Uber Ordered to Pay $8.5 Million in Bellwether Sexual Assault Lawsuit
New York Judge Orders Redrawing of GOP-Held Congressional District
Global PC Makers Eye Chinese Memory Chip Suppliers Amid Ongoing Supply Crunch
Toyota’s Surprise CEO Change Signals Strategic Shift Amid Global Auto Turmoil
Panama Supreme Court Voids Hong Kong Firm’s Panama Canal Port Contracts Over Constitutional Violations
Amazon Stock Rebounds After Earnings as $200B Capex Plan Sparks AI Spending Debate
Federal Reserve Faces Subpoena Delay Amid Investigation Into Chair Jerome Powell
Trump Family Files $10 Billion Lawsuit Over IRS Tax Disclosure
Court Allows Expert Testimony Linking Johnson & Johnson Talc Products to Ovarian Cancer
SpaceX Pushes for Early Stock Index Inclusion Ahead of Potential Record-Breaking IPO
Washington Post Publisher Will Lewis Steps Down After Layoffs
US Judge Rejects $2.36B Penalty Bid Against Google in Privacy Data Case
TSMC Eyes 3nm Chip Production in Japan with $17 Billion Kumamoto Investment
SoftBank Shares Slide After Arm Earnings Miss Fuels Tech Stock Sell-Off 



