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


Sony Q3 Profit Jumps on Gaming and Image Sensors, Full-Year Outlook Raised
Uber Ordered to Pay $8.5 Million in Bellwether Sexual Assault Lawsuit
Missouri Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Starbucks’ Diversity and Inclusion Policies
Minnesota Judge Rejects Bid to Halt Trump Immigration Enforcement in Minneapolis
AMD Shares Slide Despite Earnings Beat as Cautious Revenue Outlook Weighs on Stock
Rio Tinto Shares Hit Record High After Ending Glencore Merger Talks
Baidu Approves $5 Billion Share Buyback and Plans First-Ever Dividend in 2026
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Says AI Investment Boom Is Just Beginning as NVDA Shares Surge
U.S. Condemns South Africa’s Expulsion of Israeli Diplomat Amid Rising Diplomatic Tensions
CK Hutchison Launches Arbitration After Panama Court Revokes Canal Port Licences
Tencent Shares Slide After WeChat Restricts YuanBao AI Promotional Links
Ford and Geely Explore Strategic Manufacturing Partnership in Europe
Alphabet’s Massive AI Spending Surge Signals Confidence in Google’s Growth Engine
FDA Targets Hims & Hers Over $49 Weight-Loss Pill, Raising Legal and Safety Concerns
US Judge Rejects $2.36B Penalty Bid Against Google in Privacy Data Case
Supreme Court Signals Skepticism Toward Hawaii Handgun Carry Law
OpenAI Expands Enterprise AI Strategy With Major Hiring Push Ahead of New Business Offering 



