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


U.S. Vaccine Policy Shifts Under RFK Jr. Create Uncertainty for Pharma and Investors
Apple China Holiday Sale Offers Discounts Up to 1,000 Yuan on Popular Devices
FTC Blocks Edwards Lifesciences’ JenaValve Acquisition in Major Antitrust Ruling
Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Unlawfully Halted EV Charger Funding
Jimmy Lai Faces Sentencing as Hong Kong Security Trial Nears Conclusion
California Attorney General Orders xAI to Halt Illegal Grok Deepfake Imagery
U.S. Prosecutors Investigate Fed Chair Jerome Powell Over Headquarters Renovation
U.S. Justice Department Sues to Block California Oil and Gas Buffer Zone Law
Bolsonaro to Be Moved to Papuda Prison After Supreme Court Order
Baidu Shares Surge After Official Launch of Advanced Ernie 5.0 AI Model
Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon’s 2025 Pay Soars to $47 Million After Strong Deal-Making Year
Walmart to Cut PhonePe Stake in IPO as Tiger Global and Microsoft Exit
Federal Judge Clears Way for Jury Trial in Elon Musk’s Fraud Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft
Memory Chip Shortage Drives Higher Gadget Prices and Weakens Global Tech Demand
Winter Storm Triggers Widespread Flight Cancellations Across U.S. as Airlines Urge Travelers to Rebook
Supreme Court Signals Skepticism Toward Hawaii Handgun Carry Law 



