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


New Epstein Photos Surface Showing Trump as Lawmakers Near Document Release Deadline
DOJ Sues Loudoun County School Board Over Transgender Locker Room Policy
Mizuho Raises Broadcom Price Target to $450 on Surging AI Chip Demand
ANZ Faces Legal Battle as Former CEO Shayne Elliott Sues Over A$13.5 Million Bonus Dispute
Jimmy Lai Convicted Under Hong Kong National Security Law in Landmark Case
SpaceX Insider Share Sale Values Company Near $800 Billion Amid IPO Speculation
California, 18 States Sue to Block Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
Woolworths Faces Fresh Class Action Over Alleged Underpayments, Shares Slide
Azul Airlines Wins Court Approval for $2 Billion Debt Restructuring and New Capital Raise
Shell M&A Chief Exits After BP Takeover Proposal Rejected
Trello Outage Disrupts Users as Access Issues Hit Atlassian’s Work Management Platform
Air Force One Delivery Delayed to 2028 as Boeing Faces Rising Costs
Intel’s Testing of China-Linked Chipmaking Tools Raises U.S. National Security Concerns
Coca-Cola’s Proposed Sale of Costa Coffee Faces Uncertainty Amid Price Dispute
iRobot Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Amid Rising Competition and Tariff Pressures
Preservation Group Sues Trump Administration to Halt $300 Million White House Ballroom Project
Korea Zinc to Build $7.4 Billion Critical Minerals Refinery in Tennessee With U.S. Government Backing 



