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


California, 18 States Sue to Block Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
Nomura Expands Alternative Assets Strategy With Focus on Private Debt Acquisitions
DOJ Sues Loudoun County School Board Over Transgender Locker Room Policy
iRobot Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Amid Rising Competition and Tariff Pressures
Woolworths Faces Fresh Class Action Over Alleged Underpayments, Shares Slide
FDA Says No Black Box Warning Planned for COVID-19 Vaccines Despite Safety Debate
Federal Judge Declines to Immediately Halt Trump’s $300 Million White House Ballroom Project
Trump Sues BBC for Defamation Over Edited Capitol Riot Speech Clip
Special Prosecutor Alleges Yoon Suk Yeol Sought North Korea Provocation to Justify Martial Law
CMOC to Acquire Equinox Gold’s Brazilian Mines in $1 Billion Deal to Expand Precious Metals Portfolio
EU Court Cuts Intel Antitrust Fine to €237 Million Amid Long-Running AMD Dispute
FAA Unveils Flight Plan 2026 to Strengthen Aviation Safety and Workforce Development
Judge Orders Return of Seized Evidence in Comey-Related Case, DOJ May Seek New Warrant
Shell M&A Chief Exits After BP Takeover Proposal Rejected
U.S. Pressures ICC to Limit Authority as Washington Threatens New Sanctions
Brazil Arrests Former Peruvian Foreign Minister Augusto Blacker Miller in International Fraud Case
Bolivia’s Ex-President Luis Arce Detained in Embezzlement Probe 



