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


SoftBank Shares Slide After Arm Earnings Miss Fuels Tech Stock Sell-Off
Trump Lawsuit Against JPMorgan Signals Rising Tensions Between Wall Street and the White House
Washington Post Publisher Will Lewis Steps Down After Layoffs
Supreme Court Tests Federal Reserve Independence Amid Trump’s Bid to Fire Lisa Cook
Nasdaq Proposes Fast-Track Rule to Accelerate Index Inclusion for Major New Listings
Amazon Stock Rebounds After Earnings as $200B Capex Plan Sparks AI Spending Debate
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration Move to End TPS for Haitian Immigrants
Google Halts UK YouTube TV Measurement Service After Legal Action
Once Upon a Farm Raises Nearly $198 Million in IPO, Valued at Over $724 Million
Baidu Approves $5 Billion Share Buyback and Plans First-Ever Dividend in 2026
TSMC Eyes 3nm Chip Production in Japan with $17 Billion Kumamoto Investment
Uber Ordered to Pay $8.5 Million in Bellwether Sexual Assault Lawsuit
Prudential Financial Reports Higher Q4 Profit on Strong Underwriting and Investment Gains
Rio Tinto Shares Hit Record High After Ending Glencore Merger Talks
New York Judge Orders Redrawing of GOP-Held Congressional District
Toyota’s Surprise CEO Change Signals Strategic Shift Amid Global Auto Turmoil
Trump Backs Nexstar–Tegna Merger Amid Shifting U.S. Media Landscape 



