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


Momenta Quietly Moves Toward Hong Kong IPO Amid Rising China-U.S. Tensions
Intel Rejects TSMC’s Allegations of Trade-Secret Leaks as Legal Battle Escalates
USPS Expands Electric Vehicle Fleet as Nationwide Transition Accelerates
Proxy Advisors Urge Vote Against ANZ’s Executive Pay Report Amid Scandal Fallout
Judge Dismisses Charges Against Comey and Letitia James After Ruling on Prosecutor’s Appointment
Michael Dell Pledges $6.25 Billion to Boost Children’s Investment Accounts Under Trump Initiative
Netflix Nearing Major Deal to Acquire Warner Bros Discovery Assets
Appeals Court Blocks Expansion of Fast-Track Deportations in the U.S.
Bristol Myers Faces $6.7 Billion Lawsuit After Judge Allows Key Shareholder Claims to Proceed
Sam Altman Reportedly Explored Funding for Rocket Venture in Potential Challenge to SpaceX
UPS MD-11 Crash Prompts Families to Prepare Wrongful Death Lawsuit
Tesla Expands Affordable Model 3 Lineup in Europe to Boost EV Demand
Trump Administration to Secure Equity Stake in Pat Gelsinger’s XLight Startup
GM Issues Recall for 2026 Chevrolet Silverado Trucks Over Missing Owner Manuals
Microchip Technology Boosts Q3 Outlook on Strong Bookings Momentum
Amazon Italy Pays €180M in Compensation as Delivery Staff Probe Ends
IKEA Expands U.S. Manufacturing Amid Rising Tariffs and Supply Chain Strategy Shift 



