In TC opinion of 18 November 2020 the US Tax Court agreed with the US tax authorities (IRS) that Coca-Cola’s US-based income should be increased by $9 billion in a dispute over royalties from its foreign-based licensees. The principal holding was that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in reallocating income to Coca-Cola using a “comparable profits method” (TNMM) that treated independent Coca-Cola bottlers as comparable parties. However, one question remained. Coca-Colas’s Brazilian subsidiary paid no actual royalties to Coca-Cola during 2007–2009. Rather, it compensated Coca-Cola for use of its intangibles by paying dividends of $886,823,232. The court held that the Brazilian subsidiary’s arm’s-length royalty obligation for 2007–2009 was actually about $1.768 billion, as determined by the IRS. But the court held that the dividends remitted in place of royalties should be deducted from that sum. This offset reduces the net transfer pricing adjustment to petitioner from the Brazilian supply point to about $882 million. Thus, the issue to be decided is whether this $882 million net transfer-pricing adjustment is barred by Brazilian law. During 2007–2009 Brazil capped the amounts of trademark royalties and technology transfer payments (collectively, royalties) that Brazilian companies could pay to foreign parent companies. Coca Cola contended that Brazilian law blocked the $882 million net transfer-pricing adjustment. IRS contended that the Brazilian legal restriction should be given no effect in determining the arm’s-length transfer price, relying on what is commonly called the “blocked income” regulation (Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2)). According to tax authorities the “blocked income” regulation generally provides that foreign legal restrictions will be taken into account for transfer-pricing purposes only if four conditions are met, including the requirement that the restrictions must be “applicable to all similarly situated persons (both controlled and uncontrolled).” Judgement of the tax court The Tax Court sustained the transfer pricing adjustment in full. Excerpts “Allocation of Value Between Grandfathered Intangibles and Those Not Grandfathered Petitioner has shown that eight of TCCC’s trademarks were li-censed to the supply point before November 17, 1985. Those are the only intangibles in commercial use during 2007–2009 that were covered by the grandfather clause. We find that petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proving what portion of the Commissioner’s adjustment is at-tributable to income derived from this (relatively small) subset of the licensed intangibles. And the record does not contain data from which we could make a reliable estimate of that percentage.” “Because the supply point sold concentrate to preordained buyers, it had no occasion to use TCCC’s trademarks for economically significant marketing purposes. By contrast, the bottlers and service companies were much heavier users of TCCC’s trademarks. The bottlers placed those trademarks on every bottle and can they manufactured and on every delivery truck in their fleet. See id. at 264. And the service com-panies, which arranged consumer marketing, continuously exploited the trademarks in television, print, and social media advertising. See id. at 240, 263–64.” “We conclude that all non-trademark IP exploited by the Brazilian supply point was outside the scope of the grandfather clause. The blocked income regulation thus applies to that portion of the transfer-pricing adjustment attributable to exploitation of those intangible as-sets. We further find that this non-trademark IP represented the bulk of the value that the Brazilian supply point derived from use of TCCC’s intangibles generally. Petitioner has supplied no evidence that would enable us to determine, or even to guess, what percentage of the overall value was attributable to the residual intangible assets, i.e., the trademarks.” “In sum, petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden of proof in two major respects. It has offered no evidence that would enable us to determine what portion of the transfer-pricing adjustment is attributable to exploitation of the non-trademark IP, which we have found be the most valuable segment of the intangibles from the Brazilian supply point’s economic perspective. And petitioner has offered insufficient evidence to enable us to determine what portion of the transfer-pricing adjustment is attributable to exploitation of the 8 original core-product trademarks, as opposed to the 60 other core-product trademarks and the entire universe of non-core-product trademarks. Because petitioner has failed to establish what portion of the aggregate transfer-pricing adjustment might be attributable to exploitation of the eight grandfathered trademarks, we have no alternative but to sustain that adjustment in full.” USTC coca-cola-v-cir-8 Nov-2023 ...

In a November 2020 opinion the US Tax Court agreed with the IRS that Coca-Cola’s US-based income should be increased by $9 billion in a dispute over royalties from its foreign-based licensees. Coca-Cola filed a Motion to Reconsider June 2, 2021 – 196 days after the Tax Court had served its opinion. Judgement of the tax court The Tax Court denied the motion to reconsider. There is a 30-day deadline to move for reconsideration and the court concluded that Coca-Cola was without a valid excuse for the late filing and that the motion would have failed on the merits in any event. 2021_10_26-Order-re-Motion-for-Leave-Coca-Cola-762 ...

Coca Cola, a U.S. corporation, was the legal owner of the intellectual property (IP) necessary to manufacture, distribute, and sell some of the best-known beverage brands in the world. This IP included trade- marks, product names, logos, patents, secret formulas, and proprietary manufacturing processes. Coca Cola licensed foreign manufacturing affiliates, called “supply points,” to use this IP to produce concentrate that they sold to unrelated bottlers, who produced finished beverages for sale  to distributors and retailers throughout the world. Coca Cola’s contracts with its supply points gave them limited rights to use the IP in performing their manufacturing and distribution functions but gave the supply points no ownership interest in that IP. During 2007-2009 the supply points compensated Coca Cola for use of its IP under a formulary apportionment method to which Coca Cola and IRS had agreed in 1996 when settling Coca Cola’s tax liabilities for 1987-1995. Under that method the supply points were permitted to satisfy their royalty obligations by paying actual royalties or by remitting dividends. During 2007-2009 the supply points remitted to Coca Cola dividends of about $1.8 billion in satisfaction of their royalty obligations. The 1996 agreement did not address the transfer pricing methodology to be used for years after 1995. Upon examination of Coca Cola’s 2007-2009 returns IRS determined that Coca Cola’s methodology did not reflect arm’s-length norms because it over-compensated the supply points and undercompensated Coca Cola for the use of its IP. IRS reallocated income between Coca Cola and the supply points employing a comparable profits method (CPM) that used Coca Cola’s unrelated bottlers as comparable parties. These adjustments increased Coca Cola’s aggregate taxable income for 2007- 2009 by more than $9 billion. The US Tax Court ruled on November 18 that Coca-Cola’s US-based income should be increased by about $9 billion in a dispute over the appropriate royalties owned by its foreign-based licensees for the years from 2007 to 2009. The court reduced the IRS’s adjustment by $1.8 billion because the taxpayer made a valid and timely choice to use an offset treatment when it came to dividends paid by foreign manufacturing affiliates to satisfy royalty obligations. Coca-Cola-US-Tax-Court-Opinion ...

Coca Cola collects royalties from foreign branches and subsidiaries for use of formulas, brand and other intellectual property. Years ago an agreement was entered by Coca Cola and the IRS on these royalty payments to settle an audit of years 1987 to 1995. According to the agreement Coca-Cola licensees in other countries would pay the US parent company royalties using a 10-50-50 formula where 10% of the gross sales revenue is treated as a normal return to the licensee and the rest of the revenue is split evenly between the licensee and the US parent, with the part going to the US parent paid in the form of a royalty. The agreement expired in 1995, but Coca-Cola continued to use the model for transfer pricing in the following years. Coca-Cola and the Mexican tax authorities had agreed on the same formula and Coca-Cola continued to use the pricing-formula in Mexico on the advice of Mexican counsel. In 2015, the IRS made an adjustment related to 2007 – 2009 tax returns stating that Coca-Cola licensees should have paid a higher royalty to the US parent. On that bases the IRS said that too much income had been declared in Coca Cola’s tax returns in Mexico because a higher royalty should have been deducted. The IRS therefore disallowed $43.5 to $50 million in foreign tax credits in each of the three years for taxes that the IRS said Coca-Cola overpaid in Mexico due to failure to deduct the right amount of royalty payments – voluntary tax payments cannot be claimed as a foreign tax credit in the United States. The court sided with Coca-Cola on this question and concluded that the all practical remedies to reduce Mexican taxes had been exhausted and Coca Cola. Foreign tax credits were to be allowed. US vs Coca Cola 2017 ...

At issue was deductions of management fees paid by a Coca-Cola s.r.o. – a Slovakian subsidiary of the Coca-Cola group – to Coca Cola Management Services GmbH & Co. AG. in Switzerland. The assessment sas issued by the tax authorities based on the OECD Guidelines on Transfer Pricing for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administration, which according to the tax authorities was a generally accepted supplementary interpretative tool to Art. 9 of the Treaty on the avoidance of double taxation within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on contract law. Documents and information submitted in the course of a tax inspection showed that in addition to the fee for the provision of management services, Coca-Cola s.r.o. also paid for the provision of employment services and IT services. In total, payments for provision of services in 2005 was € 1,463,385.46. In regards to MTC article 9 and application of the OECD Transfer pricing guidelines in Slovakia the Supreme Court stated: “… the OECD TP Guidelines, unless duly published, shall not be regarded as binding source of law under Slovak legal order … it is not binding on the taxpayers or the tax authority … the same applies for the OECD Commentary that has not been published in the collection of laws and therefore shall be regarded as non-binding recommendation that can only be used for the interpretation of international treaties … ” Click here for translation Rozsudok_8S_f-15-2015 ...

The Coca-Cola Company submitted a petition to the U.S. Tax Court, requesting a redetermination of the deficiencies in Federal income tax for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2008 and 2009, as set forth by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a Notice of Deficiency dated September 15, 2015. The total amount in dispute is over $3.3 billion for the 3-year period. Major issues in the dispute include the method used to allocate profit to seven foreign subsidiaries, which use licensed trademarks and formulas to carry out the manufacture and sale of beverage concentrates in markets outside of the United States, as well as the application of correlative adjustments for foreign tax credits. The Coca-Cola Company claims that it used the same allocation method that had been reviewed and approved by the Internal Revenue Service during audits of tax years from 1996 through 2006, the same that was established in a Closing Agreement with respect to the 1987 through 1995 tax years, entered into in 1996, following a transfer pricing audit of tax years 1987 through 1989 ...