At issue was the “royalty-free” use of intangible assets under an agreement whereby PepsiCo’s Singapore affiliate sold concentrate to Schweppes Australia, which then bottled and sold PepsiCo soft drinks for the Australian market. As no royalties were paid under the agreement, no withholding tax was paid in Australia. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) determined that the payments for “concentrate” from Schweppes to PepsiCo had been misclassified and were in part royalty for the use of PepsiCo’s intangibles (trademarks, branding etc.), and an assessment was issued for FY2018 and FY2019 where withholding tax was determined on that basis. The assessment was issued under the Australian diverted profits tax provisions. The assessment was appealed to the Federal Court, which in November 2023 found in favour of the tax authorities. PepsiCo then appealed to the Full Federal Court. Judgment In a split decision, the Full Federal Court overturned the decision of the Federal Court and found in favour of PepsiCo. Excerpts “In summary, we conclude that the payments made by the Bottler to the Seller were for concentrate alone and did not include any component which was a royalty for the use of PepsiCo/SVC’s intellectual property. The payments were in no part made in ‘consideration for’ the use of that intellectual property and they did not therefore include a ‘royalty’ within the definition of that term in s 6(1) of the ITAA 1936. Further, the payments were received by the Seller on its own account and they cannot be said to have been paid to PepsiCo/SVC. The Commissioner’s attempts to bring PepsiCo/SVC to tax under s 128B(2B) therefore fails for two interrelated reasons: there was no ‘royalty’ as required by s 128B(2B)(b) and the payments made to the Seller by the Bottler cannot constitute ‘income derived’ by PepsiCo/SVC within the meaning of s 128(2B)(a).” “PepsiCo/SVC’s appeals in the royalty withholding tax proceedings should be allowed, the orders made by the trial judge set aside and in lieu thereof there should be orders setting aside the notices of assessment for royalty withholding tax. The Commissioner’s appeals in the Part IVA proceedings should be dismissed. PepsiCo/SVC should have their costs in both sets of appeals as taxed, assessed or otherwise agreed. The parties should bring in a minute of order giving effect to these conclusions within 14 days.” Click here for translation ...

At issue was the “royalty-free” use of intangible assets under an agreement whereby PepsiCo’s Singapore affiliate sold concentrate to Schweppes Australia, which then bottled and sold PepsiCo soft drinks for the Australian market. As no royalties were paid under the agreement, no withholding tax was paid in Australia. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) determined that the payments for “concentrate” from Schweppes to PepsiCo had been misclassified and were in part royalty for the use of PepsiCo’s intangibles (trademarks, branding etc.), and an assessment was issued for FY2018 and FY2019 where withholding tax was determined on that basis. The assessment was issued under the Australian diverted profits tax provisions. The assessment was appealed to the Federal Court in February 2022. Judgment of the Court The Federal Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Following the decision of the Court, the ATO issued an announcement concerning the case. According to the announcement it welcomes the decision. “This decision confirms PepsiCo, Inc. (Pepsi) is liable for royalty withholding tax and, in the alternative, diverted profits tax would apply. This is the first time a Court has considered the diverted profits tax – a new tool to ensure multinationals pay the right amount of tax. Deputy Commissioner Rebecca Saint said this is a landmark decision as it confirms that the diverted profits tax can be an effective tool in the ATO’s arsenal to tackle multinational tax avoidance. However, the decision may be subject to appeal and therefore, may be subject to further consideration by the Courts in the event of an appeal. The Tax Avoidance Taskforce has for a number of years been targeting arrangements where royalty withholding tax has not been paid because payments have been mischaracterised, particularly payments for the use of intangible assets, such as trademarks. The ATO has issued Taxpayer Alert 2018/2 which outlines and puts multinationals on notice about our concerns. “The Pepsi matter is a lead case for our strategy to target arrangements where royalty withholding tax should have been paid. Whilst there may still be more to play out in this matter, it sends strong signals to other businesses that have similar arrangements to review and consider their tax outcomes.” ...

SA Tropicana Europe Hermes is a French permanent establishment of SA Tropicana Europe, located in Belgium. The French PE carried out the business of bottling fruit juice-based drinks. In 2009, a new distribution contract was concluded with the Swiss company FLTCE, which was accompanied by a restructuring of its business. Before 1 July 2009, Tropicana was engaged in the manufacture of fresh fruit juices in cardboard packs and purchased fresh fruit juices which it pasteurised. As of 1 July 2009, its activity was reduced to that of a contract manufacturer on behalf of FLTCE, which became the owner of the technology and intellectual property rights as well as the stocks. The re-organisation led to a significant reduction in the company’s turnover and profits. Tropicana Europe was subject to two audits, at the end of which the tax authorities notified it of tax reassessments in respect of corporate income tax, withholding tax and business value added contribution (CVAE) for the years 2010 to 2013, together with penalties. It also notified the company of tax adjustments, together with penalties, in respect of the additional contribution to corporation tax for the years 2012 and 2013. According to the tax authorities Tropicana Europe’s new contract was not at arm’s length and constituted an abnormal act of management. Tropicana filed an appeal with the Administrative Court, where the assessment issued by the tax authorities was later set aside. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Court of Appeal. At issue was whether FLTCE was located in a privileged tax regime and whether there was a link of dependence between Tropicana and FLTCE and thus the basis of the tax assessment. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision of the administrative court. Excerpts “As regards the existence of a privileged tax regime : 6. Before the first judges, Tropicana Europe disputed that FLTCE was established in a country with a privileged tax regime within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 238 A of the General Tax Code. The first judges considered that by simply relying on the overall corporate tax rate of 13% in the canton of Bern, in the Swiss Confederation, where FLTCE’s head office is located, and the significant difference between this rate and the corporate tax rate of 33.33% in France, the tax authorities did not establish that FLTCE was established in a country with a privileged tax regime, the tax authorities did not establish that the amount of income tax to which FLTCE is subject is less than half the amount of income tax for which it would have been liable under the conditions of ordinary law in France, if it had been domiciled or established there, and, consequently, that FLTCE would be subject to a preferential tax regime pursuant to the aforementioned provisions of Article 238 A of the French General Tax Code. As this ground of the judgment is not contested on appeal by the Minister, the latter must be considered as renouncing to rely on the establishment of FLTCE in a country whose tax regime is privileged pursuant to the provisions of Article 238 A of the General Tax Code. Consequently, the Minister bears the burden of proof of the existence of a link of dependence between Tropicana Europe and FLTCE.” “As regards the existence of a link of dependence : 7. In order to discharge Tropicana Europe from the taxes it was contesting, the first judges noted that, in order to establish a relationship of dependence between this company and FLTCE, the tax authorities based themselves on the fact that these two companies belonged to the same multinational group, PepsiCo, and deduced that, by relying solely on this factor, the authorities, who bear the burden of proof, did not establish any relationship of dependence between the two companies within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. 8. In order to prove the existence of a relationship of dependence between Tropicana Europe and FLTCE, the Minister noted that SA Tropicana Europe Hermes is a permanent establishment of SA Tropicana Europe, located in Belgium, which is 99.99% owned by Seven’Up Nederland BV, which in turn is wholly owned by Pepsico Inc. FLTCE, located in Switzerland in the canton of Bern, is wholly owned by Frito Lay Compagny Gmbh, also located in Switzerland in the same canton. This company has been controlled since 14 December 2011 by PepsiCo Limited located in Gibraltar. While the Minister deduces from all these facts that SA Tropicana Europe and FLTCE are sister companies under the control of the PepsiCo group, he does not provide evidence of legal dependence between SA Tropicana Europe and FLTCE, which are not linked by a capital link between them. Consequently, it is up to the Minister to provide proof of the existence of a de facto dependency link between these two companies. However, the Minister did not provide any other element or indication that would make it possible to detect a de facto dependence between these two companies other than the fact that they belong to the same group. The fact that the two companies belong to the same group does not, in the present case, constitute sufficient proof or evidence of de facto dependence between SA Tropicana Europe and FLTCE in the absence of any other element put forward by the Minister. Consequently, the Minister is not entitled to maintain that, contrary to the assessment made by the first judges, the conditions for the application of Article 57 of the General Tax Code were met in order to base the taxes for which the Administrative Court of Amiens granted discharge.” “As regards the request for substitution of legal basis : … 12. However, this reorganisation was not limited to a simple “change in the invoicing circuit” as the Minister maintains, but led to a significant change in operating conditions since, before 1 July 2009, Tropicana Europe was engaged ...