Tax Court rules for IRS in transfer pricing case


The Tax Court issued its opinion in the transfer pricing case The Coca-Cola Co. v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. No. 10, on Nov. 18. The opinion upholds a substantial reallocation of income in the tax years 2007 through 2009, approximately $9 billion, from the IRS under Section 482. In addition, the court found for the taxpayer regarding the satisfaction of the royalty obligation with dividends paid by foreign manufacturing subsidiaries (“supply points”), reducing the total IRS adjustment by $1.8 billion.

The U.S. taxpayer owns intellectual property (IP) necessary to manufacture, distribute and sell the best-known beverage brands in the world. This IP included trademarks, product names, logos, patents, secret formulas and proprietary manufacturing processes. Supply points license the IP to produce concentrate that is then sold to unrelated bottlers for finalization and distribution. Taxpayer’s contracts with its supply points give limited rights to the IP in performing their manufacturing and distribution functions but does not provide the supply points with ownership interest in the IP.

For the years under examination, the supply points compensated the taxpayer for use of its IP using an apportionment method previously agreed upon with the IRS in a closing agreement in 1996 to cover tax years 1987-1995. The closing agreement also allowed the supply points to satisfy their obligations by either paying royalties or remitting dividends. Although the closing agreement did not dictate future use after the initial method established in 1996, the supply points remitted dividends of approximately $1.8 billion. The IRS rejected the taxpayer’s reliance on the closing agreement methodology and re-allocated income from the supply points to the taxpayer. IRS also rejected the taxpayer payment of dividends as not consistent with the rules governing that treatment.

The Tax Court ruled that the taxpayer could not rely upon the 1996 closing agreement, as it had no application in subsequent years. The court further determined that taxpayer’s methodology did not reflect arm’s-length pricing, and the supply points undercompensated taxpayer for the IP rights. The court employed a comparable profits method (CPM) using the bottlers’ returns to benchmark the appropriate return to the supply points, resulting in an adjustment to the taxpayer’s taxable income. The court found for the taxpayer on the issue of satisfaction of royalty obligation with dividends.




Cory Perry

Washington DC, Washington DC

  • Manufacturing
  • Technology and telecommunications
  • Private equity
Service Experience
  • Tax
Tax professional standards statement

This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.


More tax hot topics