Australia vs PEPSICO: CASE SUMMARY

Case Information

  • Court: Federal Court of Australia
  • Case Number: VID 53 of 2022; VID 55 of 2022; VID 56 of 2022; VID 57 of 2022; VID 74 of 2022; VID 82 of 2022
  • Applicant: PepsiCo, Inc and Stokely-Van Camp, Inc (SVC)
  • Defendant: Commissioner of Taxation
  • Judgment Date: 30 November 2023
  • Download the FULL JUDGMENT

Judgment Summary

This case, decided by the Federal Court of Australia on 30 November 2023, addressed key taxation issues involving royalty withholding tax and diverted profits tax in the context of multinational enterprises (MNEs). PepsiCo, Inc and SVC, both US-based entities, entered into exclusive bottling agreements (EBAs) with Schweppes Australia Pty Ltd (SAPL), an Australian company. These agreements granted SAPL the right to manufacture, sell, and distribute beverages using PepsiCo’s trademarks and intellectual property, without explicitly stipulating royalty payments for intellectual property usage.

The Commissioner of Taxation argued that payments made by SAPL under these agreements constituted royalties and were therefore subject to royalty withholding tax under section 128B of the Income TaxTax Assessment Act 1936 and the US-Australia Double Tax Agreement. Alternatively, if the withholding tax did not apply, the Commissioner sought to levy diverted profits tax, asserting that the agreements aimed to secure tax benefits.

The Court ruled that a portion of the payments did constitute royalties and were subject to withholding tax at a rate of 5%. The judgment also highlighted the CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method in determining the royalty rate, ultimately applying a revised rate of 5.88% of SAPL’s net revenue. The Commissioner’s alternative contention regarding diverted profits tax was deemed unnecessary due to the application of royalty withholding tax.

This judgment underscores the complexity of taxing intellectual property within MNE structures, the role of implied licenses in agreements, and the growing importance of expert evidence in determining transfer pricing disputes.

VIEW THE FULL CASE SUMMARY (WEB)

File Type: pdf
File Size: 201 KB
Countries: Australia
Tags: ALP, Arms Length Principle, Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, CUP, Intellectual Property, Intra Group Transactions, Transfer Pricing