WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

874

On July 31, the U.S. Tax Court ruled that there were deficiencies in income tax dues payable by Coca-Cola to the IRS for the 2007–09 period to the tune of approximately $2.7 billion. Adding in interest, the total amount payable by Coca-Cola comes to around $6 billion, the company said in an Aug. 2 press release.

Coca-Cola said it will defend its position and criticized the decision, stating “the IRS and the Tax Court misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable regulations involved in the case.”

With 90 days to file a notice of appeal, Coca-Cola intends to pay the roughly $6 billion owed while it proceeds with the appeals process.

The issue stems from a notice sent by the IRS to Coca-Cola in September 2015, in which the agency sought $3.3 billion in additional income tax for 2007–09.

The IRS said in the notice that it would reallocate more than $9 billion in income from the company’s accounts, thus resulting in the tax dues. The soft drinks manufacturer claimed the reallocation violated a previous calculation methodology that was agreed upon by both sides. . .

>On July 31, the U.S. Tax Court ruled that there were deficiencies in income tax dues payable by Coca-Cola to the IRS for the 2007–09 period to the tune of approximately $2.7 billion. Adding in interest, the total amount payable by Coca-Cola comes to around $6 billion, the company said in an Aug. 2 press release. >Coca-Cola said it will defend its position and criticized the decision, stating “the IRS and the Tax Court misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable regulations involved in the case.” >With 90 days to file a notice of appeal, Coca-Cola intends to pay the roughly $6 billion owed while it proceeds with the appeals process. >The issue stems from a notice sent by the IRS to Coca-Cola in September 2015, in which the agency sought $3.3 billion in additional income tax for 2007–09. >The IRS said in the notice that it would reallocate more than $9 billion in income from the company’s accounts, thus resulting in the tax dues. The soft drinks manufacturer claimed the reallocation violated a previous calculation methodology that was agreed upon by both sides. . . [Archive](https://archive.today/ELHLz)

(post is archived)