Australia: PepsiCo royalty and first DPT case - Taxpayer wins in Australia’s highest court

15 Aug 2025    2 minute read

In brief

On 13 August 2025, the High Court of Australia handed down its much-anticipated decision in Commissioner of Taxation v. PepsiCo, Inc. [2025] HCA 30.

By a majority of 4-3, the High Court found in favour of the taxpayer and dismissed each appeal by the Commissioner of Taxation. In this regard, the majority decision concluded that:

  • No royalty withholding tax arose; and
  • No Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) applied, 

to the circumstances involving the inbound supply chain for PepsiCo’s concentrate and arrangements with third party bottlers in Australia.

Contents

Key takeaways

  • The inbound supply chain into Australia and the contractual terms of the arrangements were respected. On a proper construction of the agreements, the payments made were for the concentrate only and did not include any component which was a royalty for the use of intellectual property.
  • There was firm confirmation from the Court that although no part of the payment for the concentrate was payment for a license to use PepsiCo’s Intellectual Property, the Bottler did not obtain the license for nothing. The right to use was part of a comprehensive commercial arrangement of which an essential element obliged the Bottler to advertise the Beverages and engage in sales promotion activities. This agreement on the Bottler’s part had real value to PepsiCo. This was essentially non-monetary consideration in exchange for the grant of the use of intellectual property (e.g., marketing) which ultimately benefited PepsiCo as the owner of that intellectual property.
  • The Court unanimously held that any payment was not paid or credited to or derived by PepsiCo in the US and therefore no royalty withholding tax was payable.
  • By majority, the Court also held that PepsiCo did not obtain a tax benefit and did not have to pay DPT. In this context, the onus put on the taxpayer was clarified by the Court. The Court held that it does not follow that the only way a taxpayer can discharge its onus of proof in the DPT is to lead evidence of another reasonable postulate in which the taxpayer obtains no tax benefit. This was important for PepsiCo because it was strong in its defence to the DPT that no other alternative postulate (or counterfactual) existed to its inbound supply chain into Australia, being the sale of concentrate to a bottler (by its nominated subsidiary) for a price and the granting of an Intellectual Property license for no monetary consideration (which was supported by many years of consistently applying its model).

Click here to access the full alert.

Contact Information
Simone Bridges
Partner
Sydney
Read my Bio
simone.bridges@bakermckenzie.com
Janet Cho
Partner
Sydney
Read my Bio
janet.cho@bakermckenzie.com
Dixon Hearder
Partner
Sydney
Read my Bio
dixon.hearder@bakermckenzie.com
Miles Hurst
Partner
Sydney
Read my Bio
miles.hurst@bakermckenzie.com

Copyright © 2025 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.