Skip to Main Content

Tax Notes Quotes Clark Armitage on Coca-Cola Opinion and DEMPE

May 21, 2021, Tax Notes

The Coca-Cola opinion suggests that the Tax Court may now interpret U.S. law in a way that incorporates OECD guidance on control over risk and intangible development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation (DEMPE) functions.

According to J. Clark Armitage of Caplin & Drysdale, Judge Albert G. Lauber’s opinion in The Coca-Cola Co. v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. No. 10 (2020) — which handed the IRS a rare major victory in a transfer pricing case — contains language that bears a striking resemblance to the analysis of control and DEMPE functions endorsed by the current OECD transfer pricing guidelines. Since the 2015 base erosion and profit-shifting project's report on actions 8-10 was formally adopted, the OECD transfer pricing guidelines have tied controlled parties’ rights to the residual returns associated with intangible property to the level of control they exercise over DEMPE-related functions and risks. Under this approach, which has no clear equivalent in the U.S. section 482 regulations, bearing the costs of intangible development without also exercising some form of control entitles a party to no more than a risk-free return on capital.

Although not identified by name, the DEMPE analysis features prominently in the Coca-Cola opinion, according to Armitage. “I think the court almost intentionally developed a DEMPE position without ever stating the words ‘OECD’ or ‘DEMPE’ anywhere in the opinion,” Armitage said during a May 20 webinar held by the International Fiscal Association. “I do think that probably DEMPE is part of the U.S. law if anyone follows the [Coca-Cola] case as precedent.”

According to Armitage, the overlap between the Coca-Cola opinion and the OECD’s DEMPE guidance appears in the court’s rejection of the claim that marketing expenditures borne by Coca-Cola’s foreign supply points gave rise to local marketing intangibles. Coca-Cola claimed that ownership of these marketing intangibles entitled the supply points to more than a routine return and consequently that the IRS’s selection of the comparable profits method was inappropriate.

Armitage cited multiple excerpts from the Coca-Cola opinion emphasizing that the supply points did not perform or control the activities associated with these marketing expenditures, including the court’s characterization of the supply points as “passive recipients of charges” allocated to them by global or regional management. He also noted the court’s conclusion that “there is no evidence that the supply points received invoices for these [marketing] services, reviewed the propriety of the amounts they were charged, or had any role in selecting or evaluating the services for which they were made financially responsible.”

. . .

Another significant trend evident in the Coca-Cola opinion concerns the Tax Court’s approach to the selection of method, according to Armitage. Although the Tax Court has historically favored transactional methods, like the comparable uncontrolled transaction method, over others, this no longer appears to be the case, he noted.

“In recent cases, maybe for the last 40 years or so in the U.S., there's been what I think most people have interpreted as a disdain for profits-based methods, including the CPM [and] the profit split. And I think Judge Lauber did away with that in one 244-page decision,” Armitage said.

Armitage argued that Coca-Cola represents the continuation of a trend toward greater judicial scrutiny of taxpayers’ selection of transactional comparables that began with another Tax Court opinion written by Lauber: v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. No. 8 (2017), aff’d, 934 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2019). Despite the outcome in Amazon, the Tax Court performed a more intensive review of the comparables and adjustments used in the taxpayer’s CUT method analysis, Armitage said.

“If you look at Judge Lauber’s Amazon decision, it's very rigorous, and it sort of sets a new standard for [the] judicial approach to a transfer pricing case. It's not OK to just put your thumb in the air and make a decision,” Armitage said. “I think you really have to bring rigor to the analysis, and that's what Judge Lauber brought, and I think that's what we're going to see in the U.S. going forward.”

For the full article, please visit Tax Noteswebsite (subscription required).


About Caplin & Drysdale
Celebrating our 55th Anniversary in 2019, Caplin & Drysdale continues to be a leading provider of legal services to corporations, individuals, and nonprofits throughout the United States and around the world. We are also privileged to serve as legal advisors to accounting firms, financial institutions, law firms, and other professional services organizations.

The firm's reputation over the years has earned us the trust and respect of clients, industry peers, and government agencies. Moreover, clients rely on our broad knowledge of the law and our keen insights into their business concerns and personal interests. Our lawyers' strong tactical and problem-solving skills -- combined with substantial experience handling a variety of complex, high stakes, matters in a boutique environment -- make us one the nation's most distinctive law firms.

With offices in New York City and Washington, D.C., Caplin & Drysdale's core practice areas include:
For more information, please visit us at
Washington, DC Office:
One Thomas Circle NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
New York, NY Office:
600 Lexington Avenue
21st Floor
New York, NY 10022


This communication does not provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other reader. If you require legal guidance in any specific situation, you should engage a qualified lawyer for that purpose. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney Advertising
It is possible that under the laws, rules, or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation.
©2021 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
All Rights Reserved.

Related Professionals

Related Practice Area(s)