XML 38 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

Guarantees | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
Guarantees and Product Warranties [Abstract] |
Guarantees, Commitments and Contingencies | Contingencies Internal Revenue Service Proposed Adjustment As a result of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for fiscal years 2013 through 2015, in August 2022 we received a Revenue Agent’s Report (“RAR”) from the IRS asserting an underpayment of tax of $2.1 billion plus $418 million in penalties for the 2014 fiscal year. Additionally, interest on the underpayment is estimated to be approximately $1.6 billion through the second quarter of 2025. The proposed underpayment relates primarily to a series of reorganizations we undertook during that year in connection with the business realignment of our corporate and management reporting structure along brand lines. The IRS asserts that these transactions resulted in taxable distributions of approximately $6.0 billion. We disagree with the IRS’s position as asserted in the RAR and intend to contest that position vigorously. In September 2022, we filed a Protest with the IRS Examination Division disputing the proposed underpayment of tax and penalties, and our matter was referred to the IRS Office of Appeals. Upon conclusion of the proceedings with the IRS Office of Appeals without resolution, we received an IRS Notice of Deficiency in March 2025. On June 4, 2025, we filed a petition in the United States Tax Court disputing the IRS Notice of Deficiency. The Company does not expect resolution of this matter within twelve months and cannot predict with certainty the timing of such resolution. The Company believes that it is more likely than not the Company’s tax position will be sustained; therefore, no reserve is recorded with respect to this matter. An unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material, adverse impact on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in future periods. Lease Guarantees As a result of having assigned our interest in obligations under real estate leases as a condition to the refranchising of certain Company-owned restaurants, and guaranteeing certain other leases, we are frequently secondarily liable on lease agreements. These leases have varying terms, the latest of which expires in 2065. As of June 30, 2025, the potential amount of undiscounted payments we could be required to make in the event of non-payment by the primary lessee was approximately $325 million. The present value of these potential payments discounted at our pre-tax cost of debt at June 30, 2025, was approximately $275 million. Our franchisees are the primary lessees under the vast majority of these leases. We generally have cross-default provisions with these franchisees that would put them in default of their franchise agreement in the event of non-payment under the lease. We believe these cross-default provisions significantly reduce the risk that we will be required to make payments under these leases, although such risk may not be reduced in the context of a bankruptcy or other similar restructuring of a large franchisee or group of franchisees. The liability recorded for our expected losses under such leases as of June 30, 2025, was not material. Legal Proceedings We are subject to various claims and contingencies related to lawsuits, real estate, environmental and other matters arising in the normal course of business. An accrual is recorded with respect to claims or contingencies for which a loss is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable. India Regulatory Matter Yum! Restaurants India Private Limited (“YRIPL”), a YUM subsidiary that operates KFC and Pizza Hut restaurants in India, is the subject of a regulatory enforcement action in India (the “Action”). The Action alleges, among other things, that KFC International Holdings, Inc. and Pizza Hut International failed to satisfy certain conditions imposed by the Secretariat for Industrial Approval in 1993 and 1994 when those companies were granted permission for foreign investment and operation in India. The conditions at issue include an alleged minimum investment commitment and store build requirements as well as limitations on the remittance of fees outside of India. The Action originated with a complaint and show cause notice filed in 2009 against YRIPL by the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (“DOE”) of the Indian Ministry of Finance following an income tax audit for the years 2002 and 2003. The matter was argued at various hearings in 2015, but no order was issued. Following a change in the incumbent official holding the position of Special Director of DOE (the “Special Director”), the matter resumed in 2018 and several additional hearings were conducted. On January 29, 2020, the Special Director issued an order imposing a penalty on YRIPL and certain former directors of approximately Indian Rupee 11 billion, or approximately $130 million. Of this amount, $125 million relates to the alleged failure to invest a total of $80 million in India within an initial seven-year period. We have been advised by external counsel that the order is flawed and have filed a writ petition with the Delhi High Court, which granted an interim stay of the penalty order on March 5, 2020. In November 2022, YRIPL was notified that an administrative tribunal bench had been constituted to hear an appeal by DOE of certain findings of the January 2020 order, including claims that certain charges had been wrongly dropped and that an insufficient amount of penalty had been imposed. A hearing with the administrative tribunal scheduled for July 9, 2025 has been rescheduled to January 6, 2026. A hearing scheduled for April 29, 2025, before the Delhi High Court has been continued to August 19, 2025, and the stay order remains in effect. We deny liability and intend to continue vigorously defending this matter. We do not consider the risk of any significant loss arising from this order to be probable. Other Matters We are currently engaged in various other legal proceedings and have certain unresolved claims pending, the ultimate liability for which, if any, cannot be determined at this time. However, based upon consultation with legal counsel, we are of the opinion that such proceedings and claims are not expected to have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_GuaranteesAndProductWarrantiesAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration