While the only things certain in life may be death and taxes, how much taxes is certainly uncertain. In order for the tax benefits of an uncertain tax position to be recognized for financial reporting purposes, it must be more likely than not that the position will ultimately be upheld based solely on its technical merits. However, making such a judgment can be filled with, well, uncertainty. The basis for such a judgment may include judicial as well as legislative and administrative authority including court cases addressing positions similar to that taken by the taxpayer. But when a court has already ruled against the taxpayer, can it still be more likely than not that the taxpayers position will be upheld? Several companies, including Whirlpool and Newell Brands, Inc. $($the makers of Krazy Glue$),$ after losing a case in Tax Court, have recently continued to recognize tax benefits related to the overturned positions. Another of those companies is Coca$-$Cola. In $2020,$ Coca$-$Cola lost a case concerning its transfer pricing practices for the years $2007$ to $2009.$ After the Tax Court ordered Coca$-$Cola to pay $$3\mathrm{.}3$ billion in tax, the company announced that it could potentially be liable for up to $$12$ billion in additional taxes as a result of its use of the same practices since the years in question. This would exceed the annual pretax profits reported by the company for the last several years. However, Coca$-$Cola announced its intention to continue defending its position and recognized only an additional $$438$ million in tax expense as a result of the Tax Courts ruling. Is Coca$-$Colas decision to recognize the tax benefits of their position, even after the Tax Courts ruling, problematic? How relevant and reliable is the reporting of uncertain tax positions under ASC $74010$ given its reliance on judgments about the probability of future judgments? What alternatives might there be for dealing with tax uncertainty?