This is the second part of a two part series about the PepsiCo case, currently reserved for decision by the High Court of Australia, and what it may say about the efficacy of the general anti-avoidance rule in Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA 1936). Part I explained the key issues in PepsiCo. This part, Part II, details how Part IVA works, including why it was introduced and why, in 2013, the then government considered remedial amendments were necessary.