[kstrauser]

I'm in no way a Google fanboy: I'm typing this on my Mac, in Safari, which has DuckDuckGo set its search engine. But I think it's kind of nuts that Google could negotiate a tax arrangement with an entity and abide by it in good faith, then have another entity come along and say "your terms are invalid. You owe more in taxes now."

For instance, suppose I were the CEO of a company that negotiated a deal with, say, Utah. I held up my end of the agreement. I'm happy. Utah's happy. Then the US Gov't comes along and says "Utah, you and I agreed that you were going to charge more than you did." Why is that now my problem? I did everything I was supposed to. I don't why if someone has to be on the hook for the difference, then it's me and not Utah (or Google and not Ireland).

[joatmon-snoo]

If your lawyers didn't catch that the contract with Utah was in violation of federal law, then they fucked up their due diligence. That's on you. It's also on Utah.

Besides, liability laws are a clusterfuck.

[duncanawoods]

A sports team might win a championship match due to corrupt officials fixing it for a gambling syndicate. Despite the team's innocence, the result still needs to be annulled to preserve the integrity of the game.

[vacri]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Apple and Google negotiators aren't aware that they're bending the laws to their limits? It's pretty far from the innocent 'good faith' that you're suggesting, and better described by the term 'back-room dealing'.