|
What's the cause of all the flip flopping between Apple having to pay the bill or not? I think the main problem that this area of law is fundamentally uncertain and hard to apply. Legal mistakes get made, and judgements get appealed until people figure out what the law actually says. A secondary issue is that judges in appeals courts are generalists, not tax or state aid experts. Despite this, they get landed with the hardest cases - situations that haven't been seen before which throw up new legal issues - and need to figure out what to do. Most of the time they get it right. Some of the time, they mis-interpret the law and get it wrong. That's why we have the appeals process. So where are we up to in terms of this case, and how many more flip-flops we can expect? This article is citing an advisory opinion of one of the EU's Advocate Generals (themselves, very senior judges). These advisory opinions are issued prior to the CJEU (the highest court) making a final ruling. They are there to guide the CJEU so that the final ruling is as good as possible. Although this specific case should be finalised after the CJEU makes its ruling, I'm sure the case law will continue to evolve in the future as multinational companies push the boundaries of the EU's tax and state aid regimes. |
Or you know, Apple is trying really hard to not pay the tax they should and are stalling the process by throwing lawyers at it, because they want to continue their shell company scheme of reselling IP rights to avoid taxes in locales where they sell their hardware and make profit.
Is this the first time you're seeing a megacorp try their hardest not to pay their due?