For sure they are throwing lawyers at it. It's 13bn after all. But the underlying reason for the appeal is the same; the law is not yet clear as to what should happen.
Let's assume the law isn't clear, ans since I am no tax lawyer I actually cannot tell either way, pursueing that clarity at court is exactly what I would expect from Apple and the EU to do. So, the system is working as expected here.
Laws are never are clear enough, there is always room for interpretation. Laws are not some piece of software that give predctable answers, hence courts and the whole legal system. And it is the latter one atvwork here, as intended.
This is a rationalization for convoluted legislation. The impossibility of perfection is a poor excuse for mediocrity.
Notice that we almost never hear about corporations avoiding payroll taxes or VAT. They avoid this kind of tax in particular because the rules are unusually squishy and incoherent, and every time they find another way to do it, governments respond by making it more complicated or even less coherent instead of addressing the root cause and replacing it with something clearer and simpler.
To be fair, the EU responded to this case by enacting a new directive that says "the minimum corporate tax shall be 15%".
OK, it's unfortunately 175 pages long [0] instead of seven words, but that really is the gist of it. The current legislation is a more "squishy and incoherent" set of rules [1] that say you cannot give "state aid" preferentially to any company, the technicalities of which are being litigated in the ongoing Apple case.
But this is the problem, right? You can't really do that because governments are supposed to spend tax revenue on things that benefit those in their jurisdiction. The extent of tax dollars not used for this is a measure of government inefficiency and in a perfectly efficient government it would be zero, i.e. the average taxpayer would receive benefits equal to what they pay in taxes.
What they're kind of implying is that they want multinational corporations to pay more than they receive so some other people can receive more than they pay, but they haven't actually specified who or by how much. It would be pretty silly and inefficient to deny large companies the use of government-operated transit systems or police protection, but to make it at all practical you end up creating enough exceptions that anyone can find a loophole.
I feel like the elephant in the room is this. A lot of these huge companies are monopolies or nearly so, and a large proportion of their profit is a monopoly rent. But a monopoly rent isn't attributable to a particular factory or the location of your software developers. It can't be attributed to something happening in any particular jurisdiction because it's actually attributable to something that shouldn't be happening at all, and which doesn't have any corporeal existence or physical location. So those profits naturally get declared in whichever jurisdiction has the lowest taxes.
But the problem is not that the monopoly rent is being taxed in the wrong jurisdiction or at the wrong tax rate, the problem is that the monopoly rent exists. Stop trying to pin it to a particular place and find a way to eliminate it.
Countries in Europe have been gradually tightening up on corporations avoiding payroll taxes by declaring employees as contractors. In the UK it's known as IR35 working. The EU have recently proposed the platform working directive, aimed straight at this problem.
This is not a means to avoid payroll taxes. They're still being paid by the contractor. And in a way that costs the corporation money, if contractors have to pay the tax out of after-tax income, because then they'll demand higher compensation to account for it, by the amount of the tax plus the amount of the tax due on the increase in compensation.
There are other reasons corporations prefer workers to be contractors, but that isn't it.
Without getting into the nitty gritty of it, it seems pretty obvious that there is a lack of clarity given that the European Commission came to one conclusion, the General Court concluded that the European Commission was incorrect and now an advocate general for the European Court of Justice has concluded that the General Court was incorrect. These are all smart people who have spent a lot of time and effort studying the law in this area. There are a lot of extremely reductionist takes on the case in the media but the actual legal principles in dispute, and their application to the facts, are quite complex.
You keep mixing up "muddying the waters to avoid paying tax" and "lack of clarity" The "lack" you speak of is generated by a megacorporation to avoid paying their part - and you keep attributing it to the wrong party.
Corporations will always attempt to lower their costs. It's like blaming the rain for being wet.
It isn't inherently necessary to have a tax system so convoluted that these games are even possible. If you tax wages and companies employ people in your jurisdiction then they have to remit the tax. If you tax sales and people buy things in your jurisdiction then companies have to remit the tax. If you tax property and companies own property in your jurisdiction etc. etc.
The problem is governments keep trying to tax companies not based on what happens in their jurisdiction but what happens outside of it, which they can only do sometimes, and that gives the companies an opportunity to find ways to make it one of the times they can't. Just stop doing that and tax the things that actually happen in your jurisdiction.
It is the EU institutions who are disagreeing with each other, Apple have nothing to do with it. The General Court of the EU isn't muddying the waters to help Apple avoid paying tax.
> Ireland also made a no corporate subsidy deal with the EU.
That seems odd. For example, if the government provides a national healthcare system, this is effectively a subsidy to employers who can then avoid providing a health plan their employees might otherwise demand or otherwise have to pay them more to compensate for their need to pay for their own healthcare. How is this being distinguished from any other form of subsidy? Isn't subsidizing things what governments do with tax money?
Bans on state subsidies are a core principle that enables the EU single market. Otherwise the market could easily be distorted by state aid. However it’s far from simple in practice and is something the member states have been arguing about forever.
The rest of the eu has never been happy with irelands tax policy but since taxation is a national competency they can’t do anything about it directly. They can however frame it as state aid and try to attack it that way.
> Bans on state subsidies are a core principle that enables the EU single market. Otherwise the market could easily be distorted by state aid.
It seems impossible to avoid this. If one state spends money on something that benefits businesses and another spends it on something else, those businesses will prefer the first one. But this isn't actually that much of a problem because each state has finite resources and its people get to decide how to use them. If one wants to have a UBI (which might increase entrepreneurship and the number of small businesses engaged in taxable activity) and another wants to lower unemployment by attracting large employers with subsidies and a third just wants to have lower taxes, what's the problem? That one might actually work better than another?
Ireland gave Apple a tax deal. The EU is arguing Ireland as part of the EU is not allowed to set it's own tax policy. The lack of clarity is Ireland's claiming it's still a sovereign nation and can set taxes but the EU says no you're not.
That's not true. EU nations set their own tax policy freely. That's why the EU is claiming it isn't simply a tax issue, but a hidden subsidy. The EU already lost once, but they are trying again