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
