Disclosure : French law is my field of work but I only have knowledge of this case by the media (which is terrible in legal matters in France, really, worse tha

Disclosure : French law is my field of work but I only have knowledge of this case by the media (which is terrible in legal matters in France, really, worse than the US sometimes). It seems that the prosecutors are using a small clause in the French Irish tax treaty saying that the taxation rules applying to a corporation officially incorporated in Ireland are different (implying much higher than the Irish 12.5%), if this corporation has a "stable establishment" in France. The prosecutor is arguing that this applies to Google, so that paying only the Irish 12.5% was illegal. So no, they are not being accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills. The main problem is actually a even more complicated. It rests on the understanding of the wording of the convention relating to the words "Fixed installation of affairs used only for purposes of advertising (...)" (those are exempted from the "stable establishment" exemption).Google argues that their advertising business makes them exempt to it. Meanwhile French prosecutors argue this clause is intended for companies advertising their own products (imagine Tesla having an agency in France advertising the Tesla cars because they intend to open a point of sale in France, but not selling them yet), not the actual sale of advertisement space like Google do. And frankly when reading the elements of the convention the Prosecutors have made public... they seem to have a pretty solid ground. PS : Yay at last, being a tech fan with french legal background is useful !