Interesting summary of the case in the article below. The two key points were: - Arms Length principal A big part of the Commission's case against Apple was

Interesting summary of the case in the article below. The two key points were: - Arms Length principal A big part of the Commission's case against Apple was that the agreements violated "the Arm’s Length Principle", which the OECD frames as we should reject transfer-prices that would not be agreed by independent companies negotiating at arm’s length. Apple and Ireland argued that this was not part of Irish Tax law, or EU legislation, rather a non-binding principal of tax reform. - Where should IP profits fall Apple argued that a large proportion of the value it created was derived from IP developed in the US. To me it does seem that European Commission was stretching State Aid beyond what it was designed for here. There is an definitely a challenge in harmonising tax of multinationals, and preventing 'races to the bottom' but this is different to State Aid legislation, designed to prevent the propping up of inefficient domestic champions with favourable treatment. http://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2017/10/26/apple-state-aid-case-one-year-later-open-questions-ip-transfer-pricing-state-aid/?doing_wp_cron=1594811772.2785959243774414062500 http://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2017/10/2...