Challenges to Silicon Valley won’t just come from Brussels
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I think there is a major fallacy in this reasoning. Case in point - look at the trains in UK. Tracks, rails, signaling, services are all owned by different companies. While this sounds great from a regulatory perspective, it's not so great for bringing about changes. Which is perhaps why, most of the trains still run on ancient signaling tech, no GPS trackers. I admit, I have very cursory or superficial knowledge in this domain, but at the outset this is what it seems like. OTOH, the FCC's way of looking at monopolistic behavior seems prudent - it's just based on price. As long as consumers get the price advantage, a monopoly is fine.
Also, it's somewhat terrifying because what laws will Brussels decide to suddenly interpret different on a whim?
The US Treasury has a good analysis of why this is a sham ruling: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties...
2. The case argued was that the tax deal was illegal when it was agreed upon and therefore void. Sweetheart deals / government aid is generally illegal in the EU, and neither Google nor Ireland should have been surprised.
3. Do you have any examples of the ECJ changing interpretation on a whim? I do see that Google lacks legal certainty, but when you're as unique as Google is, lack of precedent comes with the territory. That said, Google is walking up to the red line of its own volition. There's a limit to how surprised they can credibly act when they find they have overstepped it.
You are right about Sweetheart deals. But the dispute is whether the "deal" is sweetheart deal or not. Ireland DoF, Apple (not Google) and US Treasury argues that Apple was following the same laws as everyone else. But EC says otherwise.
Note that EC have repeatdley shown their discontent regarding Ireland's, otherwise EUAA consistent, tax laws. One might argue that its an attempt to harmonize tax laws across EU despite it not being a requirement under EUAA.
> 3. Do you have any examples of the ECJ changing interpretation on a whim? I do see that Google lacks legal certainty, but when you're as unique as Google is, lack of precedent comes with the territory. That said, Google is walking up to the red line of its own volition. There's a limit to how surprised they can credibly act when they find they have overstepped it.
Its not ECJ its EC. EC has acted retroactively (Apple case). EC has acted without precedent and warning (Google case).