Richard Murphy says:
July 15 2020 at 7:20 pm
Actually the decision was largely based on the fact that Ireland did not have effective transfer pricing laws at the time
Err, no, it was nothing to do with that at all. It’s not even true that they didn’t have transfer pricing rules.
The other thrashing around is rather fun:
Jason_of_Orange says:
July 15 2020 at 7:44 pm
And was therefore entirely legal.Reply
Richard Murphy says:
July 15 2020 at 9:55 pm
A claim that could only be made by someone who really does not understand lawReply
Jason_of_Orange says:
July 16 2020 at 9:17 am
Of course you’re an expert on law as well as everything else, aren’t you Richard?!Please explain which part of what Apple did was illegal and which rules were broken. The Court would appear to disagree with you.
Reply
Richard Murphy says:
July 16 2020 at 9:40 am
It’s not the final opinion, necessarilyAnd just in case you weren’t aware of it, the law was not clear or the matter would not have been disputed
That you do not get that proves my point
It seems I am not the only person whom words fail. Perhaps I’ll just note that Spud doesn’t understand what the word “was” means in “was not clear.”
It was clear. That neither von Whatnot nor Snippa could understand it is a different issue altogether.
“The law was not clear or the matter would not have been disputed”
The law may well have been perfectly clear, but lawyers don’t make their money by telling clients not to pursue cases.
Besides, it’s clearly political. The aim is to demonstrate that the law needs changing.
“…but lawyers don’t make their money by telling clients not to pursue cases.”
True. And yet it happens that lawyers advise their clients not to pursue cases.
Isn’t that an old fashioned attitude to the law M’Lud> I thought a la mode was to get yourself on a nice crowdfunder & pursue any passing fox you saw.
Sniff my Bentley fumes, Mr in Spain!
Jason of Orange? Take That Her Oberst Kartoffel.