This is what apple is being challenged on.This is not the case,
Its tax rate was 2%.
http://www.informationweek.com/gove...axes-and-why-tim-cook-is-wrong/a/d-id/1323729
"AOI itself hadn't had any employees in 33 years, other than its three board members. It paid no taxes in either the US or Ireland, despite earning a total of $30 billion in income during the years 2009-2012, according to the Business Insider summary of the Senate Subcommittee report."
is what actually set it off:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253200/253200_1582634_87_2.pdf
preliminary view
DECISION In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission’s preliminary view is that the tax ruling of 1990 (effectively agreed in 1991) and of 2007 in favour of the Apple group constitute State aid according to Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission has doubts about the compatibility of such State aid with the internal market. The Commission has therefore decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU with respect to the measures in question
The law is explicit here : you cant give unfair advantages(in this case taxation) to companies . You seem to have the strange notion that everything has to be clearly set in text in a law as in "apple shouldnt pay any less taxes as the standard rate" that is never the case.there are those in power in the EU who believe that to be so but the probe is ongoing. And again, I said explicit law, where there is a set standard for "wasn't fair to other companies" which doesn't seem to be the case.
Laws are created in general and its up to judges or commision in this case to see if its being upheld.
EU thinks that apple/ireland didnt do this, ireland/apple now has a change to justify itself, but seeing the facts I doubt they can do anything about it.
And again, I fully agree the EU has the right to tell Ireland and Apple, you can't do that any more. It being too good is a judgement call and the EU gets to make the judgement call. What I say the EU shouldn't have the right to do, and shouldn't do, is say "We've made our judgement now and it applies to all those past years so pay up."
The rule the EU uses here is from 99. The EU has every right to go back up until that time. Laws usualy have a set years in which they should be enacted, I dont know the number of years in this case but it is perfectly normal and actually happens quite a lot .