If I ask someone on the street if its okay to steal from the rich, he says "yes" and I steal from the rich, no one would bat an eye if the courts didn't agree with my "interpretation" of the law and put me behind bars. And no one would accept it as a legal defense if I said "but hey, that guy over there said it is okay to do this!" - why should it be different for companies?
1. They have applied their own laws in a way that amounts to subsidies, and
2. The corporate structure turned out to be fictional, and allocations of profits were therefore also fictional. ("Arm's length" and all that.)
They even open the door for national tax authorities to use their findings and evaluate for profit shifting.
This is an inspirational moment - too long have tax treaties favoured those willing to break the spirit of the law and weigh down the little man with the consequences!
I'm assailing this line of thinking in general.
Instead, can we discuss whether or not giant corporations avoiding taxes is ethical, rather than whether or not there's something up with the rules? Do you seriously believe that what Apple and other large corporations do with respect to taxes is ethical?
It's not like there are pre-existing moral rules in the case of taxes -- taxes exist only because of tax law; tax law defines what taxes are, who is to pay them, and how much they ought to pay. Tax law is the only authoritative standard to which someone's behavior re: taxes can be submitted.
For example, some parts of tax law were passed by politicians who wanted to help corporations avoid paying taxes, and other parts were passed by politicians who wanted corporations to stop avoiding taxes. Both of these contradictory intentions are embodied in our current tax law. The spirit of the law is confused at best.