"Reversion to the mean" is the process where later data is more typical than an outlying datum, so aberrations caused by outliers are averaged out, giving a result progressively closer to the mean of the data as subsequent data is added.

In short, that the rate over a decade instead of over a year is the official corporate tax rate. For Google it doesn't work out this way, still.

You really should Google the phrase "reversion to the mean", because you clearly have no idea what is going on but remain confident.

Googles mean or even max is far from 35% over their entire history. I fail to see the relevance of your argument.

Perhaps you think Google will eventually in the future pay 35% and everything in the past was just an anomaly?

Because it's a laughable thought, or if you're absolutely convinced that is the case you're incredibly naive.

You're mixing up mean reversion with extrapolation.

Where did you get the 35% number from?

You know Google is a global company, right? Corporate income tax rate in Ireland is 12.5%.

Have you seen any global company paying 35% income tax?

Does that mean that its profits would be volume weighted based on where they're earned? Because they still do not match up, 12.5% would be the lower boundary - of which Google was below on many years. What you've come up with is a rationalisation.

There is no way you can spin it, there is clear avoidance & the excuse is a battle on details of the law.