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.