Three Bites of the Apple

Authors

• Jeffery M. Kadet, University of Washington School of Law
• Philip L. Jezzi, University of Florence
• Brian J. Visalli, IRS Criminal Investigation
• David G. Chamerlain, California Polytechnic State University
• Stephen L. Curtis, Cross Border Analytics Inc.
• Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

3-2026

Abstract

In her latest letter, “A Second Bite at the Apple,” Kimberly Blanchard repeats her recent criticisms of the September 2024 EU Court of Justice decision concerning two Irish-incorporated Apple subsidiaries. Her letter title, which of course inspired the title of this article, and her explanations recall the 1967 MGM comedy Three Bites of the Apple, in which a helpful stranger offers elaborate explanations for why taxes need not be paid. In the film, and perhaps in this exchange as well, the relevant question is who ultimately benefits from the arrangement.

This exchange began with professor Philip Laroma Jezzi article reassessing the Apple decision, followed by Blanchard’s initial response, and our reply. Blanchard now clarifies her thesis. In doing so, though, she doubles down on matters, including her belief that the European Commission and the EU’s Court of Justice simply don't understand U.S. taxation. We respond at length in this article.

Comments

Reprinted with the permission of Tax Analysts

Recommended Citation

Kadet, Jeffery M., Philip L. Jezzi, Brian J. Visalli, David G. Chamberlain, Stephen L. Curtis, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah. "Three Bites of the Apple." Tax Notes International 121, no. 9 (2026): 1595-1606.