Apple is filing a new legal challenge against its $14.5 billion tax fine in Europe, arguing the European Commission “made fundamental errors” in assessing the company’s activities outside of Ireland.

According to Apple, the Commission did not accurately recognize that most of the company’s “profit-driving activities” occurred in the United States — not Ireland — and should not have been factored into the ruling.

The argument is one of 14 legal pleas that Apple filed to the executive arm of the European Union in its appeal to the Commission's order that Apple pay $14.5 billion in back taxes the government in Dublin. The Commission ruled that Apple received “unfair state-aid” from Ireland in the form of reduced taxes, which violated EU regulations.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ireland is also pursuing an appeal of the Commission’s decision.

The Cupertino, Calif.-based technology giant contended that the Commission did not “articulate the primary line of reasoning,” in its decision, thus breaching a procedural requirement. Apple wrote that if had received such a line, it would have been able to present evidence that “could and should have changed the outcome.”

The crux of Apple’s arguments against the ruling are that the Commission incorrectly interpreted Irish law and that it did not conduct a fair investigation.

In December, Apple hammered the Commission’s fine, writing in statement that, "if their opinion is allowed to stand, Apple would pay 40 percent of all the corporate income tax collected in Ireland, which is unprecedented and, far from leveling the playing field, selectively targets Apple."

“This has no basis in fact or law and we're confident the ruling will be overturned," Apple said at the time.

European Commissioner on competition Margrethe Vestager, who oversaw the investigation and ruling, has defended the decision, pointing out that the EU has been challenging tax arrangements for decades.

In September, she fired back at Apple CEO Tim Cook’s allegations that the decision was politically motivated, writing that the decision was “based on the facts of the case.”