Yes, companies can legally and rationally reduce their taxes to the absolute minimum. Viewing as immoral the act of taking from society while maneuvering to give nothing back seems completely reasonable. Disliking someone you see acting immorally should be perfectly understandable.

HOLY SELECTIVE QUOTING BATMAN!

The Supreme Court decided exactly opposite of what you try to covey with your quotes (from the dissenting judge of a lower court):

In these circumstances, the facts speak for themselves and are susceptible of but one interpretation. The whole undertaking, though conducted according to the terms of subdivision (B), was in fact an elaborate and devious form of conveyance masquerading as a corporate reorganization, and nothing else. The rule which excludes from consideration the motive of tax avoidance is not pertinent to the situation, because the transaction upon its face lies outside the plain intent of the statute. To hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice above reality and to deprive the statutory provision in question of all serious purpose. GREGORY v. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)

The IRS goes after (and the courts have supported doing so) those attempting to use loopholes to reduce their tax burden. If the IRS isn't going after the money of corporations doing this, then it likely is within the bounds of the tax code.

I've never liked the term "loophole" when it comes to the law. Either it is legal or it is not. The best I can do in terms of that is referring to the act of a politician inserting an exception to benefit a few as "inserting a loophole". But once that has been placed, voted on, and signed into law it is at that point the law.

In short there are a lot unsaid, and what is said is not always clear.

But I agree, that's part of my point. Just because one person feels it is a "loophole" that has some sort of negativity connected to it doesn't mean that everyone else will feel the same.

I agree with you again, that no law can be 100% clear and that's why we have the courts to decide on such things on a case-by-case basis. Until a court decides that the so-called loophole is illegal, then it is a legal thing to do. You cannot hold a person and/or company responsible for what was unsaid in a law nor when what is said is not always clear. If the thought is that the companies in question are not abiding by the law then take them to court, that's what the judges are there.

This whole meme that a company is immoral for not following the unsaid spirit of a law is just a result of people not knowing the proper thing to complain about when it comes to such laws.

So, in that case, did the company actually break the law in some way? Because if they did not, then the reasoning behind their "devious" reorganization and the morality behind it is irrelevant. Unless we want to say that the line dictating illegal tax avoidance is whatever the Supreme Court happens to say it is that year based on their own personal moral fiber.

From what I'm reading of that decision; it wasn't made because the transaction was deemed a somehow "immoral" abuse of the law to avoid taxes, but because the reorganization wasn't valid under the relevant statute. Conducting the reorganization solely for reducing tax liabilities is apparently not a valid reason for the reorganization under the statute. Someone could attempt the same reorganization for reasons other than reducing tax liabilities and it would still not be valid, under the same statute, if it did not meet the requirements.

I feel the quotes are fine within the apparent intent of the original thought, that hating a company because it does logical things that some feel are immoral makes little sense. Hating a company because it breaks the law to avoid paying taxes is a different matter.

I would also through back "HOLY SELECTIVE QUOTING BATMAN!" since you address one quote while ignoring the one from Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F2d 848 (1947). Although I'm not going to read through that decision so it could be a bad quote for all I know.

He quoted from the dissent in Commissioner v. Newman. He found a single judge who wrote an opinion at one point in American history that fit his mindset. An opinion to which that judge's peers disagreed. Selective quoting if I've ever seen it. I didn't think I needed a quote considering the decision itself is entirely written in opposition of the dissent.

Your inability to differentiate between legal and moral has been sufficiently addressed by other posts.

Have an example of a company acting legally, yet immorally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

I'll take note that in the future one has to provide numerous quotes to avoid being labeled as selective quoting. Even though you provided one quote to counter his one "selective" quote. I don't necessarily disagree with what you state in that context, I simply disagree with the selective quoting label.

I was trying to point out that the majority opinion was not really relevant to the point because it was not decided on morality, but on not following the law. Therefore, a quote from the dissenting judge that was relevant to the topic at hand, i.e. whether it is moral or not to reduce one's tax liabilities, was fair. Using the majority opinion to counter the poster's point is not fair because the opinion is not relevant to the point.

I shall attempt to provide an example. Let's say there's a court case about the legalities of puppy mills. The majority opinion is that they are illegal. In the dissent there's a statement concerning the desire for a certain breed and that's why the defendants ran a puppy mill. I quote the dissenting judge about people's desire of that certain breed, not mentioning puppy mills. You state my use of the quote is not valid because the majority decided that puppy mills are illegal. That's all I'm saying.

Finally, I know that the law should have nothing to do with morals. Morals are subjective and attempts to legislate morals almost always results in unintended consequences. I simply disagree with judging a company by moral standards based on their actions under the law. As for other posters, I think there the opinions all over the board about what people feel on moral/legal activities in their own worldview. Which is why I think that judging morality on legal matters is not always a good idea.

I claimed that a single individual disagrees with the proposition that legally reducing one's tax burden is immoral.

I provide quotes from that individual to support that. If you think that the individual does not hold the point of view that I claimed, and that I cherry picked two quotes in an attempt to misrepresent his opinion, then I have selectively quoted.

Note I never claimed that the Supreme Court found this to be true, nor that it was the law of the land in the US.

[edit]

I would also like to point out that I didn't pick the individual at random. He is one of the more respected judicial philosophers of the 20th century, and easily the most influential judge to never have served on the supreme court.

You are butchering his position even worse than I thought. He never said what you claim. The best case you can argue with his support is that the bluster of morals cannot be used to legally force someone to do more than the law requires.

Never once does he come anywhere near "disagree[ing] with the proposition that legally reducing one's tax burden is immoral". He makes no moral judgement on the matter whatsoever.

And I don't see how trawling nearly 100 years back in time to find a dissenting and disregarded opinion is anything other than selective quoting. You may as well have quoted yourself from 10 minutes prior.

I believe judges quite specifically help define what's legal. Whether they include a little addendum about morality in their verdicts or not is completely besides the point: This whole thread is about that ethics and law aren't the same.

Also, these (implicit) appeals to the authority of judges always confuse me. Judges have political opinions, just like anyone else, and land on both sides.