If items being referred to as loopholes are legal, then they are not loopholes but part 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.
That would be true if everybody concerned interprets that specific law exactly the same. One problem is there can and is ambiguity in natural language, and another is you cannot cover all possibilities in a single bill.
In short there are a lot unsaid, and what is said is not always clear.
One could say the same about the continued use of the word loophole in this context.
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.
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.