> And also, it's important to remember that in tax matters, the final arbiter of interpretation is a judge. Judges are humans, not machines. You can't "Trick" them by saying "well technically this is allowed!". Because they rule on the sprit of the law, not as it was written. Judges aren't amused when you try to be cute with how you interpret a law. And some Judges have biases, where you get a different ruling depending on if you play at their golf club or not.

> Laws aren't computer code. They are vague on purpose.

Yes... but. Tax law is a bit different because it is similar to an equation: you put in your inputs and you get your outputs.

There have been famous cases where the courts have said in essence, "yes you completely and exactly and precisely followed the law, but we're not going to allow you to do that anyway." Those rulings have become less frequent.

The fact that you need a judge to tell you if what you did was wrong is indicative of a flawed system