What makes me think it applies is the term "abuse." If it was clearly rulebreaking, they would have called it a "violation," I assume. What I'm arguing is that

What makes me think it applies is the term "abuse." If it was clearly rulebreaking, they would have called it a "violation," I assume. What I'm arguing is that the rules themselves don't have a spirit. Not all rules, but most tax rulesets. The complexity of transactions is largely a factor because of the complexity of the rules. They're complex because tax rules are constantly being fiddled with to benefit someone, encourage something or shield something. It's the kind of ruleset you end up with specifically because you're not being principled. The spirit of the tax rules that U2 is taking advantage of is exactly the type of whats-good-for-me-is-good-for-me spirit that he was being accused of. If there's a loophole in the rules to protect some industry or district that happened to have been politically important or connected at some point and some other groups manage to take advantage of it... For principled rules (don't rape, murder or steal) it makes sense to appeal to the spirit. It's not necessarily inarguable but it exists. We can debate whether something constitutes theft sensibly, and appeal to the spirit of the rule. But, if there were weird rules specifically defining stealing commercial vehicles "not theft" because in the early 90s some economists theorized this would help balance insurance company finances somehow... the "spirit" of the "no stealing" rule becomes meaningless. All you have at that point is the rules in ink. I'm not even talking about ethical complexity, mostly. This bleeds into empirical reality pretty directly. Where we have complicated and unprincipled tax rules we tend to have complicated and unprincipled avoidance, tax structuring, planning or pick your euphemism.