It is immoral if you evade the intent of the law by exploiting dubious loopholes such that you reduce the amount of tax you should pay beyond any reasonable lower limit to almost zero.
Starbucks needing to pay Starbucks so that they can use the Starbucks brand (and thus - co-incidentally we're told) syphoning off profit from Starbucks UK to Starbucks cupboard in tax haven is an example of something that might be legally correct but is morally wrong.
I think it's pretty clear that we disagree, so feel free to have the last word.
The intent of tax law is everywhere the same: maximise revenue. Full stop.
In the USA, the UK and Australia we live in a society of laws, not a society of personal judicial discretion. Judges give regard to the intent of the lawmakers insofar as it illuminates how to apply a piece of legislation. It is not their job to simply decide that something is "right" or "wrong" according to their personal views of what is a sensible policy setting for taxation.
The point is that if you take the view that minimising tax is wrong, you need to explain why. The logical contrapositive (or is it converse? I always get them mixed up) is that maximising the tax you pay is morally correct, which opens up an embarrassing slippery slope argument that even I, as a recovering libertard, am not keen to go a-whooshing down.
It is always important in discussion moral questions to distinguish between what is moral conduct and what are desirable outcomes. What humans do and what humans intend to come about are frequently very different, but we all have a habit of smooshing them together in discussions such as these.
I realise that I have tremendously muddied the waters by insisting on reverting to first principles, but well ... principles matter.
If I may create a false dichotomy: given the choice between a government of laws and a government with maximised revenue, I would prefer to live under a government of laws.
Okay, I think I understand a bit more about our disagreement.
I don't care what the courts think. I agree with you - the law exists; judges interpret that law; these companies don't appear to be breaking any laws. My accusations of them not being moral isn't based in law, nor in them trying to reduce their tax bill.
I think it's fine for people to reduce their tax burden. I even think it's fine for people to employ lawyers to scour the laws and find vigorous ways to reduce their tax burdens.
But then there are tricks that are legal now, but which appear to flaunt the intent of the law, and which will get fixed at a later point.
And, in my opinion, sometimes these tricks go so far as to be dishonest. And that's the bit where morality comes in. Companies that reduce their tax bills are not immoral, unless they are telling borderline lies in order to do so.
When a UK company sells goods in the UK to UK citizens, making over £3bn per year in sales, and then say that their company is actually in Luxembourg and the UK business is just a delivery business to reduce their tax bill - well, that feels slimy. It might be legal.
Some behaviour is not illegal, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.
The other thing about laws is that they are not fixed. They get refined over the years. And there are some grey areas until the law is tested by whoever enforces it.
Starbucks needing to pay Starbucks so that they can use the Starbucks brand (and thus - co-incidentally we're told) syphoning off profit from Starbucks UK to Starbucks cupboard in tax haven is an example of something that might be legally correct but is morally wrong.
I think it's pretty clear that we disagree, so feel free to have the last word.