Built into that meaning would be an incorrect understanding of the tax code, which I think one can say is purposefully being leveraged in PR statements like this. Which is to say they are purposefully being misleading.
How is an "incorrect understanding of the tax code" built into that statement? Are you saying that the average layperson doesn't understand the numbers shuffling that goes on to get the biggest deduction? All tax preparation advertisements I see on TV tout their ability to "get you the biggest refund". Why would it not be a safe assumption to apply that same thought to corporate taxes?
Because when people interpret some behavior being done to the legal extent possible, on average they will do so with a poor understanding of the law and their interpretations will assume behavior which is in line with how they think the law works, not how it actually works. While this is their own misunderstanding, it is common enough and exploited purposefully enough that I don't think one can just declare Caveat Emptor (assuming that to buy into something is also a valid translation, which is probably isn't).
How would you propose they rewrite it?
For PR it works sufficiently as is. My criticism of the statement is not in its effectiveness and I don't think any resolution of my criticism would allow them to keep the original goal of the statement.