This seems to presuppose that it is an inherently good thing to maximize tax revenue.
When deciding if your tax minimization strategy is a good thing simply ask yourself what would happen if everyone found a way to pay virtually nothing. The obvious thing in that scenario is that society collapses. This is obviously not a good thing.
Clearly everyone should try to pay a reasonable share. When your strategy is clearly a contrived misuse of an overly complicated tax code that goes against the spirit if not the letter of the law you should be able to figure out what side of the moral line you are on.
That isn't clear to me, because using the government to collect revenue hasn't been demonstrated to be a benefit. This still presupposes that government revenue is inherently beneficial.
I think if everyone found a way to pay virtually nothing, the government would collapse. That's not the same thing as society collapsing, society and the government are not coterminous.
Tax revenues don't go to "society", they go to the government. It is a logical leap to assume a collapse of society when the government loses funding.
The entirety of the population is doing business in dollars that would end up worth nothing which means everything grinds to a halt while people figure out how to reorganize this brave new world. Right now you own what you own courtesy of the government providing armed men to keep others from taking it and courts to settle differences.
This reorganization would inevitably mean that different groups compete to be the new powers that be. The obvious inheritors would be the existing state power structures which controls lots of armed men and women but nothing is stopping people from setting up their own feifdoms and disagreements about who controls what could trivially have to be settled by shooting each other.
It's not like we don't have plenty of examples of failed states collapsing. Look at Yugoslavia for example. Can you provide me with some counterexamples?