We aren't arguing that it's tax fraud by definition, but that it should be considered fraud. If the tax code incentivizes destroying something then that seems like a defect of the tax code.
If you re-read my prior comment, you'd see my complaint is that it's not "fraud" by any reasonable definition because deception is not involved, not that it should or should not be allowed.
> "fraud" doesn't mean "losing money in a manner I don't like", so I ask again: where's the deception here?
> "fraud" doesn't mean "losing money in a manner I don't like", so I ask again: where's the deception here?