You may not "owe" the government, if you can find a loophole where you can technically avoid paying legally. But in my opinion ethics definitely comes into it, why wouldn't it?
The government is the only entity that is responsible for the loopholes and that can close the loopholes.
If we want fewer loopholes then we should prioritize that when selecting our government.
The law does not define ethics. Ethics does not define the law. It is folly to pretend there is more than a tenuous bidirectional link.
For example, any father ethically owes his children more than child support. And any child ethically owes his father more than refraining from stealing from or killing him.
The existence of these loopholes creates two options:
1) Follow the spirit of the law, which is that on your death, your assets are taxed as they are passed on, thus you contribute to funding the laws and society we are supposedly working together to create.
2) Do work to avoid having to give up anything, even though you can easily afford it, and you'll be dead anyway.
I don't see how #2 is ethically the same as #1. He doesn't have to do the most selfish thing just because he isn't technically being forced otherwise. Caveat that I haven't researched if this guy is giving tons of money away otherwise or something, I'm just trying to explain why I think it's fair for people to criticize this behavior even though it might be legal.
