It is quite a settled legal principle that one should not have to pay more tax than what he is required to legally, with that being said, if there is a proper channel where one can reduce their liability, they are within their capacity to do so.
This was opined with a famous quote by Justice Learned Hand in the landmark case of Helvering v. Gregory (1934). Even though it is completely legal, and done by the poorest as well as the richest, it is looked down upon when the affluent businessmen or the politicians do it, as it becomes a medium of bringing them down and portraying it as evasion.
Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) has cited a study conducted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) that according to him shows “multimillionaire Joe Biden’s use of corporate loopholes to avoid paying taxes.”
However, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that there is no basis for the claim. President Biden had made public the tax returns he filed just like the norm. However, former President Trump was an exception to the rule who in decades was one of the first not to regularly disclose the amount he is paying in taxes.
An article had surfaced which showed that during 2017-2018 the return filed by the President made the most of a tax-related loophole which allowed him and the first lady to save roughly $500,000. This was despite the fact that he fell under the tax bracket of 33% and ended up paying in millions still.
But the Bidens also had routed their income from books and speeches through S corporations. In doing so, they potentially avoided an additional 3.8 percent in Medicare taxes, some of which had been imposed on high-income individuals as part of the Affordable Care Act.
The Bidens’ 2017 tax return declared roughly $145,000 in earnings for Joe Biden and $100,000 for Jill Biden subject to such taxes, whereas the revenue was $10 million in S corporation revenue. Their 2018 return showed $300,000 in earnings for Joe Biden and $200,000 for Jill Biden subject to the Medicare taxes, out of about $3.2 million in income, while there was a suspiciously higher amount shown as wages at 60% which was drastically more than what was paid in the last 2 years prior to that.