The term "loophole" doesn't refer to what we programmers would think of as implementation bugs; nobody is, e.g., dodging taxes by saying "these rules are for salaries under $100K, these are for over $100K, I'm making exactly $100K so I don't have to pay anything nyaah." It refers to what we programmers would think of as design bugs: the intent of the law does not cover the situation at hand, and it is not a judge's place to say, "Hm, I guess they meant to write a law about this."

A good example is the backdoor Roth IRA, which lets you exceed the Roth contribution limit by transiting your money through a traditional IRA (which has no limit) and then converting it to a Roth IRA (which has no limit). It's well-known that you can do this, and the legislature has had plenty of opportunities to put a contribution on either of these two steps. But they haven't. It would contradict the will of the legislature for a judge to say, "Look, obviously they didn't mean that," because at this point if they meant that they would have said it.