When writing laws, it's best if they can't be circumvented by obvious semantic games. That's why our judges are humans, and not computers—if someone is trying to jump through a semantic loophole, having judges decide the case can prevent that.

In this case in particular, describing the financial benefit as "lower taxes" instead of "giving money", when "giving money" is illegal, probably isn't a loophole that should be allowed, when the result is the same.