The popular term is 'not even wrong'. There is a premise that companies existing and developing strategies in a competitive economic environment can best be thought about in terms of 'natural selection'. This premise is innately flawed, and has a long history of being misapplied for ideological reasons. It is a completely pointless exercise when the ideological cachet of 'Nature' is removed from consideration. Companies do not evolve on the basis of heredity. Natural selection teaches us nothing about them.

Minimizing taxes as a financial optimization strategy have everything to do with competitive advantage. If we were genuinely looking to take lessons from biological history, it would teach us that subsequently perishing as a consequence of that adaptation is entirely natural and normal. 'Natural selection' is whatever happens. It is often conflated with various notions of progress, merit, laissez-faire, et cetera, but seldom honestly.

No scientific claims were made in my comment. In the social sciences, including economics, the actors are much more difficult to study in controlled settings, so statements tend to be much more qualitative.

Selection bias is a real thing, however. For example, "All politicians are corrupt" doesn't mean they all are, but given corrupt as a competitive advantage, the ones that weren't corrupt are not successful enough to be known. You don't have to be corrupt to be a politician, but you might have to to be a successful one. Businesses are much more like that given hyper competitive environments.