Not OP, but OP's point stands. If they can get special treatment, someone else's might be able to. The fact that it's a possibility means they must use it or risk being at a competitive disadvantage of a less ethical player.

Before an argument of "this justifies any type of behavior such as murdering your competitors' CEOs." There's a natural limit (albeit fuzzy) to what rules is in the company's self interest to seek a "special treatment". Relationships with gov't go sour, governments change, etc. What used to be "special treatment" might quickly transform into proof of wrong-doing against the company.

But then the argument becomes rather different. It is no longer a question of "If that's the law then it is not Amazon's fault". It has moved on to "Can we get away with coercing the government into allowing us to break the law".

That is morally a lot more challenging, and there is nothing in the managements fiduciary responsibilities that compels them to break laws. Nothing. Indeed the responsibility to shareholders is more complex anyway, aggressive tax planning may for instance damage your brand and reduce the future profitability.