Well it does. The more complex the code the more ways there are to legally avoid its intent. Extreme example: if we had one tax bracket and no exemptions or deductions, there would be little anyone could do to avoid taxes other than literally earn less money.
His point was that objecting to a piece of legislation on the basis that some people will break the law is a pretty vacuous objection. Given one tax bracket or 200, people can lie to reduce their taxes.
This, of course, is not an interesting or useful critique of tax policy, just as what this company did in this case (fraudulently manipulate RIN credit retirements such that the train load was simultaneously classed as containing credit-valuable biodeasel and credit-worthless ethanol depending on whether or not the train was pointing North) is a vacuous critique of the EPA.
Noting that people will break a law is a vacuous criticism of said law. Noting that a law will make it easier for people to break the law (or take advantage of it) is certainly not.
Indeed, I'd argue that any analysis of the utility of a new law that doesn't take added opportunities for fraud into account (alongside the other negative effects of adding complexity) is simply worthless.
