Well, Erik, what they'd do then is invent new "Hollywood Accounting" methods of measuring revenue. It'd be a good start but, like Dick Smith says, rules like "10% of revenue" only punish the people who play by the rules.
If you really want to throw the feral pig amongst the sharks, then what we should change is the fact that companies pay taxes after expenditure, but people pay taxes before expenditure. If companies had an "income tax", then it would completely change the dynamic of posting record profits but zero tax because of write-downs, depreciation and other 'techniques'.
The root of the problem is in the ethics. We pay taxes so that we can benefit from a society that supports the services we want - police, roads, hospitals, schools, parks, shops, industries, beaches, etc. The problem with anyone or anything minimising tax is that they still benefit from other people paying tax. A company that pays no tax does not support the society that its patrons, workers and materials come from.
One way to solve this is by a "user pays" system where companies are assessed on the services they use, and pay accordingly. But we don't want "user pays" systems, mainly because they actually require much more regulation and government than taxation systems. They also disproportionally disadvantage poorer people and smaller companies.