In my limited experience, most right-wing Orthodox rabbis permit cheating on taxes and other cheating of the goyim. Most Modern Orthodox rabbis I know forbid this behavior.
A friend of mine recently wanted to pay cash to have his car repaired but first he got the permission of his chareidi rabbi.
Professor and Orthodox rabbi Marc B. Shapiro blogs:
If you want to understand why three hasidic kids are sitting in a Japanese jail, this responsum provides all you need to know. Can anyone deny that it is this mentality that explains so much of the illegal activity we have seen in recent year? Will Agudat Israel, which has publicly called for adherence to high ethical standards in such matters, condemn Klein? Will they declare a ban on R Yaakov Yeshayah Blau’s popular Pithei Hoshen, which explains all the halakhically permissible ways one can cheat non-Jews? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t declare that members of your community strive for the ethical high ground while at the same time regard Mishneh Halakhot, Pithei Hoshen, and similar books as valid texts, since these works offer justifications for all sorts of unethical monetary behavior. The average Orthodox Jew has no idea what is found in these works and how dangerous they are. Do I need to start quoting chapter and verse of contemporary halakhic texts that state explicitly that there is no prohibition to cheat on one’s taxes? Pray tell, Agudah, are we supposed to regard these authors as legitimate halakhic authorities?
DF posts: 
1. You cant expect orthodox rabbis to speak out against cheating on taxes, or misleading goyim. Because it would destroy the wine industry. Meaning, a great deal of orthodox society is contingent on the view that Christians are idol-worshippers.
Were the Meiri’s view adopted, it is true that people will eventually stop the "shtik" with government and non Jews. However, adoption of his view would also change the face of orthodoxy in an entirely different direction. All [most] the laws of yayim nesech would be out the window, for example. All the laws of bishul akum, gone. Chalav Yisrael industry, gone. Pas Akum industry, gone. Kemach, Geffen, Tov Taam, – gone, gone, gone. Kedem, Kesser, – gone and gone.
In other words, a lot of people’s jobs are riding on maintaining the preposterous fiction that Americans today are no different than the star worshippers of 2000 years ago. So, good luck advancing the Meiri’s view.
2. You are right that Rav Belsky has changed. And it’s noticeable in the OU. I have noticed that OU is now labelling many products simply as "D" or "Dairy", even when they are only produced on equiptment that also produces dairy, and the product itself doesnt have a drop of milk in it.
[Of course, OU also labels products as dairy even when the amount is less than 2% and hence bottol, but at least that’s a chumrah they’ve been following for many years.] It would be nice if the OU was upfront with the chumrahs it was following, thus allowing people who didnt care for that approach, and who werent aware of the OU’s policies, to make their own decisions.
JUMPED POSTS: How can an orthodox jew possibly say we live in a ‘moral’ society, when the most unprecedented rate of murder in the entire history of the world, in the most horrific setting possible- one’s very own offspring, is going on all around us? Do you accept the Halachah that it is murder- the highest IMMORAL crime possible, or do you not? OR, heaven forbid, say Halacha is one thing, truth another?
YU GRAD POSTS: Prof. Shapiro, while we certainly should ostracize Rabi Menashe Klein for his crazy views, what about Rabbi Dovid Cohen, who is a much more mainstream figure? As was reported in the Jewish Week and as was personally witnessed by me, he publicly said in front of one hundred people that tax evasion is permissible if you will not get caught. When subsequently questioned in private as to the justification for his views in light of the pesak in CM that such activity is forbidden, he responded that one can assume that such statements were just put there for fear of the censor. He therefore also said that gezel akum is permissible. As far as I know, he is the first posek to have said such a thing in one thousand years. He has been saying these things for many years and many people are familiar with his views on these issues. The RCA should be credited for breaking ties with him but has the Agudah world done so? What about Ohel, AJOP and Nefesh? Why do we condemn the frum criminals of the past year — after all if RDC is acceptable then why are those who follow his views to be condemned? One cannot answer that even RDC would prohibit tax evasion and theft if it would cause a Chillul Hashem because there is no doubt that the people involved thought that there was not a material chance that they would be caught. At worst they just made a poor judgment as to the possibility that Dweck would be cooperating with the feds.
Another point in your post that relates to this very disturbing issue is the historical revisionism that you discuss at the beginning of your post. When RDC spoke in Bergenfield, he said in front of one hundred people that he would deny his comments if people were to quote his statement on tax evasion. He also said that he was only making these public comments on Shabbos because he knew that there would be no taper recorders. RDC, true to his word, denied everything when questioned by the RCA about this despite the many witnesses who could testify to the contrary. That was not surprising — after all that is what he said he would do. What was most surprising was the harsh criticism that one YU RY had for those who told the RCA the truth. He told them that telling the RCA what happend was a complete lack of "kavod harav" and he did his best to make sure that the RCA would not discover what happened. He said this even though he knew that 100 witnesses could testify as to what happened. As one might guess, many of the witnesses did come forward and many in the RCA ultimately realized that this YU RY had misled them.
MARC SHAPIRO POSTS: Certain rabbis have the title attached to their name, so it makes sense to speak of them with their title: Rav Moshe, the Rav, Rav Kook — but for others (and this includes Rabbenu ha-Gadol R. Weinberg) a last name is fine.
If you want to see kavodike titles, see my Hebrew articles in Milin Havivin. In Hebrew the convention is different.
I mean, the title is by now so attached to them, that to refer to them without it, would be very strange.
MICHAEL MAKOVI POSTS: I was frequenting the Frum Teens forum, and someone asked whether it is permissible to cheer at a sports game, since the players are all gentiles. The moderator said he’d ask one of the gedolim. I responded that just the previous day, I had read Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz’s eulogy for a Catholic cardinal in the 1975 edition of Affirmations of Judaism.
(The 1923 edition of Affirmations of Judaism, same title and author, is an entirely different book. I might add that the 1923 Affirmations is an absolutely marvelous book, and would probably serve as a better introduction to Judaism than many books being written today. That is, assuming Rabbi Hertz’s endorsement of Kaplan’s concept of Judaism as a civilization doesn’t get Rabbi Hertz put in herem. (He uses Kaplan to uphold a concept of Judaism not very different than Rabbi S. R. Hirsch’s view in "Religion Allied to Progress" and "Judaism Up to Date", regarding Judaism governing all aspects of life. And cf. Rabbi Benzion Uziel’s concept of the Torah as our national charter.) And see Rabbi Hertz’s Early and Late for a fascinatingly consistent conflation of "Positive-Historical" and "Orthodox".)
———————————
Regarding historical revisionism of what one’s own ancestors have done, I am reminded of what David Glasner wrote on the Seforim Blog, about how Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner’s own descendants have forgotten his Zionism, thus paving the way for Rabbi M. S. Glasner’s inclusion into the Frankel index of commentators on the Mishneh Torah.
Regarding Gorelick the younger, Professor Shapiro writes, "He published an essay in Or Yisrael attacking the Artscroll Talmud and his reason was simply incredible. He claimed that anything that tries to make the study of Talmud easier is to be condemned. He also argued that Talmud study is not for the masses, but only for the elite. … According to Gorelik, if the masses want to study Torah, they can study halakhah or Aggadah and Mussar."
I don’t see what is so incredible about this position. The Gemara itself states that only 100 out of 1000 will progress beyond Tanakh to Mishnah, and only 10 out of 1000 beyond Mishnah to Gemara! Yes, today, academic and intellectual achievement by the laity is greater in general, and if one has learned in university, then presumably his Torah learning should be commensurate. Still, the fact that only ONE percent of people learned Gemara back then….!!!
On this subject, Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner writes in his "Zionism in the Light of Faith" ():
"And as to the manner in which Talmud will be studied in the land of Israel, a reduction in the number of those who study Talmud need arouse no fears, for the present situation is not healthy and is in the category of a deplorable necessity. The healthy and the natural doctrine is the following which was mentioned by the Mishnah in Avot, that we cited above and is implied by the Midrash in Midrash Rabbah at the beginning of Leviticus (chapter 2): [Rabbi Glasner cites the teaching regarding 100 of a 1000, 10 of a 1000, etc.]
"What a golden fruit would this doctrine yield in the land of Israel. The entire people, more or less, would be involved in the study of the Holy Scriptures, and a not inconsiderable portion would also be engaged in the study of the oral torah that is organized in the Mishnah, while the students who distinguish themselves in the study of Mishnah would be selected to devote themselves to the study of Talmud. From these would emerge true Torah scholars and giants of Torah, similar to those whom we knew in the bright era of Israel. Even without this, the situation in the land of Israel would be more healthy and more natural if only a small portion of the people will turn to Torah studies at the highest level, that is Talmudic study. It would be healthy and natural if higher Talmudic studies would be reserved to a small portion of the people, in the manner in which the tribe of Levi, which constituted eight percent of the people and did not participate in the ownership of the land and whose assignment and profession was to be the spiritual leaders of the nation, was sanctified and separated from the people to devote themselves to the study of Torah at the highest level. In contrast the other tribes, which constituted 92 percent of the people took part in various mundane occupations and were only free on the Sabbath and Holy Days to provide their souls with spiritual and moral nourishment."
"And so is it told in the Midrash: ‘When Israel was in the desert, before they entered the land of Israel, the Torah said to the Holy One Blessed Be He: "A man under his vine and a man under his fig tree." What will become of me?" For in the desert the entire people devoted themselves to the study of Torah, because they had no other worries. The Holy One Blessed Be He replied to the Torah: "I have another partner that I will give you, which is the Sabbath day, for Israel are idle from work and enter to the houses of worship and the houses of study and devote themselves to the study of Torah.’ The working man fills the Sabbath day with Torah study."
