The problem with a person doing this style of tax avoidance is that the barrier to entrance is much higher than the gain.
Assuming general principals of US tax law, if you're already working as an independent contractor, you could legally set up a local company and an overseas company, have the local company bill the client, pay you a reasonable amount, and pay the overseas company the remainder for the use of its name (or whatever justification you like).
Your local company would have no net income, but may pay employer side taxes on your wages, and any minimum taxes on corporations in the local jurisdiction.
Your overseas company would have a net income, but you picked an overseas jurisdiction with low taxes, right?
You would have recognized income of the wages, and unrecognized capital gains in the overseas company. At such time as you take the money from the overseas company, that would be recognized as a capital gain.
At the end of the day, you have to run two companies, one in an unfamiliar jurisdiction, and you get to defer recognition of income and change the character of the income from normal income to capital gains. You may also have paid taxes to the overseas jurisdiction that I'm not sure qualifies for a foreign tax credit. It's a real gain, but it may not outweigh the costs.
If you're a direct employee of a company, it's also not an option, since you can't redirect your wages out of your recognized income.