I don't believe that is why we capitalize the Tao. It is a "name" that we give to the Absolute, or the divine. My understanding has always been when you point to the divine, and give a name to it, it should always be capitalized. If you lowercase it, then you are referring to a deity, like the "biblical god". In that case we are talking about gods, like we would talk about humans, or cats, without the need to capitalize them.
Case in point, you always capitalize Brahman, or Atman, or Self, etc, because these point to the Absolute. This is why God, when pointing not to a tribal deity, but to the Absolute, is always capitalized. To say god, when referring to the Absolute, does not make sense. Hence why Tao and God as comparisons of the Absolute, or the Divine, are on the same level. We are not comparing apples to apples when you make one a tribal god.
So when I am thinking of God, I am thinking the same as Brahman or the Tao. To drop the case to god, is frankly insulting. I don't view God as a god. It is a title of the Absolute, just like the Tao, or just like Brahman, or just like the Atman or the Self.
Edit to Add: This is what the practice of capitalization is about. It's called r
everential capitalization. The practice is to speak of that which is transcendent like this to denote its sacredness.
And while this is not a hard fast rule, like in any grammar, if you're going to capitalize Tao, or Atman in a sentence, than you need to be consistent and capitalize God. If you don't, then it appears to be making a statement of some sort, by emphasizing the difference in capitalization usages. One is viewed as sacred, or reverential, and the other generically or mundane.