It is March 19. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Now we are able to connect the two halves of this discussion.

On one side, the Supreme Court says criminal tax liability depends on willfulness — the intentional violation of a known legal duty. On the other side, we have spent days examining definitions in 26 U.S.C. §7701, the function of includes, the meaning of trade or business, and the role of classes of persons and jurisdiction in the Internal Revenue Code.

These are not separate conversations.

They are the same conversation.

Because how can a duty be honestly known if the operative terms of the statute have never been seriously examined?

How can someone truly know a legal duty without asking:

What did Congress mean by United States?What did Congress mean by State?What does includes do under §7701(c)?Why does trade or business expressly include the performance of the functions of a public office?What significance do the classes of persons in the Code carry?Why does the nonresident alien provision reveal a structure of class, activity, jurisdiction, and consequence?

Those questions are not evasive. They are necessary.

And the Supreme Court has long held that tax statutes may not be enlarged by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. In Gould v. Gould, the Court said tax statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. In United States v. Merriam, the Court repeated that if the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer.

That means careful attention to definitions is not frivolous. It is part of honest tax analysis.

In the Liberty Dialogues context, the point is this:

A good-faith belief is not formed by ignoring the statute.A good-faith belief is formed by confronting the statute.Reading it.Comparing its terms.Tracing its structure.Asking what Congress actually said.And refusing to let presumption replace proof.

That is what definitions are for.And that is why definitions and jurisdiction are part of the legal substance of good faith.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.

It’s March 19, Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Let me explain something very simple.

If I am not subject to the Internal Revenue Code—

then I do not adopt the language of that code.

I don’t call myself a “non-resident alien.”

I don’t accept classifications that do not apply to me.

Words matter.

Definitions matter.

And the moment you adopt their terminology—

you may be stepping into their purview.

Now this is where people get into trouble.

They run toward strategies—

revocation of election… discharging…

all kinds of so-called remedies—

without understanding what they’re doing.

And that’s dangerous.

Because the real question is not:

“Does this work?”

The real question is:

Do you understand what you’re doing… and why?

Take this example.

Some people will take 26 U.S.C. 7701

and argue that the definition of “State” is limited to exclude the 50 States.

But then—

they turn around and take something like 6013(g)

and expand it beyond what it actually says within the code

to justify a strategy.

So ask yourself:

Can you limit one definition…

and expand another…

just to get the result you want?

No.

That’s not law.

That’s preference and presumption.

So instead of chasing ideas…

instead of trusting what sounds good…

Test it.

Understand it.

Be consistent.

Because if you don’t—

you’re stepping into something you do not control.

I don’t trust strategies.

I trust structure.

I trust definitions.

I trust consistency.

And if you want to protect yourself—

stop guessing.

Start understanding.

I have been involved with this effort for almost three decades.

I trust two sources and they provide excellent content, content that should be verified as well. One source has a link that describes the dangers of the ROE and some of the parties behind its use.

Caveat Emptor.

And as always—

may truth reign supreme.

It is March 18. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

One of the most important Supreme Court decisions in all of tax law is Cheek v. United States.

And the reason it matters is because the Court drew a line that every serious person must understand.

The Court held that a genuine good-faith understanding of what the tax law requires can negate willfulness — even if that understanding is objectively unreasonable. But the Court also held that a person’s belief that the tax laws are invalid or unconstitutional is different. That kind of disagreement does not negate willfulness in the same way.

That distinction is huge.

An understanding says:

“I believe the law says this because of X, Y, and Z. Or, I am sincerely determined that the law does not apply because of this reason, which is based upon the statutes and definitions.”

A protest says:

“I know the law applies, but I reject it.”

Those are not the same thing.

The Liberty Dialogues is directed toward the first category, not the second.

The purpose of the LDs is not to teach emotional defiance. It is not to encourage reckless noncompliance. It is not to promote shallow anti-government slogans.

It is to teach disciplined inquiry.

What did Congress define?What jurisdiction did Congress describe?What classes of persons appear in the title?What is the relationship between status and obligation?Where is liability actually imposed?And what parts of the structure are being presumed rather than proved?

That is not protest. That is study.

And that is why the work on definitions and jurisdiction is vital. Because when a person seriously studies the Code and attempts to understand the meaning of the words Congress chose, he is not merely rebelling. He is trying to understand the law as written.

That is exactly the kind of inquiry that Cheek makes legally important.

The law recognizes the significance of a sincere understanding in a technical statutory field.

That is the lane in which this series moves.

And as always…

May truth reign supreme.