It is January 28, 2026, Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

The Internal Revenue Code does not regulate human beings.It regulates legal constructs.

That distinction is not philosophical.It is structural.

Congress does not write statutes to govern living men or women as such.It writes statutes to govern defined statuses that exist within its delegated authority.

That is why the Code begins with definitions.

Before any obligation can exist, the Code must first establish who it applies to.

The term “person” is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1):

“The term ‘person’ shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”

This definition is inclusive, not universal.

It does not describe what exists in nature.It identifies what Congress has chosen to treat as a legal subject for purposes of Title 26.

Most of the listed items are plainly artificial:trusts, estates, partnerships, corporations.

One term causes confusion: “individual.”

An individual, as used in the Code, is not the living man or woman.It is a statutory abstraction—a legal role through which regulation may occur if jurisdiction exists.

Inside Title 26:

an “individual” is treated no differently than a corporation,

it is a juridical unit, not a human being,

it exists only by operation of statute.

The real man or woman exists before the Code.The “individual” exists only inside it.

The Code does not automatically convert one into the other.

UNITED STATES PERSON — THE JURISDICTIONAL CLASS

The Code then narrows further.

A “United States person” is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30):

“The term ‘United States person’ means—(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,(B) a domestic partnership,(C) a domestic corporation,(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate), or(E) any trust”(meeting specified federal control and supervision requirements).

This definition does one thing:

It identifies which “persons” Congress claims federal tax jurisdiction over.

A United States person is not a descriptive label.It is a jurisdictional designation.

A “person” is merely a statutory subject.A United States person is a statutory subject inside federal tax jurisdiction.

That distinction matters because:

many operative provisions of the Code apply only to United States persons,

federal tax obligations attach only to those within that defined class.

Without United States person status,Title 26 has no jurisdictional hook.

THE INVERSION — HOW PRESUMPTION OPERATES

Administratively, the system reverses this order.

Instead of first establishing:

authority to act,

jurisdiction over the subject,

and status as a United States person,

the system begins by asserting obligation.

The living man or woman is treated as though they are already:

a statutory individual,

therefore a person,

therefore a United States person,

therefore liable.

None of that sequence is shown.It is presumed.

That presumption collapses critical distinctions:

between the real and the artificial,

between existence and status,

between jurisdiction and obligation.

The Liberty Dialogues rejects that collapse.

LD restores the order Congress wrote into the Code.

First: AuthorityWho is acting, and under what delegated power?

Second: JurisdictionWhere does that authority lawfully reach?

Third: StatusIs there a statutory “person” under § 7701(a)(1)?If so, has that person been shown to be a United States person under § 7701(a)(30), placing it within federal tax jurisdiction?

Only after those questions are answeredcan obligation even be discussed.

Not penalties.Not enforcement.Obligation.

Because obligation follows jurisdiction.And jurisdiction follows definition.

THE CORE DISTINCTION

A real man or woman does not owe duties by presumption.Only a defined legal status does.

The Code governs its creations.It does not own the living.

When definitions are honored,law replaces assumption.When jurisdiction is proven,order replaces coercion.

That is not evasion.It is statutory discipline.

And that is what structure looks likewhen presumption is no longer allowed to run first.

It is January 28, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

The Internal Revenue Code does not regulate human beings.It regulates legal constructs.

That distinction is structural, not philosophical.

Before the Code can require anything from anyone, it must first define who it applies to.

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1), the Code defines a “person.”That term includes individuals, trusts, estates, partnerships, and corporations.

An individual in the Code is not the living man or woman.It is a statutory abstraction — treated no differently than a corporation.

The real man or woman exists outside the Code.The “individual” exists only inside it.

The Code then narrows further.

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30), the Code defines a “United States person.”

That definition is not descriptive — it is jurisdictional.

A United States person is the class of persons Congress claims federal tax jurisdiction over.Without that classification, Title 26 has nothing to operate on.

But administratively, the order is reversed.

The system assumes the living man or woman is already:a person,a United States person,and therefore obligated.

None of that is shown.It is presumed.

The Liberty Dialogues restores the lawful order.

Authority first.Jurisdiction second.Status third — person, then United States person.

Only after thatcan obligation even be discussed.

Because obligation does not create jurisdiction.Jurisdiction creates obligation.

And law begins with definition —not assumption.

It is January 27, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Most people argue about taxes without ever defining the word that controls the entire conversation.

That word is “taxpayer.”

In the Internal Revenue Code, “taxpayer” is defined at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14). And it’s short:

A taxpayer is any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

That definition is not inspirational. It’s not philosophical. It’s not political. It’s jurisdictional.

Now watch what that definition does—and what it does not do.

It does not say: “Any person who exists.”It does not say: “Any person who earned money.”It does not say: “Any person who received a paycheck.”It says: any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

Meaning: the term “taxpayer” does not create liability. It describes a category—someone who is already subject to a tax.

So in Liberty Dialogues terms, the definition itself forces order:

1) Authority First

Who is claiming the right to treat me as subject to this tax?Not “the IRS” as a brand name. Not a letterhead. Not a system.A real actor claiming lawful authority to apply a tax to a specific person.

2) Jurisdiction Second

“Subject to” is a jurisdictional phrase. It implies reach—a legal basis that places a person inside the tax’s scope.If “taxpayer” means “person subject to tax,” then the first real question is:What makes this person subject—here, now, under this statute, for this period?

Because if “taxpayer” is assumed without jurisdiction being established, the entire process begins with presumption instead of proof.

And that’s exactly how people get trapped:They respond as if “taxpayer” is a synonym for “citizen” or “living human.”They explain. They defend. They confess. They concede.

They treat the label as automatic—when the statute defines it as conditional.

3) Obligation Third

Only after authority is identified and jurisdiction is established does obligation even become a real discussion.Obligation is not the starting point. It is the consequence—if, and only if, the earlier steps hold.

Now, let’s tighten this into one line you should remember:

The system wants you to start by arguing obligation.The LD method forces the system to establish jurisdiction first.

And that is why definitions matter.

When you keep “taxpayer” in its statutory meaning, you stop debating emotions and start demanding structure:

* Who is asserting authority?

* By what jurisdiction are you claiming I am “subject to” this tax?

* Only then: what obligation follows?

That is the discipline.

And discipline is how you prevent presumption from becoming your reality.