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.