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.