Define "Taxpayer" and Prove Authority!

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.

Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe