Whether the statutory definition of 'citizen' in 26 U.S.C. § 1402(b) includes the petitioner, and whether the regulations at 26 C.F.R. 1.1 impermissibly expand the statutory language

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW This case concerns statutory construction and constitutional claims arising from how Petitioner (Mr. Orth) has been barred from access to the law. . 1. Is the citizen in the statutory definition at 26 U.S.C. § 1402(b) an American, like the Petitioner? Do the individuals in § 1402(b) and 26 C.F.R. 1.1 share the same citizenship? 2. Is 26C.FR. 1.1-1 an impermissible and undue expansion of the language in 26 U.S.C. § 1? If so, has the Respondent unduly acquired any authority not manifest in statutory language? ; 3. Are the terms “any” and “any property” all inclusive terms when used in statutes and regulations? Is the Respondent in compliance with, or in violation of, 26 U.S.C. §§ 83, 212, 1001, 1011, and : 1012 and regulations thereunder when the FMV of Petitioner’s personal services are included in § 61(a) gross income? 4. Does it violate Petitioner’s rights to free speech, rights to petition for redress, or rights to due process, when he’s penalized $4,000.00 for petitioning for a decision upon issues that are purely statutory, whether or not a correct interpretation is disclosed by the Respondent or by the reviewing court? Is this still true? “Taxpayers are entitled to know the basis of law and fact on which the Commissioner sought to sustain the deficiencies.” ii ; QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW Continued (Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Co., 300 U.S. 481, 498 (1938)). 5. Are Petitioner’s rights to procedural due process satisfied or intact when, 1) below he’s received no exegesis of controlling provisions upon which he relies, 2) he’s penalized thousands of dollars for posing purely legal arguments based upon tax law . alone, 3) he’s barred from accessing the 7th Circuit’s courts until payment is made, 4) Respondent has failed for twenty-five years to formulate such an exegesis unc, ‘hese challenges regarding con~ : trolling provisic . 5) without the explanation he ~~ seeks the Petiti.. . .| provisions of re’. ..ntlaw have operated whenthe — Respondent des: sads payment under 26 US.C., © and 6) despite; cf this Petitioner stands to lose his U.S. passp. ; privileges under 26 U.S.C. § 7345?