protestor rhetoric[.]” On appeal, Reyes asserts for the first time a new argument that his domicile is within the United States, but he is not a resident of the United States as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(1)(A) because he is not an alien individual with green card status. Among other things, he asserts that only alien individuals are residents of the United States for purposes of filing returns and paying taxes under the Tax Code. We decline to devote substantial time and effort to the task of unwinding Reyes’s misconstruction of various Tax Code provisions. His argument is the converse of another well-known tax protestor argument based on the significance of resident status, and it is similarly lacking in merit. See e.g., Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1177 n. 2 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Ambort v. United States, 392 F.3d 1138, 1139
holding as frivolous taxpayers argument that he was not subject to the income tax because he is a non resident alien and awarding sanctions of 8000 holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge holding that wages are subject to oregons personal income tax and that a taxpayers argument to the contrary was frivolous holding that an appeal by taxpayers in a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the government from collecting income tax deficiencies was mooted because the taxpayers had paid the deficiencies pending the appeal holding the rule against taxpayer standing applies both to federal taxpayers and state taxpayers challenging state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers