IRS neutered by 1995 supreme court decision?

When we look at the federal statute, 26 usc 1, we will find the word “shall” utilized 80 times.  It appears throughout the entirety of all federal statutes and codes..  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1

Legal Principal; Ambiguity in a document, benefits the party that did not draft it.

Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno,(1995) where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the word “shall” means “may.”

The legal definition of “May; may. v. a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility.

Federal agencies were notified and they “some of them” responded in the following manner;
We call “must” and “must not” words of obligation. “Must” is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, “must not” are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited. Who says so and why?

Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word “shall” is confusing because it can also mean “may, will or must.” Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word “shall.” Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word “shall” appears in statutes, it means “may.”

Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black’s Law Dictionary wrote that “In most legal instruments, the word “shall”, violates the presumption of consistency…which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language.”

Those are some of the reasons why these documents compel us to use the word “must” when we mean “mandatory:”

The Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook (Section 3) states “Use ‘must’ instead of ‘shall’ to impose a legal obligation on your reader.”

The Federal Plain Language Guidelines (page 25) referred to in the Federal Plain Writing Act of 2010, compel the FAA and every federal department to “use ‘must,’ not ‘shall’” to indicate requirements.
FAA Plain Language Writing Order 1000.36, (page 4) (PDF) says avoid the word “shall” and use “must” to impose requirements, including contracts.
Until recently, law schools taught attorneys that “shall” means “must.” That’s why many attorneys and executives mistakenly believe “shall” means “must.”  The Federal Plain Writing Act and the Federal Plain Language Guidelines only appeared in 2010. And the fact is, even though “must” has come to be the only clear, valid way to express “mandatory,” most parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) & United States Codes (USCs) that govern federal departments still use the word “shall” for that purpose.

With time, laws evolve to reflect new knowledge and standards. During this transition, “must” remains the safe, enlightened choice not only because it imposes clarity on the concept of obligation, but also because it does not contradict any instance of “shall” in the CFRs.” Right now, federal departments “ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ” go through their documents to replace all the “shalls” with “must.” It’s a big hassle. If you look at page A-2, section q (PDF) , it shows a sample of how a typical federal order describes this shift from “shall” to “must.” Don’t go through this tedious process. If you mean mandatory, write “must.” If you mean prohibited, write “must not.”

You’re now fully aware of what the word “shall” is officially termed to mean, “MAY”; a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility. 

The word “shall” appears 309 times in the Constitution of the UNITED STATES.. every state constitution utilizes the word “shall” numerous times and constitutions are allegedly where all authority for governments originate and is alleged to be their authority to even exist.
All the so called laws, statutes and codes universally utilized the word “shall” as a word of .obligation.

Since the supreme court has ruled that the word “shall” is no longer a word of command, liability or obligation.. Then it is not reasonable to say that all state constitutions, the federal constitution and all subsequent legistlation, statutes, codes/laws are null and void?

I would further point out, none of the 50 states constitutions nor federal constitution have a savings clause..and that few if any of the state or federal laws/codes/statutes/policies have what is called a SAVINGS CLAUSE! 
A saving clause is a clause in a statute or contract “think social contract/constitution” so that if any clause is determined to be unenforceable, the remainder of the statute or contract will remain intact and enforceable. (42 USC 2000h-6: Separability; is a savings clause but it utilizes the word “shall’ and would therefore be nullified)

To continue to enforce these, with what we now know to be fraudulent law, is committing criminal fraud upon an unsuspecting public,.. 

Remember; Ambiguity in a document, benefits the party that did not draft it.  and that’s according to their own doctrine! 

FRAUD VITIATES ALL! ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN DOCTRINE! 

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE! ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN DOCTRINE! 

NOTICE TO ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS “elected, appointed and otherwise”.. you’ve taken great delight over the years informing us ad nauseam, that ignorance of the law is no excuse.. WELL THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT! YOUR IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE!

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability,  

Fiat justitia ruat caelum..  “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized …

 this letigious society that we live in today forces me to state, the aforementioned is not legal advice!