This sets no precedent, since no issue was settled by court ruling.
In addition, the fact that the IRS offered literally no rebuttal or defense to his points means that there is something else here that is going on out of the public eye, but I do not have any idea what that would be.
My thought on that is that the IRS is scared that they won't be able to criminally charge every tax protestor if there ever gets to be a ruling by a federal appeals court that goes against them in one of these cases... so when a guy fights enough they just let him slide in a manner that creates no precedent.
My thinking on that is, if the IRS did not use any statutes or IRS rules, they did so as not to have them struck down, which would open up Pandora's box.
In other words, if something is not introduced in the trial, it can't be ruled upon.
This way, they just accepted defeat in this case and all their statutes and rules remain intact and they go merrily along collecting their bounty.