I'm not arguing with you, so I'm not using anything to "win an argument". I didn't write the laws, just trying to help explain them.
I understand. I was just saying that this case seems to be based on meaningless legal distinctions, and the solution (this machine) then turns the legal distinction on its head. That is exactly what happens when you have laws that are not logical--they can be beat with loopholes. The IRS Code is full of them.