This is one of those I'm glad I have time to research (and the web is better) because I didn't when it came up before.

Sprinkle claimed that he "discontinued" as if his complaint could be taken up again, but more accurately the judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on 1975-11-14. Here is the docket; so nobody inherits the case, but someone who wants to make a similar case can be reviewed de novo. The general argument that DLs and tags are titles of nobility has a little traction with me but then there's always been both the remedy side and the theory side to build up. On the theory side I could at least argue for right to travel (public roads) under right to associate, and then argue against unnecessary restrictions on that right that may inhere to the paperwork, but I haven't taken that up lately and REAL ID took the opponents' arguments up another notch.

Sprinkle raised several other issues and it's probable that the treatment he got reflected that some of the issues were more sensitive, without saying which. The gold vs. FRN status has been much fortified in the interim since Nixon closed the gold window. I think vonNothaus made some good strides in advancing the law but he was talked out of continuing with the same ferocity he used to show. Tying this into a complaint doesn't help as it needs to be its own complaint, and really that is only done with a broad org such as vonNothaus envisioned.

The point is that, if Sprinkle got close, nobody has been told what he did right, there's no proof that he got remedy, and everyone commenting on it after is guessing just like he was. If he happened to be someone whom the state classifies as "don't bother with", good for him, it happens to people, but it's not replicable. Things that are replicable can be demonstrated and transferred, which is why I focus on those, and authorities who use those to demonstrate operation of the law.

But let's get back to OP. If you were working for yourself and were asked if you were a "trade or business", you'd think it odd to look up the definition and find the above. Isn't it interesting that all who works for themselves in this country are pressured to fill out a form about their earnings that then uses this magic phrase "trade or business" with the context that it's defined by section 7701 above? That's a repeatable, demonstrable fact, and all anyone can do about it is to explain it away, but never officially.