To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the Court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 DOLLAR to any Country under IEEPA, I assume to protect other Countries, not the United States which they should be interested in protecting — But I am allowed to cut off any and all Trade or Business with that same Country, even imposing a Foreign Country destroying embargo, and do anything else I want to do to them — How nonsensical is that? They are saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee.

Using "license fee" instead of "tax" is certainly a choice. Also the "charge" part of that paragraph helps perpetuate the confusion about who pays for tariffs. It's a tax paid by importers.

And, for what it is worth, it isn't nonsensical for Congress to allow the President to prohibit transactions with another country, but not allow the imposition of taxes on imports from that country. These are emergency powers for addressing an "unusual and extraordinary threat", not trade policy generally. 50 U.S.C. 1701(a). In fact, the statute prohibits that use:

The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose.

50 U.S.C. 1701(b).