You provide the questioner with a genuine answer. You may choose to inform them that those are not official rules, merely rulings made by an expert. You use your best judgement to determine the tags used.
As Jeremy Crawford is by this decision treated as any other normal person, Their guidance, reasoning, and advice should be as rigorously treated as any other person's input.
He is an expert, but no authority. Experts tend to give good advice, but we may also judge to rebut it based on good reasoning, see this introduction to expertise.
All of his rulings are his interpretations of rules he may or may not apply these rulings at his table, via extrapolation derived rules are house rules (and may or may not be recommended) by Jeremy Crawford who is a community expert.
There are two layers to this: first, the rulings made by JC, and second, the material that is derived from those rulings independently by questioners who use those rulings as the basis of their questions.
House-rules is for new or modified rules, so any material that handles these rulings as official material (as new rules instead of rulings in the form of mere guidance, because they are not official) and is derivative of these rulings will necessarily be a house rule or homebrew material.
First, you can make a question about these rulings which are questions about rulings, those are not questions of house rules or homebrew, though they may or may not inspire either.
We can deduce that any question based on house rules should be treated as such. If (those house rules) are used as rules, then the extrapolated material of the questioner is homebrew because it creates a sub-system of house rules, and it becomes a question about homebrew material see What distinction is being drawn between house-rules and homebrew? For handling homebrew material we have this thread How can I ask a good homebrew review question?
There is still the issue of quality assurance raised in Homebrew review questions still aren't great
in this state of the community thread.