My suggestions, coming from the other side of the fence where I (and some of the other players) feel that the DM plays a little too fast and loose with the rules, and makes changes to things that we think ought to be "canon" for the well-known world we are playing in:
1) Be willing to consider that the player may be right. Allow him to make a brief argument referencing the rules. Then make a ruling. Make a mental note of how often you rule against the player versus how often you change your mind and agree with him, and try (later, outside the session) to assess whether you're being particularly harsh and/or truly weakening one character's abilities relative to the others'.
2) Be firm if you still disagree with him. If he still disagrees with your ruling, tell him, "I need to ask you to go with the DM ruling for the moment and we can discuss it more later outside of game time, to figure out how we'll play this type of situation in the future."
2a) Try to offer the player another way to reach his objective. Say something like, "Look, the rules say that you give away your position if you attack from hiding. If you then, in full view of the enemy, duck behind the same tree, they are going to know where you are, even if you are so well hidden that they can't perceive you. Thus you do not get the advantages of being hidden in that case. Now if on your next turn you stealthily move to the next tree and hide there without being noticed, and then attack, that would be unexpected and give advantage."
3) Ask players not to use the Monster Manual at the table, and to avoid using metagame knowledge about monsters. That said, try not to mess with well-known monsters in a canonical setting without a really good story justification. If you're playing in a canonical setting, Mummies are going to be something that most adventurers will know the legends of, and the way that Mummies are described in this universe really does preclude a "good-aligned Mummy". If there's going to be a good-aligned Mummy, there should be a good story to go with that, to say how that happened contrary to the usual Mummy creation process, that the PCs have at least been given hints about. Otherwise, yeah, it's pretty appropriate for a PC to automatically kill any Mummy he comes across on sight. They will know the stories....
Note that the 5e MM does say (page 7 if need a reference for your rules lawyer):
The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there's nothing stopping you".
However, unless there is a good story behind the anomalous alignment, and your PCs have access to clues about that story, I think it would usually be better (and annoy your players less) if you either make up a new monster that isn't in the MM, or be clear that you are playing in a non-canonical setting and using monsters that don't match the descriptions in the MM. Even in a canonical setting, you can play variations on less-legendary monsters, but be clear (out of character) with your players that this is what you are doing. In all cases, allow the players relevant checks to recall some in-game, in-setting lore about the monster you are actually playing.
For example instead of just putting in a good-aligned Mummy you could say, "You see a medium-sized humanoid, wrapped in bandages. Make a religion check". Tell everyone with a low score that they think it's a Mummy. Tell whoever got the highest check, "Because of [some detail that they can perceive] you think this might not be a true Mummy but rather a Pseudo-Mummy. Pseudo-Mummies are created by a different process than True Mummies and in some cases can maintain their pre-death alignment." If you want, you can go into the process more, or you can just say that the character doesn't know any more than that. Now you have a good-aligned Mummy that your player shouldn't complain about.
4) Consider having a talk with the players about what game everyone wants to play. You have a conflict in play style with the "rules lawyer" player. Do the others also want to play "his" game, or do they prefer your approach? Can whoever is in the minority live with adjusting their expectations to what the group as a whole prefers? Can there be some compromise?
Rules for Identifying items are found in the DMG, though they can also be found in the basic rules, which I will be referencing here. The basic rules are free to use and can be a good substitute until you can buy your own DMG:
Dungeon Master's Basic rules, pg. 58 (Emphasis mine)
A magic item’s description explains how the item works.
Handling a magic item is enough to give a character
a sense that something is extraordinary about the
item. The identify spell is the fastest way to reveal an
item’s properties. Alternatively, a character can focus
on one magic item during a short rest, while being in
physical contact with the item. At the end of the rest, the
character learns the item’s properties, as well as how
to use them. Potions are an exception; a little taste is
enough to tell the taster what the potion does.
So, you can just taste potions to identify them. For all other items, you learn what they do immediately upon casting the identify spell, or you can spend a short rest identifying the item. The tasting is not drinking the whole potion down without knowing its effect. It's just a small sample, maybe a few drops or a small sip in quantity.
Flavor, such as what kind of experimentation you do to discover the properties, or how the properties manifest themselves to the characters, is up to DM discretion. Playstyles can vary from just telling the party what the items do after the identification, to giving the players clues and having them figure it out themselves.
Best Answer
Disallowing the help action is
Homebrewa house ruleFind familiar states:
Therefore, by RAW, the help action is allowed. Generally, your fellow players could help with most things as well and advantage does not stack, so it is possible that this more a problem of the help action than the familiar.
See this question: It seems like every skill check should always be made with advantage due to the 'Working Together' rules. Is this accurate?
Side note: help is an action to use in combat. However, there is an analogous option called working together to use for ability checks outside of combat to which the same considerations apply. See this question: Could you use the Help action outside of combat?
Invisible does not mean undetectable
When the imp is invisible it can still be heard,and potentially smelled. So, it can still be detected making it reasonable to ask for a stealth check. Then again, it seems reasonable to give a bonus (such as advantage) on the check even if there is no explicit rule to back this. See the following question, especially BlueMoon93's answer:
Does being invisible grant advantage on stealth checks by RAW?
Of course the GM is, by RAW allowed, to not give such a bonus and if they do, you should accept that. In that case, see my suggestions below for what you can do further.
What you can do
You should politely state that RAW the help action is allowed. Try not to sound accusatory. If the GM insist on the ruling you can say that the familar is less useful than you anticipated and ask to change pact if you don't have fun with the familar implemented like this.
Features such as the familiar that rely heavily on rulings can be problematic when there are different opinions on how they should be implemented. In such a case other features that have clear rules (such as the pacts of the tome and the blade) might be preferable and avoid discussions.