INCOME TAX LAW DEAD; The Supreme Court Holds It Unconstitutional.

yet another article:

The courts can not agree on what the 16th amendment means - though they agree it doesn't give new taxing powers.

There are 2 opposite conditions
Either the amendment says that "income tax" is not a direct tax but and excise tax
or that "income tax" is a direct tax exempt from the apportionment
-------------------------------
The courts also have difficulty with "income" being property or non-property.

----------------------------
There is also a dispute as to whether wages are income.
---------------------
Different parts of the government provide opposing definitions and even the IRS code conflicts itself.

--------------
In 1913 during the debate on the first income tax act under the 16th Amendment, Senator Elihu Root commented about the complexity of that first law:

"I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it."

Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges
Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago

A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.

"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."

The Real Truth About the Federal Income Tax
If you put your hand in water where Piranhas dwell, you will certainly lose some fingers. If you unreservedly trust your government, it will inevitably cost you in freedom or wealth, or both. That is a given. In this example, most Americans are not legally obliged to pay the Federal Income Tax, but the IRS will go to great lengths to convince you otherwise.

However, Publication 2105 implies, that the Sixteenth Amendment changed all of this and authorized the Congress to "tax income from whatever source without regard to apportionment." Of course, as is obvious, and as the Supreme Court has observed, this interpretation "would put the Constitution in direct conflict with itself." Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 U.S.1.

The Supreme Court solved the problem of a Constitutional conflict by unequivocally declaring that the Sixteenth Amendment "gave to the Congress no new authority of taxation."

Thus Article 1 of the United States Constitution is the prevailing law.

I have no doubt the ever-money-hungry Congress attempted to give itself such blanket authority by passage of the (questionably ratified, see http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp ) Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but it failed. The Supreme Court decided that the Sixteenth Amendment must have limited scope, applying only to those citizens under the direct jurisdiction of the United States Government. South Carolina v. Baker 485 U. S. 505

What does this mean? It means that anyone who is not a resident of any Federal District, nor an employee of the Federal Government is not legally obliged to pay the Federal Income Tax. As previously cited,the IRS duly noted this, though deeply hidden in the regulation quoted above. You can go directly to the definition in the U.S. Tax Code on line: http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/ustax.html entering the above citation and follow down the page.