Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments

Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments are assertions that the imposition of the U.S. federal <a href="/facts/Income_tax_in_the_United_States/HLJSgzLe">income tax</a> is illegal because the <a href="/facts/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/8Ead95AS">Sixteenth Amendment</a> to the United States Constitution, which reads "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration", was never properly <a href="/facts/Ratification/q3EKpQc6">ratified</a>, or that the amendment provides no power to tax income. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by <a href="/facts/Tax_protester_(United_States)/gvb8VRRY">tax protesters</a> who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by <a href="/facts/United_States_Congress/mJlU46K7">Congress</a>, or that <a href="/facts/Ohio/YutCnTlh">Ohio</a> was not a State during ratification, despite its admission to the Union on March 1, 1803, more than a century prior. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as <a href="/facts/Frivolous_litigation/SAmKzJSu">legally frivolous</a>.
Some protesters have argued that because the Sixteenth Amendment does not contain the words "<a href="/facts/Repeal/5GeozxIM">repeal</a>" or "repealed", the Amendment is ineffective to change the law. Others argue that due to language in <a href="/facts/Stanton_v._Baltic_Mining_Co./jSpGysHh">Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.</a>, the income tax is an unconstitutional <a href="/facts/Direct_tax/3BkLYFef">direct tax</a> that should be apportioned (divided amongst various states according to their respective population), despite the court ruling in Stanton that "the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation" and that income taxation is a "previous complete and plenary power... possessed by Congress from the beginning". Several tax protesters assert that the Congress has no constitutional power to tax labor or income from labor, citing a variety of court cases. These arguments include claims that the word "<a href="/facts/Income/T1B63U7z">income</a>" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to <a href="/facts/Wage/3fS9dRMf">wages</a>; that wages are not income because <a href="/facts/Labour_(economics)/RRlxNx0u">labor</a> is exchanged for them; that taxing wages violates individuals' right to property, and several others. Another argument raised is that because the federal income tax is <a href="/facts/Progressive_tax/oBGoK7x4">progressive</a>, the discriminations and inequalities created by the tax should render the tax unconstitutional under the <a href="/facts/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/TXMVRymL">14th Amendment</a>, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Such arguments have been ruled without merit under contemporary jurisprudence.

Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments open-in-new

Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments