What is the law that requires US Americans to pay Federal Income Tax?

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The 16th amendment clarifies that power.

"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."

Title 26 of the US Code is the codification of the Internal Revenue Code that was passed by Congress and signed into law by a President.

Regardless of what some people think, income taxes are constitutional. The 16th amendment was properly ratified by the states. Anyway, it is irrelevant now whether it was properly ratified or not. It is now a part of the Constitution and will take an act of Congress and ratification by the states to remove it.

Also, income you, or anyone, receives from labor IS TAXABLE. Numerous court decisions have said so. The following are just a few.

In Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer), the court stated, "Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned."

In the same decision, the court said, "The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions."

In United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984), (emphasis in original; convictions for criminal failures to file affirmed), the court said, "Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant’s entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable."

In Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D.Wis. 1985), 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21509, 85-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9321, 55 AFTR2d 1280 (complaints dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing frivolous actions “brought in bad faith”), the court said, "[Peth] states that the income taxes are directed to taxable gain. Because he receives a paycheck for his labor, and because the paycheck is equal to the fair market value of his labor, he argues there is no gain. No court has ever accepted this argument for the purpose of determining taxable income. Indeed, it has always been rejected. For once and for all, wages are taxable income."

Federal income tax is required by the Internal Revenue Code, which was passed pursuant to Article 1, section 2, clause 3 of the constitution as modified by the 16th amendment.

Article 1 section 3 is the first mention of taxes.

The number of State Representatives each state has is determined by the number of tax payers residing there.

But the preamble states that the purpose of the 'Union' includes promoting the general welfare.

That implies shared expenses and a means to collect them.

The Internal Revenue Code of the United States Code (USC), title 26.

for those of you who insist that this regulation exists, then tell me why the IRS has did no longer cutting-edge it whilst asked to realize this, regardless of each and everything, in the event that they're the accuser, isn't the burden of knowledge the duty of the accuser, no longer the accused? representatives of the irs themselves have come forth and pronounced this regulation does not exist.does not that inform you something? one element this is obvious for that reason is the skill of the jury, this is glaring for that reason the conceited decide overseeing this occasion had a various view yet his opinion meant no longer something because of the fact the jury is greater effective than he's and that they hate that. As a juror, the sole one you need to respond to to is God! each and every of the arguments in prefer of this regulation, for my area, are in simple terms misinterpretations of a regulation this is written with such complexity that its too complicated to be truthfully understood, so it may be abolished, alongside with the federal reserve, why could congress supply the skill to regulate our monitory device to a set of criminals like that.earnings tax is related to the main idiotic tax ever created, why tax somebody for having a job, the place is the inducement? i see no logic in it in any respect. a sales tax makes greater experience, then even criminals could pay their share of the tax

There are too may laws in our country to be in a single constitution. That is not what the document is for. It is an ideal or vision. If you don't like to pay taxes, try a Latin country and pay more.

There is none. Labor is not taxable.

the guy above me: IRS is UNCONSTITUTIONAL