What legal arguments have tax protesters used to challenge the Sixteenth Amendment and how have courts ruled?
Executive summary
Tax protesters have mounted several recurring challenges to the Sixteenth Amendment — principally that it was never properly ratified or that it does not authorize taxation of individual income — but federal courts and the IRS have uniformly rejected those theories and labeled many as frivolous or fraudulent [1] [2]. Landmark prosecutions and civil rulings, including against promoter William J. Benson, show courts not only dismiss these claims but also impose criminal penalties, civil fines, and injunctions against spreading reliance schemes [3] [4].
1. The core Sixteenth Amendment arguments — what protesters assert
Protesters typically argue either that the Amendment was not properly ratified (pointing to alleged procedural defects or state-level irregularities) or that, even if ratified, the Amendment does not allow taxation of particular forms of income or individual income generally; variants include claims about apportionment, direct taxes, and misreading of early Supreme Court decisions like Pollock [1] [5] [6].
2. The non‑ratification theory and the Benson saga
The most prominent non‑ratification narrative was packaged in The Law That Never Was and sold commercially by William J. Benson; courts found Benson’s materials promoted the false premise that customers could lawfully stop paying income tax, and judges concluded those claims were fraudulent and actionable — Benson was enjoined from selling “reliance” packages and his arguments were rejected as without merit in multiple rulings, including a 2007 district court decision and an appellate opinion upholding sanctions [7] [3] [4].
3. How courts treat apportionment and “direct tax” claims
Arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment failed to change constitutional limits on direct taxes, or that income taxes remain a forbidden direct tax requiring apportionment, have been repeatedly rebuffed; the historical statutory and constitutional context (and Supreme Court precedents such as Brushaber and later treatments) underpin lower courts’ rejections that the Sixteenth Amendment left a loophole to exempt individual income from taxation [5] [6].
4. Other constitutional pretenses — Fifth, Thirteenth, citizenship and related claims
Tax protesters also invoke the Fifth Amendment (self‑incrimination), the Thirteenth Amendment (involuntary servitude), and idiosyncratic citizenship theories to attempt to avoid filing or paying; federal courts across circuits have found these contentions meritless, repeatedly upholding convictions and penalties and describing the positions as frivolous or legally baseless [1] [8].
5. The IRS and judiciary response: “frivolous” labeling, penalties, and limits on speech
The IRS compiles and publishes guidance calling many of these arguments frivolous and warns that promoting schemes can fall outside First Amendment protection when they constitute false commercial speech that induces tax evasion; courts routinely decline to engage in detailed refutation of every variant but enforce penalties under statutes like §6702 and other criminal provisions, and have ordered injunctive relief against promoters [9] [2] [4].
6. Why courts keep ruling against protesters — legal doctrine and practical considerations
Judicial refusals rest on several pillars: the enrolled‑bill/enactment doctrines and historical ratification record as assessed by government lawyers and courts, settled Supreme Court readings that the Sixteenth Amendment allows unapportioned income taxes, and the practical command that “no one has the right to disobey the law” despite disagreement with statutes; when arguments attempt to relitigate settled constitutional history or to recharacterize well‑established tax statutes, courts treat them as foreclosed legal positions [3] [10] [6].
7. Consequences, motivations and the marketplace for “reliance” materials
Beyond legal defeat, promoters and adherents have faced prison terms, fines, and injunctions—courts have found not only lack of merit but, in some instances, fraudulent intent by sellers of reliance materials—while scholars and the IRS point to a marketplace incentive for selling simple answers to people opposed to taxation, a hidden agenda that courts have explicitly identified in cases like Benson [3] [7] [4].