He’s right …
For very large values of “technicality.” 
wiki “The U.S. income tax was first proposed during the War of 1812, but was defeated.[4] In July 1861, the Congress passed a 3% tax on all net income above $600 a year (about USD 10,000 today). Income taxes were enacted at various times until 1894, but were not imposed after 1895 when an 1894 tax act was found to be unconstitutional. In response, the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913.[4]”
In other words, before the 16th Ad, the Income tax was UnConstitutional and SCOTUS so ruled.
*The Pollock case
In the case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court declared certain income taxes — taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on “property by reason of its ownership,” and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on “property by reason of its ownership” burdened that property.
This meant that, after Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be “direct” (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, “indirect” (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity).
During this period from 1895 to 1913 when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, while Congress could have re-imposed taxes on income from labor and other non-property sources without apportionment by population, imposing taxes on interest, dividends and rent income would not have been practical (as the dollar amount of income from interest, dividends and rent would virtually never be exactly the same amount for each and every taxpayer in the United States for any year). The Congress was unwilling to impose an income tax on labor and other non-property sources without also imposing a tax on income from property — and taxes on income from property were no longer realistic. The Pollock ruling made imposition of an income tax politically unfeasible from 1895 until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. At the same time, the Congress was reflecting the growing concern among many elements of society that the wealthiest Americans had consolidated too much economic power.[10]
In his dissent to the Pollock decision, Justice Harlan stated:
When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution — two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring — such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government.[11]
So, the Court has indeed recognized a Tax as being UnConstitutional. This was not the first and there have been recent rulings about them also.
Can someone explain the basis for the 861 “wages are not income” argument? ** Gfactor** says it’s stupid but it sounds more like a non-starter to me. Kind of like “Maroon isn’t a shade of red.” Surely they have some point to make.
I tried looking at BrainGlutton’s link to Page on Idiot Legal Arguments but it just made my head hurt.
This Wikipedia page is laid out in a more easily readable format.
As is this and (hoo-boy!)this.
N.B.: A tax protestor is not the same thing as a tax resister.
Not really.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEEDD1731F931A25752C0A9659C8B63
If you want to see the 861 position defended, check out:
Interesting. Alex_Dubinsky is obviously correct, these people aren’t idiots. They are, however, extraordinarily loony.
Wesley Snipes’s sentencing is today: Snipes gets the max -- 3 years -- in tax case - CNN.com
Snipes got three years, the maximum sentence: Snipes gets the max -- 3 years -- in tax case - CNN.com
Just part of the conspiracy. 