I agree with this and freeindeed's post here.
However, there does have to be a statute that makes one liable for a tax, there is no getting around that. Just because a government official writes you a letter and tells you that you owe, does not make you liable. There has to be a statute that specifially says "If you do this, you have to pay this much tax". In the absence of a law that makes one liable, then that individual cannot be liable.

How the matter is argued in court is another issue. I have read cases such as the Williams vs Boulder Dam Credit Union case where the subject of no statute was brought up in the appeal, and the judge indicated that there was merit to the Williams' argument in that regard, however, the court determined that the issue at hand, and the only one that it could rule on was whether or not the Credit Union had immunity under the tax code section granting it to banks. It determined it did have immunity from suit, case closed. The judge did make an interesting comment concerning the Williams' arguments about not being liable, but also stated that a state court could not rule on that issue, that it had to be done in federal court, since it was a federal matter.

I take this to mean that there is still merit to the not liable issue, it just has to be approached properly.

As freeindeed states, there is little merit to the 16th amendment not being ratified issue and other like arguments. But I think that in the not liable issue, we should not discard it as frivilous, as it does appear to be valid, just not argued properly.

I am taking the approach, and trying to get the case put together, to file a motion to compel the IRS to produce that statute. My thinking is that, since there are sections in the code that very specifically make certain activities and individuals liable, then there has to be one for those of us who work in the peonage, namely, unlicensed, at will employees for who ever will hire us. The Supreme Court was very clear on the issue of what is income, who can be liable, etc., and it seems that the issue has never been properly argued in that regard. It is always the "wages are not income" or the 16th amendment drivel, and the like.

There has to be a statute that makes one liable, otherwise there is no authority to collect a tax. The government employee cannot just say that black left handed *******s are liable, Congress has to first write the law, and then it has to stand up to constitutional scrutiny. And the only way it will is when those black left handed *******s demand that it be proven that they can be made liable in the manner the statute states.

Challenges to the tax laws have been successfull where the proper arguments have been made, (the Pollock case comes to mind) where the issue is the constitutionallity of the law.

We have to remember that it is the activity, and not the income, which is being taxed, the income is the measure of the tax, not the subject of the tax.

The tax code clearly says that "The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5701. 26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1). "

Where is the one that makes an at will employee liable?

If one studies those sections that make certain activities such as the one above and those who engage in it liable for a tax, then you will see that they all pertain to those who are engaged in some sort of business activity. A person who merely works for another in an unlicensed capacity as an at will employee cannot be grouped in that regard. The court cases such as Flint v Stone Tracy specifically state that it is certain licensed occupations, among other things, that can be taxed. From what i have seen, most of those who argue that wages are not income, etc., are those who are engaged in some sort of licensed occupation, and of course are doomed to fail, given how the courts have stated who is liable.