Xenos’ argument is flawed for two reasons: First, the argument only suggests that a federal income tax is distasteful and unfair, but it contains no discussion of whether the income tax is actually ‘legal.’ Second, even if the argument were on point, though it isn’t explicit, Xenos seems to rely on the misconception that corporations pay no taxes. A corporation is technically a legal entity, required to pay income taxes the same way any individual is. In fact, corporations may be taxed at a higher rate than individuals, and the owners of the corporation (shareholders) have their income taxed again when they receive payments. In essence, this double taxation is the price that shareholders pay for the corporate veil.

The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 provides that “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 United States Constitution, Amendment 16 provides that “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.”

A good starting point for the definition of ‘income’ would be § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.A. § 61) which provides, in pertinent part: “Except as otherwise provided […], gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; (2) gross income derived from business […]”

The United States Supreme Court has a long history of case law that informs us of several important factors: first, they have not struck down the IRS income tax provisions as unconstitutional. Because the Supreme Court’s job is (in part) to tell us what is and is not constitutional, this is telling. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137. Second, the Court has upheld an expansive view of what constitutes “income.” To the extent that the Internal Revenue Code is vague (which it is, despite its best efforts), the Supreme Court has held that the concept of taxable income includes a whole lot. It certainly includes a person’s income generated from their employment.

The question is “is the federal income tax legal?” The answer is: the constitution explicitly allows it, and the Supreme Court has upheld it - there is no more firm a base for ‘legality’ in the American system than that. Laws can change, and a Federal Income Tax may be deemed illegal, but only after significant legislative action. I will admit that I agree with Xenos entirely: I dislike the income tax, don’t want to pay it, and think that it is unfair that anybody gets a part of my hard-earned pay check (but that raises an argument about what should be done with tax dollars, and I’d prefer to avoid it). Unfortunately, there are many laws of this nation that I believe are unfair or distasteful, but their legality remains intact as long as Congress and the Supreme Court approve.