Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

First Amendment Some protesters argue that imposition of income taxes violates the First Amendment freedom of speech because it requires the subject of the tax to write information on a tax return. violates freedom of religion if the subject of the tax claims some religious objection to the payment of taxes, particularly if the subject styles himself or herself as a Reverend, Minister, or other religious office-holder.Christopher S. Jackson, The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar - Whatever His Demands, 32 Gonzaga Law Review 291, at 308 (1996-97) (hereinafter "Jackson, Gospel of Tax Protest").The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments: 1. Contention: Taxpayers can refuse to pay income taxes on religious or moral grounds by invoking the First Amendment, Internal Revenue Service, retrieved March 16, 2010. While the Internal Revenue Code makes an exemption for churches and other religious institutions, it makes only special tax codes and deductions, not exceptions, for religious professionals. The United States Supreme Court held in 1878 Reynolds v. United States,98 U.S. 145 (1878). that a religious belief, however strongly held, does not exempt the believer from adhering to general laws.

Fifth Amendment

Self incrimination Other protesters argue that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination allows an individual to refuse to file an income tax return calling for information that could lead to a conviction for criminal acts from which the income was derived, or for the crime of not paying the tax itself.Christopher S. Jackson, "The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar - Whatever His Demands", 32 Gonzaga Law Review 291-329 (1996-97). In response, the courts generally refer to the case of United States v. Sullivan, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

In short, a person could refuse to answer a question if that particular answer could incriminate them, e.g., a professional killer could decline to answer the question of what his or her occupation was. All that is necessary to ask is, could the answer to the question, alone, provide a "link in the chain" necessary to provide evidence to a crime. Saying your occupation is "assassin" or "professional killer" could be self-incriminating, and therefore the 5th Amendment could be invoked as to that question; saying you made $635,000 last year does not provide evidence of anything criminal and thus it could not.

Takings Clause Some protesters have argued that the income tax is a prohibited "takings" under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, and can not be imposed unless the taxpayer receives just compensation. The United States Supreme Court rejected this argument in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad. The takings argument and variations of this argument have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).See , as amended by section 407 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922 (Dec. 20, 2006). See Notice 2008-14, I.R.B. 2008-4 (Jan. 14, 2008), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury (superseding Notice 2007-30); see also Notice 2010-33, I.R.B. 2010-17 (April 26, 2010).

Due Process Clause Protesters argue that the income tax violates the Fifth Amendment right that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". However, people can be deprived of life, liberty, or property with due process of law — this is what the courts do.Daniel B. Evans, The Tax Protester FAQ, retrieved on 21 September 2007. Legal commentator Daniel B. Evans describes:

Fifth Amendment due process arguments by tax protesters were rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Kahn v. United States,753 F.2d 1208, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9152 (3d Cir. 1985). by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Anderson v. United States,754 F.2d 1270, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9261 (5th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv.,773 F.2d 126, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9661 (7th Cir. 1985). by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Baskin v. United States,738 F.2d 975, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9673 (8th Cir. 1984), by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Jolly v. United States,764 F.2d 642, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9498 (9th Cir. 1985). and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Martinez v. Internal Revenue Serv.744 F.2d 71, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9811 (10th Cir. 1984).

Thirteenth Amendment Tax protesters have argued that income taxes impose involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.Jackson, Gospel of Tax Protest, at 310. That argument was ruled to be without merit in Porth v. Brodrick, United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the State of Kansas.214 F.2d 925, 54-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9552 (10th Cir. 1954). The involuntary servitude argument, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a)., as amended by section 407 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922 (Dec. 20, 2006). See Notice 2008-14, I.R.B. 2008-4 (Jan. 14, 2008), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury (superseding Notice 2007-30); see also Notice 2010-33, I.R.B. 2010-17 (April 26, 2010).

Fourteenth Amendment Some tax protesters, notably among the sovereign citizen movement, argue that all Americans are citizens of individual states as opposed to citizens of the United States, and that the United States government therefore has no power to tax citizens or impose other federal laws outside of Washington D.C. and other federal enclaves.You're not a "citizen" under the Internal Revenue Code, Family Guardian/Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, retrieved on 21 September 2007. They cite the first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Courts have uniformly held that this argument that the Fourteenth Amendment deprived state citizens of U.S. citizenship is plainly incorrect. In Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.,Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). the court explained that "[w]hile the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship 'paramount and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon state citizenship". See also United States v. Ward,United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987). Fox v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1993-37, 65 T.C.M. (CCH) 1831, CCH Dec. 48,842(M) (1993), aff'd, 95-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,637 (9th Cir. 1995). and United States v. Baker.2005-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,509 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

Another argument raised is that because the federal income tax is progressive, the discriminations and inequalities created by the tax should render the tax unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Such arguments have been ruled without merit under contemporary jurisprudence. Notably, some tax protesters contend that the Fourteenth Amendment itself was never properly ratified, under the theory that the governments of southern states that supported the post-Civil War constitutional amendments were not representative of the people.See generally USA The Republic; see 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress.

Sixteenth Amendment

It has been argued that the imposition of the U.S. federal income tax is illegal because the Sixteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the "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," was not properly ratified,Jackson, Gospel of Tax Protest at 301–03. or that the amendment provides no power to tax income from labor. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress, or that Ohio was not a State during ratification.Jackson, Gospel of Tax Protest, at 305. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.

Some protesters have argued that because the Sixteenth Amendment does not contain the words "repeal" or "repealed", the Amendment is ineffective to change the law. Others argue that due to language in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., the income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that should be apportioned (divided equally amongst the population of the various states). Several tax protesters assert that the Congress has no constitutional power to tax labor or income from labor,Jackson, Gospel of Tax Protest, at 314. citing a variety of court cases. These arguments include claims that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages; that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them; that taxing wages violates individuals' right to property,Jackson, Gospel of Tax Protest, at 307. and several others.

Seventeenth Amendment An argument raised in the case of Trohimovich v. Commissioner is that the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, and that all laws passed by Congress since the year 1919 (which was not the year of ratification) are invalid. The Trohimovich case involved a criminal contempt charge against the taxpayer in connection with a failure to obey a subpoena to produce books and records needed for the trial of the case. The United States Tax Court stated:

The court rejected the taxpayer's arguments, and ordered that "he be imprisoned for 30 days as punishment" for criminal contempt in failing to obey court orders or subpoenas.Trohimovich v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 252, CCH Dec. 38,121 (1981).

Titles of Nobility Amendment