American Citizen's, living and working in the 50 states have no liability to pay federal income taxes and no liability to pay state income taxes, since the Constitution of the United States of America clearly does not allow for a DIRECT, UNAPPORTIONED TAX on Citizen's property or on the fruit of their labors. The recent case in Illinois, United States v. Robert Lawrence highlighted the fraudulent 1040, which does not contain a valid OMB number. The govt asked for the case to be dismissed, because Lawrence's atty intended to expose the fraud and the government was smart enough to realize that this would also expose the Constitutional tort existent because the income tax is a direct unapportioned tax..
The 16th Amendment does not change Constitutional taxation, because it is limited to the word “income”, which is not redefined in this amendment. Here the term “income” means that on which an excise tax can be levied. “Income” does not refer to earnings for work. This was confirmed by at least 8 Supreme Court rulings, and has never been overturned. The 16th Amendment does not repeal the Constitution’s principles of taxation.
The 16th Amendment granted Congress no new powers of taxation. This amendment is a statement about excise taxes, and certainly does not allow for a new direct tax on earnings for work.
Income is not specifically defined in the IRS Manuals nor is it defined in the IRS Code. Congress did not define it. Income has always been defined by the Courts as to exclude wages.
TAX LAW ORIGINS AND AUTHORITY
Congress has had power to lay and collect income taxes from the time of the adoption of the Constitution, (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 US 1). This power was subject to the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the several states according to population (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., [N.Y. 1895] 125 S.Ct. 673, 157 US 429). The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (effective Feb. 25, 1913) giving Congress power to:
"Lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration"
Evens v. Gore, [Ky 1920] 40 S.Ct. 550, 253 U.S. 245,
Kasey v. C.I.R., [C.A. 91972] 457 F2d 369,
Cert. denied 93 S.Ct. 197, 409 U.S. 869
It did not limit or expand the power of Congress to tax under the constitutional provisions authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes but instead merely provided for taxation of income without apportionment (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. 493; Simmons v. U.S., [CA Md 1962] 308 F2d 160).
The Brushaber court ruled that the 16th Amendment separated the source (capital) from the income (profit) permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income, but leaving the source (wages, salary, compensation, fees for service, first time commissions and capital) untouched and free of tax. If these things were to be taxed, it could only be construed as a direct tax, unquestionably in violation of the Constitution, making the entire tax in income void.
There still remains the question as to what is constitutionally allowable as "income" which can be taxed, as Congress is not constitutionally free to define "income" in any way it chooses (Simpson v. U.S., [D.C. Iowa 1976] 423 F.Supp. 720, reversed on other grounds, Prescott v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, [C.A.] 561 F2d 1287). Further, the labels used do not determine the extent of the taxing power (Simmons v. U.S., [C.A. Md. 1962] 308 F2d 160; Richardson v. U.S., [C.A. Mich. 1961] 294 F2d 593, cert. denied 82 S.Ct. 640, 360 U.S. 802, 7 L.Ed.2d. 549).
To reiterate; the tax authorized under the original U.S. Constitution has not changed except as to separate the source of "income" from the income itself permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income by leaving the source (wages, salaries, fees for service, and first time commissions) free of tax (Brushaber, supra.) despite how some politicians interpret the 16th Amendment.
The Brushaber court referred to an earlier case, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601  which declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional, as it's effect would have been to leave the burden of the tax to be born by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way, what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. This result, the court held, could NOT have been contemplated by Congress.
Since the general term: "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, (U.S. v. Ballard,  535 F2d 400) and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives it's power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised (Eisner v. Macomber,  252 U.S. 1889).
Since the Rules contained in the I.R.S. Manual, even if codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, do not have the force and effect of law (U.S. v. Horne, [C.A. Me. 1983] 714 F2d 206) and the power to promulgate regulations does not include the power to broaden or narrow the meaning of statutory provisions beyond what Congress intended (Abbot, Procter & Paine v. U.S.,  344 F2d 333, 170 Cl.Ct. 408) and regulations cannot do what Congress itself is without power to do; they must conform to the Constitution (C.I.R. v. Van Vorst, [C.C.A. 1932] 59 F2d 677).
Since the ultimate Appellate Court is the U.S. Supreme Court, we must look to that Court for a definite answer on the question of conformance and affirmation that Wages are not classified as income which can be taxed.
The Court has recognized that:
"... It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not `income' ..."
Eisner v. Macomber,  252 U.S. 189
and determined that:
"... `income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in, the true function of the words `gains' and `profits' is to limit the meaning of the word `income'"
(So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847);
(U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 1917);
(247 U.S. 30 )
The Court determined that:
"... the definition of income approved by the Court is:
`The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'"
"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and in such connection gain means profit ... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal"
Staples v. U.S., 21 F.Supp. 737,
(U.S. Dist. Ct. EDPA, 1937)
In the case of Lucas v. Earl,  281 U.S. 111, the U.S. Supreme Court stated unambiguously that:
"The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Dept. which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits and income DERIVED from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service." [Emphasis added]
The Court ruled similarly in Goodrich v. Edwards,  255 U.S. 527 and in 1969, the Court ruled in Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187, that:
"Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, supra, it was true under sect. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sect. 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income .... Congress has taxed INCOME and not compensation."
"... one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them."
Edwards v. Keith,  231 F. 111
Even at the state level, we find courts following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court:
"There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law."
Oliver v. Halstead, 
196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 858
"Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered in not profit."
Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews,
345 Pa. 239, 47 A.2d. 277, 280 
Since the above cases are the undisputable law with respect to what is or is not income, we find the word "income" does not mean all monies that come into the possession of an individual, but profit or gain FROM the money one takes in, such as interest, stock dividends, profit from an employee's labors, but not from an individual's wages, which are compensation for his labor. This means that the average person in America, who has no large investments or riches upon which he receives interest, dividends, etc., in excess of the amounts listed above (1992) but merely works for wages, has income insufficient in amount to be required to file a tax return.