Can you show me the law that requires me to pay an income tax?

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. The 16th amendment to the Constitution clarified Congress' power to collect an income tax. Title 26 of the U.S. Code is the prima facie law concerning income taxes. The positive law is the Internal Revenue Code which is published in the U.S. Statutes at large. The Internal Revenue Code and various changes have all been enacted by Congress and signed into law by a sitting President.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

There have been income taxes in the U.S. off and on since 1861.

Tom Cryer didn't actually beat the IRS. In criminal cases concerning "willful failure to file", the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant was "willful" in his failure to file returns. In order to establish willfulness under the law, the prosecution has to prove the defendant absolutely knew it was required to pay income taxes. In another similar case a few years ago, Vernice Kuglin, a FedEx pilot, also escaped criminal charges. Here is an excerpt from the trial transcripts which can be found at http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/kuglin/kuglin_transcript_030808_vol_5.txt

[BEGIN QUOTE]
THE COURT: So anything else from the United States?

MR. MURPHY: Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court ought to instruct her that that is the law. She has got to file returns and --

MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, that is going to be cleaned up totally.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also saying is there will still be civil penalties.

MR. BECRAFT: I expect probably 90-day letters to be coming pretty quick.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BECRAFT: And there's going to be civil proceedings, and she is going to being take responsibility -- she is going to be doing things to respond to all of that like file returns, Your Honor.
[END QUOTE]

Vernice Kuglin settled with the U.S. on her civil proceedings.
Kuglin v. Commissioner, No. 21743-03, 2004 TNT 177-14 (T.C. 9/1/2004).
[BEGIN QUOTE]
VERNICE KUGLIN,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

DECISION

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties in this case, it is

ORDERED AND DECIDED: That there are deficiencies in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the amounts of $52,095.00, $46,308.00, $44,386.00, $47,349.00, $53,819.00, and $52,345.00, respectively;

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6651(f), in the amounts of $39,071.25, $34,731.00, $32,283.73, $35,511.75, $40,409.25, and $39,258.75, respectively; and

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6654, in the amounts of $2,648.42, $2,477.53, $1,962.83, $2,291.54, $2,877.97, and $2,091.92, respectively.

(Signed) Joel Gerber
Judge.

Entered: September 1, 2004
[END QUOTE]

So, as anyone with half a brain can plainly see, Vernice Kuglin did not get out of paying her income taxes. In fact, for the years sited, she had about $920,000 in income. She ended up paying about $530,000 in taxes and penalties. It would have been cheaper for her to pay her taxes in the first place.

Also, the courts have, in several instances, consistently upheld the validity of Title 26. In United States v. Maczka, 957 F.Supp. 988, 991 (W.D.Mich. 1996). “The claim that Title 26 was not enacted into ‘positive law,’ has been rejected as ‘frivolous,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘specious,’ and ‘preposterous.’ [Citations omitted]”

In Bilger v. United States, 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-468, No. CIV F 00-6486 OWW JLO (U.S.D.C. E.D.Ca. 1/9/2001).
“In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that ‘Title 26 U.S.C. (including section 6321) has not been enacted into positive law, and is not the law, but is only prima facie evidence of the law.’ ... Congress’ failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. section 204(a). ‘Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law’. [Citations omitted] Plaintiff’s positive law argument is without merit.”

More info can be found at Dan Evans' excellent tax protestor FAQ at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html