Did you know that there is no law that makes you pay your federal income tax?

Did you know that you are wrong? Since you obviously don't know that, I'll let you know, YOU ARE WRONG.

Title 26 of the UNITED STATES CODE is a codification of the actual tax laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a President. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
Here are a couple of court cases about it.
In United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990) and United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986), the court stated, "Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable."

In Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985), the court stated, "Congressâ€™s failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. Â§ 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryanâ€™s rights by enforcing it."

Re: 16th amendment
You are somewhat correct in that the 16th amendment granted "no new power of taxation" which is actually a quote from a Supreme Court case. However, the tax protester literature you have been reading did not include what the Supreme Court said in the EXACT SAME SENTENCE. The following is a more complete quote from STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916).
"...by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT TAXATION to which it inherently belonged..."
As anyone can plainly see, the Supreme Court declares that income taxes are INDIRECT taxes and are therefore PERMITTED by the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8.

BTW, the Supreme Court UPHELD an income tax levied on an individual's earnings in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). In that decision, the court stated that "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains [an income tax] is within the category of an excise or duty."

So, the tax code or Internal Revenue Code do not override the Constitution because the power to tax incomes is given to Congress in the Constitution.

BTW, name ONE Supreme Court case that said an income tax on wages was unconstitutional. Hint: there isn't one. There was one case where the Supreme Court stated that a tax on income from property, i.e. rental income, was the same as a tax on the property itself and hence was a direct tax and was therefore unconstitutional, but that case specifically avoided calling a tax on income from wages a direct tax.

Re: Your claim that income taxes are voluntary is also wrong.
Effective tax administration relies on taxpayers willingly complying with the tax laws, but taxpayers do not have the right to choose whether the laws apply to them. References to a â€œvoluntaryâ€ tax system in Flora, supra, and in Service publications, mean a system that allows taxpayers to determine, in the first instance, the correct amount of their tax and to report their liability on appropriate returns, rather than
having the government make the determinations for them. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 100 n.3 (2004) (â€œ[T]he taxpayer, not the taxing authority, is the first party to make the relevant calculation of income taxes owed.â€) (Emphasis added). â€œVoluntaryâ€ in this context does not mean that
taxpayers may opt out of the system. As stated in United States v. Schiff, 876 F.2d 272, 275 (2d Cir. 1989): "To the extent that income taxes are said to be â€œvoluntary,â€ . . . they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount
due and then forcing payment of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, however, . . . and the average citizen knows that the payment of income taxes is legally required." BTW, if you don't pay your income taxes and make the claim that income taxes are voluntary, the IRS will levy a $5,000 frivolous filing penalty.

Re: Constitution defines income as profits or gains.
First, the Constitution does no such thing. You should actually read it. http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
Second, wages you earn on a job is a GAIN to you. A gain is calculated as the difference between the amount you SELL something and the amount for which you PAY FOR IT. For example, if you find a diamond ring that is worth $4,000 in your backyard and they you sell it to your neighbor for $3,000, you have a $3,000 gain. Your gain is the difference between the amount for which you sold the ring ($3,000) and the amount you paid for it ($0). If your neighbor then sells the ring to somebody else for $3,500, your neighbor has a $500 gain. When you work, your entire wage is a gain. You have paid nothing for your labor, yet you sell it for the amount of your wage.

One last point. An acquittal in a tax evasion criminal case does not mean that there isn't a law concerning income taxes anymore than O.J. Simpson's acquittal means that there isn't a law concerning murdering your ex-wife.

EDIT: I DID SHOW YOU THE LAW. TITLE 26 is the law whether you like it or not. You can read it at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html or at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26/title26.html or at
http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml The courts, lawyers, accountants, and people with more than half a brain agree with me that Title 26 is the law.

People who offer rewards for showing them the law have rigged the offer so that no one could ever collect.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#rewards
For example, I'll give you $20,000 if you can prove to me all of the following three statements are false.
1. At the time of this writing, there is a law concerning income taxes.
2. Humans live on Earth.
3. You are a tax protester.
You can't win because all three are true.

As I said earlier in this post, there has NEVER been a Supreme Court case that said a tax on income from wages was unconstitutional. There has also never been a Supreme Court case that said the income tax laws enacted after 1913 only applies only to corporate profits.

I have seen Freedom to Fascism and it is full of conspiracy theory nonsense. Many of the facts are wrong and many of the quotes are taken completely out of context or are even made up. For example, the Woodrow Wilson quote that begins with "I am a most unhappy man" is actually part made-up and part a compilation of out-of-context quotes taken from campaign speeches he made in 1912. You can read them for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811

Yes, the Constitution demands that direct taxes be apportioned. Congress is free to levy INDIRECT taxes as long as they are uniform. As I have shown, income taxes are INDIRECT taxes and do not have to be apportioned. In either case, even if income taxes are declared to be direct taxes, the 16th amendment removes the apportionment requirement. That is the purpose of amendments, to change the Constitution when needed. The founding fathers knew the Constitution would have to change, but they made the process difficult in order to prevent it being changed at the whim of a few politicians. BTW, the 16th amendment was properly ratified and every court since has said so. Bill Benson's book is also full of errors.