Income tax is illegal?

So, you think there is no law concerning income taxes. I suggest you read the following.

Title 26, Â§ 1 - "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...every married individual..every head of household...every individual...a tax determined in accordance with [various tables]..."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

Title 26, Â§ 61. Gross income defined - "...gross income means all income from whatever source derived..."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html

Title 26, Â§ 62. Adjusted gross income defined
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000062----000-.html

Title 26, Â§ 63. Taxable income defined
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html

Title 26, Â§ 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list - "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006011----000-.html

Title 26, Â§ 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007201----000-.html

EDIT: To correct some misconceptions:
1. The 16th amendment was properly ratified, no matter what tax protestors say. The 13th and 14th amendments had similar and in some cases more significant errors in the copies returned by the states, yet you don't see tax protestors telling their African-American friends that slavery is legal and African-Americans are only 2/3 of a person. Anyway, the courts usually go by the "enrolled bill rule". "If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted." Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated, "Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretaryâ€™ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knoxâ€™ decision is now beyond review." Based upon that, the 16th amendment is a part of the Constitution and in order to remove it, it would take another act by Congress that is passed and then ratified by the States as an amendment to the Constitution.

2. Yes, the Constitution does state that all direct taxes must be apportioned, however, the 16th amendment removes that requirement from taxes on incomes. The 16th amendment states, "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." Anyway, income taxes are INDIRECT taxes in a Constitutional sense. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the court states, "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,..."

3. NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT STATE THAT TAXES DO NOT APPLY TO LABOR. In Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 for making a frivolous appeal), the court stated, "The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions."

Also in Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985), the court stated, "Furthermore, Olsonâ€™s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as â€˜cost of laborâ€™ ... illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous...."

Every once in a while, the IRS will drop criminal charges against a person. However, that doesn't mean the IRS says the income tax laws don't apply or that there aren't any income tax laws. Usually, it is because the lawyers determine the amount of taxes is too small or they found an error in the IRS assessment of the amount of taxes owed. There have also been a few cases where the IRS has lost a criminal case against a tax evader. None of those tax evaders has ever convinced the courts that they didn't owe taxes. Each and every one of them has ended up paying more in taxes and penalties. Also, an acquittal of tax evasion charges does not mean that there isn't a law concerning taxes anymore than O.J. Simpson's acquittal means there isn't a law against murder of your ex-wife.