Dear Kimokeo: Well, LPC got to this before I could. We certainly do not need a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to know that under the U.S. Constitution and under IRC section 61, wages are taxable and always have been so.
Anyway, there does appear to be a misconception among some people that something isn't "really" the "law" until and unless the United States Supreme Court rules on it (I'm not picking on Kimokeo).
A related, more expansive misconception is the idea that somehow a rule of law isn't "really" the "law" until a court -- at least some lower court -- has ruled on it. Rod Borlase, JD, who used to teach at the University of Houston Law Center, has contended that even some law students may develop this misconception. See:
http://www.rodborlase.com/Guides/WallOfTheLaw.html
Anyway, Cheek is the closest thing we have to an understanding of how the U.S. Supreme Court has viewed and will always view the "wages are not income" arguments -- although Mr. Cheek apparently had already technically abandoned his argument on that by the time his case reached the Supreme Court (at least for purposes of the Supreme Court review of that case). Again, Justice Blackmun wrote (in dissent) in the 1991 Cheek case:
-----"It seems to me that we are concerned in this case not with "the complexity of the tax laws," [ . . . ] but with the income tax law in its most elementary and basic aspect: Is a wage earner a taxpayer and are wages income?
-----"The Court acknowledges that the conclusively established standard for willfulness under the applicable statutes is the "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty." [citations omitted] That being so, it is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. One might note in passing that this particular taxpayer, after all, was a licensed pilot for one of our major commercial airlines; he presumably was a person of at least minimum intellectual competence."
Because John Cheek was "appealing" on issues other than SPECIFICALLY whether wages were taxable, the Court in Cheek arguably did not rule on that specific issue (Justice Blackmun's language notwithstanding).
The key point is that Cheek HAD argued prior to trial (and maybe at trial itself, I don't recall) that wages were not taxable. He lost. At the Supreme Court, the case was remanded for a new trial on another issue. He lost again. He went through appeals again. This time, the Supreme Court refused to even hear his case. He served prison time.
We don't need a Supreme Court holding, a statement having stare decisis effect, to know what the law is on this point: Wages, salaries, other compensation for personal services, by whatever name, are taxable. --Famspear