What the heck? The article says:

Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly ...

The 16th amendment says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived ...

That sounds like authority to tax citizens' incomes to me. I don't get this guy's argument, and I bet he won the court case because 12 Louisians decided it was a way to Stick it to The Man.

Scott - my interpretation is that he argued that his salary isn't income, therefore isn't taxable.

I don't truly get how he reaches that conclusion, but I think that's what he's saying. Therefore the 16th amendment doesn't apply.

The short answer is no.

There are quirks in how the tax code works in criminal cases.

The Gov't has two burdens; one to show the tax was oweed, two to show the person charged knew they owed the tax.

There is a third quirk.

All the aqcuittal means is he doesn't have to go to jail. He is still liable for the money.

For a solid rundown of the issues bandied about by "tax protesters" LawProf has a rundown, with some interesting debate in coments.

The answer to your questions is, no.

Corporations, by virtue of the way they are made, have to aknowledge that they owe taxes, ergo they can't be acquitted; and even if they could be acquitted, all that does is remove the criminal penalties, not the tax owed.