Here is an IRS publication which consists of 27 examples of the legal system protecting the government's right to your money.  The first mention of a jury is one that acquitted, but it is immediately followed by a similar case in which the jury convicted.
 
 All of the other seven mentions of jury decisions are convictions in favor of the IRS.  Nobody likes to admit their mistakes, but wouldn't it be wise to keep a healthy record of the mistakes that a government bureaucracy makes?  In fact, shouldn't that be one of the functions of the IRS?  The website, irs.gov, contains five documents with the words "jury acquitted" and 52 with the words "jury convicted."  The internet itself contains about 85,000 (according to Google) pages with IRS and "jury convicted" in them, and about 25,000 with IRS and "jury acquitted."
 
 So why is the ratio of convictions to acquittals on the Internet so much lower than it is on the IRS site?  Perhaps a clue can be found in the case of the Rutherfords, who may have suffered from a jury whose judgment was compromised by a fear of audits.  Bullies only retain their power as long as they continue being bullies.  If they wish to have power some other way, they must learn to cooperate instead of intimidate.
 
 The popular perception of the IRS as a ring of thugs rather than a helpful "Accounts Receivable" department of the government appears to be quite accurate.  This perception often finds its way into jury decisions, and that explains why out of the 178 cases mentioned in the IRS publication, jury decisions are mentioned only seven times.  Prohibition was repealed because of popular demand, and the pressure against the government brought by juries who refused to honor the law.
 
 The 16th amendment will go the same way, along with the cushion it offers to the federal government as it overspends.  The income tax is only a cushion because it dampens the effect of borrowing money.  The federal government spends at least 1/4 of the income tax revenue on interest on the national debt.
 
Another good reason to expect the 16th amendment to either be repealed, or, more accurately and honestly, recognized as having never been ratified, is the state constitutions that barred some of the allegedly ratifying states from actually ratifying it.

Originally published at the Litmocracy blog.