Actually, our constitution and supreme court's past rulings would argue that you don't have to pay federal or state income tax as an md/phd student.
if you check article 1, which has not been repealed or amended, the federal government is forbidden from levying a direct tax on individuals unless apportioned to the state governments (income tax is not).
if you look at section ten, no state may make anything other than gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt nor alter any contracts.
if you look at Pollock vs Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., you'll see that levying an income tax has been specifically struck down by the supreme court.
Now, you might get all 16th amendment on me, which says, "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
However, in both Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co. and Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., the Supreme Court ruled against the power of the federal government to collect an income tax. Unfortunately for the IRS, the DIRECT TAX clause was never repealed from the constitution; therefore, the supreme court rule that if an income tax was to be taken without apportionment among the states, it could not be a direct tax.
Our constitution clearly outlines three classes of indirect taxes: duties, imposts and excises. Therefore, income tax, via section 1 and amendment 16 can only be taken from duties, imposts and excises.
This is affirmed by the ruling in Stanton stating "...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."
If you read the Brushaber ruling, you'll find the following, "taxation on income was in its nature an excise." An indirect tax, oh crap! BUT! Luckily, we have Flint vs Stone Tracy Co. to the rescue! Which defines an excise (and was referenced in both previous cases). Excises taxes are defined as "taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."
Therefore, while it is legal to tax a license to produce a good, or to be say a medical doctor, that is as far as it is legal to proceed on the part of the IRS. Simply creating a tax code is not sufficient to legally take your money as a graduate student. To the best of my knowledge, the supreme court has yet to directly overturn these rulings. Therefore, if you decide not to pay your taxes this year, you have a fairly strong constitutional law argument if the IRS comes after you. Or you could be a sheep.
