I can't believe this nonsense is still being posted:
Quick google search debunks this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 16th amendment was never properly ratified.
False. This claim is premised on the fact that there were minor differences in punctuation, spelling, and word use in each of the ratified versions of the amendment. The fact is that Secretary of State Knox took all this into account when determining if the amendment had passed, and decided the discrepancies were not material enough to deny ratification. More importantly, none of the amendments to the Constitution prior to the age of Xerox machines were passed with such word-for-word perfection. Does that mean the Bill of Rights isn't the law of the land? The 16th amendment was passed in 1913, well before the age of perfect digital transmissions and easy photocopying. As such, it's not surprising that there were minor discrepancies between the states.
Furthermore, the passage of the amendment was a matter of public record. If a state passed a materially different version of the amendment, why didn't it complain when the version it passed wasn't the version formally incorporated into the Constitution?